Facts

• On October 26, 1979 twenty-year-old Felix Gasang was in a fist-fight in San Agustin, Romblon, with a companion of Ramon Madali, son of Patrolman Ricarte Madali and Annie Mortel Madali; Ramon mauled Felix with a "chako."
• The next day Pat. Madali scolded Felix at the municipal building and warned him: "Kailangan sa imo lubongan bala" — "What you need is a bullet embedded in you."
• On October 31, 1979 at about 9:00 p.m. Felix and his cousin Agustin Reloj parted at the Marawi bridge.
• Near the Madali house Pat. Madali accosted Agustin, grabbed his arm and said, "So you are here, you devil, now you are finished. I have been waiting for you. I have been watching for you for three nights already," and dragged him to the gate.
• Annie struck Agustin with a piece of wood; her second blow hit her husband instead as Agustin broke free. As Agustin ran, Pat. Madali shot him below the right hip; he fell and lay flat to simulate death.
• Felix arrived on hearing the shot. Annie focused her flashlight on him and said, "Here comes another." Felix raised his hands, saying he would not fight — and Pat. Madali shot him twice, killing him instantly.
• Cipriano Gasang (Felix's father) and his daughter Merlinda rushed over. Annie beamed her flashlight and shouted, "Yara pa, yara pa, barila" — here comes another one, shoot.
• Pat. Madali fired a single shot which penetrated the right lower quadrant of Cipriano's abdomen, exited his left buttock, and subsequently traveled through the air to hit Merlinda Gasang in her right leg. Cipriano died on the spot. One bullet, two felonies — that is the complex crime.
• He voluntarily surrendered that midnight, turning over his revolver.
• On February 1, 1980 two separate Informations were filed: Crim. Case No. 981 for Multiple Murder (Felix and Cipriano) and Crim. Case No. 982 for Multiple Frustrated Murder (Merlinda and Agustin). The complex crime was thus split across two indictments.
• A fire destroyed the provincial capitol on September 6, 1980; the records were reconstituted and the accused were arraigned anew, pleading not guilty without any Motion to Quash.
• On March 30, 1984 the RTC convicted both of three offences, including the complex crime of Murder with Frustrated Murder. Decided July 30, 1990.

Issue

Ruling

"WHEREFORE, except as hereinabove modified, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed. Costs against the appellants.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

• The rule and its exception. Section 13 requires one offence per Information except where the law prescribes a single punishment for various offences — as Article 48§ does for complex crimes. That framing is the digest's; this decision does not discuss Section 13, duplicity, or waiver at all. It simply records that the trial court found the spouses "should have been charged with the complex crime of murder and frustrated murder" and imposed the penalty accordingly.
• But the defect is waivable. Under Section 9, Rule 117§ failure to assert a ground of a motion to quash before plea constitutes a waiver of any objections, except when the Information does not charge an offense or the court lacks jurisdiction.
• The operative passage: "It is true that, as a rule, a complex crime should be charged in one information … But where, as in this case, the accused was charged with two (2) separate crimes under two (2) separate informations, and he did not object to the separate informations, he is deemed to have waived his right to a single information … Consequently, he may be found guilty of as many offenses as those charged in the Information and proven during the trial."
• Substantively, the single act controls. Article 48§ governs where "a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies," and the physics of the shot — through Cipriano's abdomen, out his buttock, into Merlinda's leg — produced the murder of Cipriano and the frustrated murder of Merlinda.
• On Annie's role the Court applied the inducement standard strictly. To be a principal by inducement the inciting words must have "great dominance and influence over" the actor "as to become the determining cause of the crimes" — and here there was "no proof" of that. "The rapidity with which Madali admittedly fired the shots eliminated the necessity of encouraging words such as those uttered by Annie."

Doctrine

• Objections to the form or substance of an Information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; an accused who goes to trial without a timely pre-plea motion to quash or motion for a bill of particulars waives them, and evidence introduced during trial cures any formal or non-jurisdictional defect. Settled doctrine, but stated here from other authority — this decision does not discuss waiver.
• Complex crimes and Article 48§: where a single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious is imposed in its maximum period. Note that LawPhil's Revised Penal Code is the original 1930 text, whose Article 48 reads "two or more crimes"; Act No. 4000 (1932) changed it to "grave or less grave felonies", which is the wording every modern decision applies.
• Accomplice liability for facilitating acts: one who performs acts that "merely facilitate, but are not indispensable to, the commission of the crime" — shining a flashlight, shouting during a shootout — without proof of prior agreement, "cannot be held liable as a principal"; liability is that of an accomplice under Article 18.

