Facts

• On October 31, 1996 at about 11:00 p.m., Noel Tabernilla was driving his passenger jeep along Road 10, Navotas when four passengers announced a hold-up. One poked a balisong at his nape while the others divested the passengers; Socrates Kagalingan lost a gold necklace (₱1,800), a wrist watch (₱2,000) and ₱500 cash — ₱4,300 in all.
• The robbers alighted at "Puting Bato." That is where the robbery was consummated — the fulcrum of the whole case. Tabernilla and six or seven passengers went to the nearest police detachment.
• Three policemen returned with them and chanced upon the robbers on a pedicab; Kagalingan recognised them, one still wearing his belt bag.
• Three suspects were arrested, including Janito de Luna; Leo Quemeggen escaped.
• The three were left in the sole custody of PO2 Emelito Suing while the other officers pursued Quemeggen. They ganged up on him — de Luna held his hand while a suspect known as "Weng-Weng" shot him in the head — and escaped.
• Suing died; the autopsy by Dr. Rosalyn Cosidon (Medico-Legal Report No. M-1614-96) gave the cause as haemorrhage from a gunshot wound to the head.
• On November 5, 1996 a single Information charging Robbery with Homicide was filed in the RTC of Malabon, Branch 72 (Crim. Case No. 17287-MN). Both appellants pleaded not guilty, waived pre-trial, and never moved to quash for duplicity.
• On August 8, 1997 the RTC convicted both of Robbery with Homicide under Art. 294(1) and imposed reclusion perpetua.
• On December 28, 2006 the CA — the case having been transferred under People v. Mateo on February 9, 2005 — convicted Quemeggen of simple Robbery only and de Luna of Robbery and Homicide as separate crimes.
• On July 27, 2009 the Third Division dismissed the appeal, affirmed with modification, and ordered Quemeggen's immediate release for over-incarceration.

Issue

Ruling

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 28, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01498, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Janito de Luna is further ordered to pay the heirs of police officer Emelito Suing ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Considering that Quemeggen has been incarcerated for more than the maximum penalty for the crime of robbery he committed, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to immediately RELEASE LEO QUEMEGGEN from confinement, unless further detention is justified by some other lawful cause, and inform this Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt hereof. SO ORDERED."

Ratio

• The caption does not control; the recital does. The nature of the crime charged is fixed "not by the designation of the specific crime, but by the facts alleged," the title and the cited law being "mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor."
• Duplicity is a ground to quash that dies with the plea. Section 3(f), Rule 117§ allows a motion where "more than one offense is charged," but Section 9 makes the failure to raise it before plea a waiver — so the trial court could convict "of as many offenses as those charged in the Information and proven during the trial."
• On the merits the special complex crime failed for want of nexus. Robbery with Homicide requires "proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing," whether the killing precedes, follows, or coincides.
• Here the sequence broke that link. The robbery ended at Puting Bato; the killing happened later, elsewhere, during a custodial escape. Nothing showed it was done to facilitate the robbery, secure escape with the loot, preserve possession, or eliminate witnesses to the robbery.
• Conspiracy was then traced offence by offence. It covered the robbery, so both are liable for that; it was not proved for the killing — Quemeggen was being chased elsewhere and de Luna held Suing's hand while another shot him — so only de Luna answers for the homicide.

Doctrine

• "It is axiomatic that the nature and character of the crime charged are determined not by the designation of the specific crime, but by the facts alleged in the information. Controlling in an information should not be the title of the complaint or the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being, by and large, mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited."
• Conviction under a duplicitous Information: "There should also be no problem in convicting an accused of two or more crimes erroneously charged in one information or complaint, but later proven to be independent crimes, as if they were made the subject of separate complaints or informations … appellants failed, before their arraignment, to move for the quashal of the Information, which appeared to charge more than one offense. They have thereby waived any objection thereto, and may thus be found guilty of as many offenses as those charged in the Information and proven during the trial."

• Waiver of duplicity does not manufacture allegations — the body must actually recite the elements of each offence; the accused is protected from surprise, not from liability he was fully told about.
• Conspiracy does not travel to an unplanned killing: where the agreement covered the robbery and a killing follows during a later arrest, only the actual perpetrators and their co-conspirators in the killing answer for it, the rest for robbery alone.
• And two grounds never waive — that the Information charges no offence (Sec. 3(a)) and want of jurisdiction (Sec. 3(b)) may be raised at any stage. Compare People v. Madali, the mirror image — many Informations for one complex crime, waived the same way, but since overtaken by De Vera.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