• The two exceptions to waiver are the important half of the rule — failure to charge an offence and want of jurisdiction survive a plea and may be raised at any time.
• And this holding has been overtaken. In People v. De Vera, G.R. Nos. 121462-63, June 9, 1999, the En Banc held that even with joint trial and no objection, a court cannot convict of a complex crime under separate Informations, because doing so violates the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Madali therefore "remains controlling only for cases decided under its specific, un-objected-to procedural timeline," having been overtaken by De Vera's strict requirement of single-indictment complexing.
• Recite the sequence, not just the holding — this is the one case in the week's waiver line that no longer states current doctrine on its main point.
• Read with People v. Jugueta and People v. Delos Santos, where the waiver ran the other way — one Information charging many offences, rather than many Informations charging one.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

• October 26, 1979: Felix Gasang, a twenty-year-old resident of Sitio Marawi, Barangay Cagbo-aya, San Agustin, Romblon, was involved in a physical altercation (fist-fight) with a companion of Ramon Madali (son of Patrolman Ricarte Madali and Annie Mortel Madali). Ramon interceded and mauled Felix with a "chako" (nunchaku), while Felix's cousin, Agustin Reloj, was present as a companion.
• October 27, 1979: The local police summoned Felix Gasang and his cousin, Arnaldo Fadriquilan, to the municipal building of San Agustin, accompanied by Felix's mother, Desamparada Gasang. At the police station, Patrolman Ricarte Madali angrily scolded them, threatened to incarcerate them for twelve hours, and warned Felix: "Kailangan sa imo lubongan bala" ("What you need is a bullet embedded in you"). Pat. Madali's father-in-law, Agustin Mortel, concurred that Felix and his group must be "sown with bullets" to eradicate them.
• October 31, 1979 (around 9:00 p.m.): Felix Gasang and Agustin Reloj walked home together from the town plaza and parted ways at the Marawi bridge, where Felix stopped at a local store to purchase cigarettes while Agustin proceeded home alone.
• October 31, 1979 (immediately subsequent to parting ways): While Agustin Reloj was approximately fifteen meters from the house of Pat. Ricarte Madali, Pat. Madali accosted him, grabbed his arm, and uttered, "So you are here, you devil, now you are finished. I have been waiting for you. I have been watching for you for three nights already." Pat. Madali then dragged Agustin towards the gate of the Madali residence.
• October 31, 1979 (at the gate of the Madali residence): As Agustin Reloj stepped over the knee-high fence, Annie Mortel Madali struck him on the left shoulder with a piece of wood. When Annie attempted to strike him a second time, Agustin broke free from Pat. Madali's hold, causing Annie's second blow to hit her husband instead.
• October 31, 1979 (Agustin's escape and shooting): Agustin Reloj ran away, and as he looked back, Pat. Madali fired his service revolver, hitting Agustin below his right hip. Agustin collapsed and lay flat on the ground to simulate death.
• October 31, 1979 (the shooting of Felix): Felix Gasang arrived at the scene after hearing the shot. Annie Mortel Madali focused her flashlight on Felix and remarked, "Here comes another." Felix raised his hands, declaring he would not fight, but Pat. Madali shot him twice in the body (once in the chest and once in the abdomen), killing him instantly.
• October 31, 1979 (the shooting of Cipriano and Merlinda): Cipriano Gasang (Felix's father) and his daughter, Merlinda Gasang, rushed towards the scene after hearing the gunshots. Annie Mortel Madali focused her flashlight on Cipriano and shouted, "Yara pa, yara, pa, barila" ("Here comes another one, here comes another one, shoot").
• October 31, 1979 (the single-act complex crime): Pat. Madali fired a single shot from his .38 caliber service revolver, which penetrated the right lower quadrant of Cipriano's abdomen, exited his left buttock, and subsequently traveled through the air to hit Merlinda Gasang in her right leg. Cipriano died on the spot.
• October 31, 1979 (around midnight): Desamparada Gasang and Romeo Manes carried Merlinda Gasang away for emergency medical treatment. Pat. Ricarte Madali voluntarily surrendered to the San Agustin police, turning over his .38 caliber service revolver containing only two remaining bullets.
• February 1, 1980: The Provincial Fiscal filed two separate, distinct criminal Informations against Pat. Ricarte Madali and Annie Mortel Madali before the Court of First Instance of Romblon: (1) Criminal Case No. 981 (Multiple Murder, for the killing of Felix and Cipriano Gasang) and (2) Criminal Case No. 982 (Multiple Frustrated Murder, for the wounding of Merlinda Gasang and Agustin Reloj).
• September 6, 1980: A fire completely destroyed the provincial capitol building of Romblon, burning all court records. The records of Criminal Cases Nos. 981 and 982 were subsequently reconstituted, and the accused spouses were arraigned anew, pleading "not guilty" to both charges without filing any Motion to Quash.
• March 30, 1984 (noted as August 8, 1997 in some reconstituted records): The Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Branch LXXXI, rendered a consolidated judgment convicting both spouses of: (a) Frustrated Murder of Agustin Reloj; (b) Murder of Felix Gasang; and (c) the complex crime of Murder with Frustrated Murder for the death of Cipriano Gasang and the wounding of Merlinda Gasang.
• July 30, 1990: The Supreme Court of the Philippines promulgated its Decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the convictions with modifications, specifically holding both spouses criminally liable—Ricarte Madali as a principal and Annie Mortel Madali as an accomplice.

Arguments of the Parties

1. Sufficiency of Indictment for Complexing: The State contended that the separate Informations sufficiently alleged the material facts of the offenses and that the consolidation and joint trial of the cases, without any procedural objection from the defense, waived any formal or procedural defects in the indictments, thereby allowing the court to validly convict the accused of the complex crime under Article 48§ of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Deliberate and Premeditated Intent: The prosecution argued that Pat. Ricarte Madali acted with deliberate intent to kill and with evident premeditation, having told Agustin Reloj: "So you are here, you devil, now you are finished. I have been waiting for you. I have been waiting for you for three nights already."
3. Conspiracy to Kill: The State maintained that the spouses acted in conspiracy. Annie Mortel Madali's acts of clubbing Agustin, focusing the flashlight on Felix and Cipriano, and actively inciting her husband with shouts of "here comes another, shoot him" made her a principal by direct participation and inducement.

1. Improper Complexing under Separate Informations: The defense implicitly asserted that they could not be convicted of separate crimes and complex crimes under the distinct indictments as structured, claiming that the evidence failed to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt and that the separate filings precluded the court from complexing the offenses.
2. Justifying Circumstance of Self-Defense: Pat. Madali argued that he acted in complete self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the RPC. He claimed that their house was pelted with stones, and when he went outside to investigate, he was suddenly assaulted by Agustin Reloj with a club, followed by Felix and Cipriano who were allegedly armed with a club and a knife.
3. No Direct Participation of Annie Madali: Annie argued that her natural reaction was simply that of a frightened wife shouting warnings to her husband and that she performed no indispensable acts to make her a principal.

• NOT IN RECORD (There was no express stipulation of common ground or facts between the prosecution and the defense in the text of the decision).

Issue

1. Whether the accused Pat. Ricarte Madali successfully established the justifying circumstance of self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Whether conspiracy existed between the spouses, and what is the precise degree of criminal participation of Annie Mortel Madali under Articles 17 and 18 of the Revised Penal Code.
3. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of the accused Ricarte Madali.

Ruling

• MAIN ISSUE: YES. The spouses were held liable for the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder, the trial court having ruled that they "should have been charged with the complex crime of murder and frustrated murder" where one bullet killed Cipriano and wounded Merlinda. The account below in terms of consolidation, absence of objection, and waiver under Section 9, Rule 117§ is the digest's framing for the syllabus topic; this decision does not mention Rule 117 or waiver. Since the single bullet shot by Pat. Madali killed Cipriano Gasang and simultaneously wounded Merlinda Gasang, the offense is substantively a complex crime under Article 48§ of the RPC, and the separate Informations sufficiently alleged the material facts to apprise the accused of the charges.
• SECONDARY ISSUES:
  • Self-Defense: NO. The justifying circumstance of self-defense was rejected because the defense failed to establish the indispensable element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victims.
  • Conspiracy and Annie's Participation: NO as to Principal, YES as to Accomplice. Conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. There was "no proof that those inciting words had great dominance and influence over Madali as to become the determining cause of the crimes," and "the rapidity with which Madali admittedly fired the shots eliminated the necessity of encouraging words"; her liability "is only that of an accomplice" under Article 18 of the RPC.
  • Voluntary Surrender: YES. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was proven and appreciated to mitigate Pat. Madali's penalties.