• October 31, 1996, at around 11:00 PM: Noel Tabernilla was driving his passenger jeep to Navotas, Metro Manila. Along Road 10 in Navotas, four passengers announced a hold-up. One of the robbers poked a balisong at Tabernilla’s nape, while the other three divested the passengers of their valuables. Socrates Kagalingan, a passenger, was divested of a gold necklace worth ₱1,800.00, a men's wrist watch worth ₱2,000.00, and cash money amounting to ₱500.00 (total value of ₱4,300.00).
• October 31, 1996, subsequent hour: The hold-uppers alighted from the jeepney at a place called "Puting Bato". Tabernilla and six or seven passengers immediately went to the nearest police detachment to report the incident.
• October 31, 1996, subsequent hour: Three policemen accompanied the victims back to the scene of the crime. While there, they chanced upon the robbers riding a pedicab. Socrates Kagalingan recognized them because one was still wearing the belt bag that was taken from him.
• October 31, 1996, subsequent hour: The policemen arrested three suspects, including Janito de Luna, but Leo Quemeggen managed to escape.
• October 31, 1996, subsequent hour: The three arrested suspects were left under the care of PO2 Emelito Suing while the other officers pursued Quemeggen. Taking advantage of the situation, the three suspects ganged up on Suing; de Luna held Suing’s hand, while another suspect known as "Weng-Weng" shot Suing in the head. The suspects then escaped.
• October 31, 1996, subsequent hour: Upon the return of the two police officers, Suing was rushed to the hospital where he eventually died. An autopsy conducted by Dr. Rosalyn Cosidon of the PNP Crime Laboratory concluded that the cause of death was hemorrhage as a result of a gunshot wound in the head (reflected in Medico-Legal Report No. M-1614-96).
• Sometime after October 31, 1996 (Exact date NOT IN RECORD): Accused-appellants Quemeggen and de Luna were arrested during follow-up operations by the Navotas Police.
• November 5, 1996: The Assistant Provincial Fiscal filed an Information before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon, Branch 72, docketed as Criminal Case No. 17287-MN, charging both appellants with Robbery with Homicide.
• Subsequent Date (Exact date NOT IN RECORD): Upon arraignment, both appellants, assisted by counsel, entered separate pleas of "not guilty".
• Subsequent Date (Exact date NOT IN RECORD): Appellants manifested that they were not availing of a pre-trial conference, and trial on the merits ensued.
• August 8, 1997: The RTC of Malabon, Branch 72 rendered its Decision convicting both appellants of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.
• Subsequent Date (Exact date NOT IN RECORD): The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
• February 9, 2005: The Supreme Court, pursuant to the ruling in People v. Mateo, transferred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).
• December 28, 2006: The CA modified the RTC Decision: it convicted Leo Quemeggen of simple Robbery only (sentenced to 4 years of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum) and Janito de Luna of the separate and independent crimes of simple Robbery (same penalty) and Homicide (sentenced to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum).
• Subsequent Date (Exact date NOT IN RECORD): The appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• July 27, 2009: The Supreme Court Third Division promulgated its Decision, dismissing the appeal, affirming the CA's decision with modification, and ordering the immediate release of Quemeggen due to over-incarceration.

Arguments of the Parties

• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: The prosecution argued that the eyewitness testimonies of Tabernilla (the driver) and Kagalingan (the passenger) were clear, consistent, and fully sufficient to establish the elements of robbery and the killing.
• Waiver of Medico-Legal Testimony: The prosecution asserted that since the defense formally admitted Dr. Cosidon’s qualifications, the conduct of the autopsy, and the results thereof in open court, her oral testimony was properly dispensed with, and the cause of death was legally proved.
• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The prosecution maintained that all elements of the crime, including the identity of the accused as the perpetrators, were proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that the defense of denial and alibi must fail.

• Incredibility of Testimonies: The appellants argued that the prosecution's witnesses were incredible because it is contrary to human nature for robbers to remain near the scene of the crime riding a pedicab instead of immediately fleeing.
• Absence of Corroborative Police Testimony: The appellants pointed out that the prosecution failed to present any police officer to corroborate that they were caught on board a pedicab or that the stolen items were confiscated from them.
• Failure to Prove Cause of Death: The appellants claimed that the failure to present the medico-legal officer, Dr. Cosidon, to testify was fatal as it meant the cause of death was not established by expert oral testimony.
• Defense of Alibi: Both appellants asserted they were in their respective homes: Quemeggen was helping his grandmother cut pieces of cloth used in making rugs, and de Luna was sleeping with his wife.

• Dr. Cosidon's Pathological Findings: Both parties admitted Dr. Cosidon's qualifications, that she conducted the autopsy on PO2 Suing, that she prepared the body sketches, that a slug was recovered from his head, and that the cause of death was hemorrhage as a result of a gunshot wound in the head.

Issue

1. Whether there is a direct and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing of the police officer to satisfy the elements of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Whether the prosecution's failure to present a police officer to testify on the arrest and the recovery of the loot, and its failure to present the medico-legal officer to testify on the autopsy, are fatal to the conviction of the accused.

Ruling

• MAIN ISSUE: YES. The Supreme Court ruled that an accused can be convicted of separate crimes under a duplicitous Information if the body of the Information sufficiently alleges the elements of both offenses and the accused waived the defect of duplicity by failing to object before entering a plea.
• SECONDARY ISSUE 1: NO. The Court held that there was no direct and intimate connection between the robbery and the subsequent killing of PO2 Suing. The robbery was fully consummated when the suspects alighted from the jeepney at Puting Bato. The subsequent arrest and the suspects' assault on PO2 Suing were distinct and independent of the robbery. Thus, they committed simple Robbery and Homicide as separate and distinct crimes.
• SECONDARY ISSUE 2: NO. The Court held that the eyewitness testimonies of Tabernilla and Kagalingan were sufficient to establish the crime without need for corroborative police testimony. Furthermore, the defense's formal admission in open court of the medico-legal report and Dr. Cosidon's qualifications dispensed with the necessity of her oral testimony.

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 28, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01498, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Janito de Luna is further ordered to pay the heirs of police officer Emelito Suing ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Considering that Quemeggen has been incarcerated for more than the maximum penalty for the crime of robbery he committed, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to immediately RELEASE LEO QUEMEGGEN from confinement, unless further detention is justified by some other lawful cause, and inform this Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt hereof. SO ORDERED."

Ratio

1. Recital of Facts Controls Over Legal Designation (Rule 110§, Sections 6 and 9): The Court reaffirmed the fundamental procedural principle that the nature and character of the crime charged are determined not by the designation/caption given by the prosecutor (which is a mere conclusion of law), but by the actual recital of ultimate facts in the body of the Information. It is the description of the crime and the particular facts recited that control and adequately apprise the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation.
2. Waiver of Duplicity (Rule 117§, Sections 3(f) and 9): Under Section 3(f) of Rule 117§, an accused may move to quash the Information on the ground "that more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law" (duplicity). However, under Section 9 of Rule 117§, the failure of the accused to assert this ground before entering a plea is deemed a waiver of any objection based thereon. Consequently, since the appellants entered a plea of not guilty without objecting to the duplicitous nature of the Information (which charged Robbery with Homicide but actually described separate crimes of robbery and homicide), they waived the defect. The trial court was thus fully authorized to find them guilty of as many separate offenses as were sufficiently described in the body of the Information and established during the trial.
3. No Direct Relation Between Robbery and Homicide: The Court analyzed the elements of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the RPC. For the special complex crime to exist, there must be a "direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time". In this case, the robbery was fully consummated when the suspects alighted from the jeepney at Puting Bato. The subsequent arrest at a different location and the suspects' assault and killing of PO2 Suing were distinct and independent of the robbery. There was no "direct connection" showing that the killing was committed to facilitate the robbery, facilitate escape, preserve possession of the loot, or eliminate witnesses to the robbery. Thus, the suspects committed simple Robbery and Homicide as separate and distinct crimes.
4. Conspiracy and Individual Liability in Separate Crimes: Since there was conspiracy to commit robbery, both Quemeggen and de Luna were correctly convicted of simple Robbery. However, as to the homicide of PO2 Suing, there was no evidence of conspiracy. Since the killing took place while Quemeggen was being pursued by other police officers, and de Luna was the one who held Suing's hand while another suspect shot him, only de Luna can be held liable for Homicide. Quemeggen cannot be convicted of Homicide because conspiracy in the killing was not proved.
5. Sufficiency of Proof Without Police Testimony: The Court ruled that the positive identification and testimonies of the victim (Kagalingan) and the driver (Tabernilla) were sufficient to prove the commission of the robbery and the killing. The non-presentation of a police officer did not weaken the prosecution's case.
6. Admission Dispenses with Medico-Legal Testimony: Under the rules of evidence, since the defense formally admitted the qualifications of the medico-legal officer, the conduct of the autopsy, and the results of the medico-legal report in open court, the presentation of the doctor as a witness was rendered completely superfluous and unnecessary.

• The Ultimate Facts Principle:

  "It is axiomatic that the nature and character of the crime charged are determined not by the designation of the specific crime, but by the facts alleged in the information. Controlling in an information should not be the title of the complaint or the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being, by and large, mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited."

• The Rule on Conviction Under a Duplicitous Information:

  "There should also be no problem in convicting an accused of two or more crimes erroneously charged in one information or complaint, but later proven to be independent crimes, as if they were made the subject of separate complaints or informations. As worded, the Information sufficiently alleged all the elements of both felonies. Needless to state, appellants failed, before their arraignment, to move for the quashal of the Information, which appeared to charge more than one offense. They have thereby waived any objection thereto, and may thus be found guilty of as many offenses as those charged in the Information and proven during the trial."

• The Requirement of Direct Connection in Robbery with Homicide:

  "...essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time."

• No Extension of Conspiracy to Unplanned Killing: Where a conspiracy is formed to commit robbery, and on the occasion of the arrest of some of the conspirators, a killing is committed by some of them without proof of conspiracy for the homicide, only the direct perpetrators and co-conspirators of the homicide are criminally liable for the killing. The other robber who was not present and did not participate in the killing is liable only for simple Robbery.
• Non-Waiver of Substantive Objections: While the formal defect of duplicity under Rule 117§, Section 3(f) is waived by a failure to object before pleading, substantive grounds such as the failure of the Information to state an offense (Section 3(a)) and lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged (Section 3(b)) are never waived and can be asserted at any stage of the proceedings.

Separate Opinions