"WHEREFORE, except as hereinabove modified, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed. Costs against the appellants.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

1. The Procedural Waiver of Indictment Defects (Rule 110§, Section 13 in relation to Rule 117, Sections 3 and 9§): Under Section 13, Rule 110§ of the Rules of Court, a single Information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses (such as complex crimes under Article 48§ of the RPC). If the prosecution splits a complex crime into separate Informations, or conversely, if it charges multiple distinct offenses in a single Information, the resulting indictment is procedurally defective due to duplicity or multiplicity. However, under Rule 117§, Section 9, the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before entering a plea constitutes a waiver of any objections, except when the Information does not charge an offense or the court lacks jurisdiction. Since the accused in this case entered a plea of not guilty and participated in the joint trial of the consolidated cases without filing a motion to quash the separate Informations, they are deemed to have waived any objection. The Court held:

   "It is true that, as a rule, a complex crime should be charged in one information... But where, as in this case, the accused was charged with two (2) separate crimes under two (2) separate informations, and he did not object to the separate informations, he is deemed to have waived his right to a single information... Consequently, he may be found guilty of as many offenses as those charged in the Information and proven during the trial."

2. The Substantive "Single Act" Principle of Article 48§: Substantively, Article 48§ of the RPC provides that a complex (compound) crime is committed when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. The physical facts of the case proved that Pat. Madali fired a single shot that hit Cipriano Gasang in the abdomen, exited his body, and subsequently hit Merlinda Gasang's leg. This single physical act produced two distinct felonies: the qualified murder of Cipriano and the frustrated murder of Merlinda. Thus, the legal character of the transaction is a complex crime. Because the separate cases were consolidated and tried jointly, the court possessed the power to apply the correct penalty under Article 48§—imposing the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period—since the facts constituting the complex crime were fully alleged across the consolidated indictments and proved during trial.
3. Insufficiency of Inducement Shouts to Make a Wife a Principal (Article 17, RPC): The Court ruled that for a person to be held liable as a principal by inducement under Article 17, paragraph 2 of the RPC, the inciting words must have had great dominance and influence over the actor as to become the determining cause of the crimes — actor. Shouts of "here comes another, shoot him" by a wife during a rapid, continuous shooting spree by her husband do not constitute the determining cause of the crime when the husband, as a police officer, was already actively executing the shooting on his own volition. Her flashlight assistance merely facilitated but was not indispensable to the commission of the crime; hence, her liability is downgraded to that of an accomplice under Article 18 of the RPC.

Doctrine

• The Rule on the Waiver of Indictment Defects on Appeal: Objections to the form or substance of an Information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. If an accused goes to trial under a defective Information without making a timely pre-plea objection via a Motion to Quash (Rule 117§) or a Motion for a Bill of Particulars (Rule 116, Section 10), they are deemed to have waived their right to object. Evidence introduced during trial cures any formal or non-jurisdictional defects in the Information.
• The Doctrine of Accomplice Liability for Facilitating Acts: Where the co-accused performs acts that merely facilitate, but are not indispensable to, the commission of the crime (such as shining a flashlight to assist the principal's aim, or shouting warnings during a fast-moving shootout), and there is no proof of a prior agreement or conspiracy, such co-accused cannot be held liable as a principal. Their criminal liability is limited to that of an accomplice under Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code.

• The De Vera Constitutional Shift (The Modern Exception): While People v. Madali (1990) permitted the trial court to convict the accused of a complex crime under separate, consolidated Informations when no objection was made, this doctrine has been subsequently strictly limited and distinguished by the En Banc ruling in People v. De Vera, G.R. Nos. 121462-63, June 9, 1999. The Court in De Vera ruled that even if there is a joint trial and a failure to object, a court cannot convict the accused of a complex crime under separate Informations because doing so violates the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Thus, Madali remains controlling only for cases decided under its specific, un-objected-to procedural timeline, but has been overtaken by De Vera's strict requirement of single-indictment complexing.

Separate Opinions