CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | Prof.
Dante Gatmaytan
LA Manlangit | B2023
People v. Solar (1987) ISSUE: W/N CA erred in finding that conspiracy existed
between Rolando and Mark Kenneth Solar. HELD: NO
Nature of petition
Ordinary appeal CA Decision –affirming RTC Decision; Rolando Solar’s erroneous contention: The evidence on
finding Rolando Solar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of record reveals that it was Mark Kenneth, not him,
Homicide (CA downgraded from Murder) who delivered the fatal blow, and therefore he should
be acquitted
FACTS:
March 9, 2008 – An Information was filed against Despite Rolando not delivering the killing blow, the
Rolando and Mark Kenneth Solar for the murder of rule for conspiracy has been satisfied
Joseph Mato
o Rule for conspiracy: Conspiracy may be
During the arraignment, Rolando pleaded not guilty inferred from the conduct of the accused
while Mark Kenneth remained at large before, during and after the commission of
the crime, where such conduct reasonably
Rolando denied the accusation and claimed that he shows community of criminal purpose or
was attending a wake on the night of the murder that design.
was being charged against him
In this case, the records reveal that implied
After trial on the merits, the RTC convicted Rolando conspiracy can be deduced from the evidence
of the crime of Murder o First, Rolando and Mark Kenneth were
together at the crime scene
Rolando appealed to the CA o Second, Rolando mauled the victim after
o He stated that the prosecution failed to Mark Kenneth hit him
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt o Third, as soon as they achieved their
They failed to identify him as the common purpose, both fled together.
perpetrator
There was lack of evidence to ISSUE1: W/N CA erred in downgrading the crime from
support a finding of conspiracy Murder to Homicide on the basis of the insufficiency in the
Information. HELD: YES. Even if the Information was held to
January 13, 2015 – The CA affirmed with be insufficient, Rolando Solar WAIVED his right to question
modification the RTC’s conviction of Rolando such a defect.
o They found the victim’s wife credible and
sufficient to establish the identity and NOTE: The Information charging the Solars with
culpability of Rolando murder merely stated in the second paragraph that
o The conspiracy between Mark Kenneth and they committed the killing with treachery and abuse
Rolando could be deduced from the of superior strength in the second paragraph without
conspirators’ conduct before, during and substantiating the averments in detail
after the commission of the Murder
o Nevertheless, the CA downgraded the There are two lines of cases regarding the sufficiency
offense (MurderHomicide) of allegations in the Information that the killing was
attended “with treachery”
Hence the instant appeal
ISSUE: W/N the prosecution proved Rolando’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. HELD: YES
The Court found no reason to vacate the RTC’s
appreciation of the evidence, moreso because it was
affirmed in toto by the CA. Jurisprudence finding the Jurisprudence finding the
method insufficient method sufficient
The requirement of Evidentiary facts need not
1
Most relevant to Section 14(1), Article III, 1987
Constitution
“You asked for my hustle. I gave you my heart.”
#MambaForever
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | Prof. Dante Gatmaytan
LA Manlangit | B2023
sufficient factual averments be alleged in the o Rolando voluntarily entered his plea during
is meant to inform the information because these arraignment and proceeded with the trial
accused of the nature and are matters of defense; o The Court therefore reinstates the charge of
cause of the charge against Informations need only Murder and reverses the CA’s downgrading
him, in order to enable him state the ultimate facts,
to prepare his defense while the reason therefor Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings
could be proved during of fact in the CA Decision and finds the accused-appellant
trial. Rolando Solar GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
of Murder.
Based on the foregoing, the Court holds that it is
insufficient for prosecutors to indicate in an SEPARATE OPINIONS
information that the act supposedly committed by the
accused was done with (aggravating circumstance) C.J. Bersamin, Dissenting Opinion
without specifically describing the acts done by the
accused that made any or all of such circumstances The CA correctly downgraded the offense from
present. Murder to Homicide
Prosecutors are instructed to state with sufficient The right of every accused to know from the
particularity not just the acts complained information the charge to which he pleads and for
of/constituting the offense, but also the aggravating which he stands to be tried, and upon which he is to
circumstances, whether qualifying or generic, as well be held criminally liable is a precious and
as any other attendant circumstances, that would fundamental right that is constitutionally guaranteed.
impact the penalty to be imposed on the accused Therefore, it should not be casually taken away or be
should a verdict of conviction be reached. easily denied only because he did not assail the
information prior to arraignment and plea.
Moreover, prosecutors are enjoined to strictly
implement the mandate of, and ensure compliance The majority opinion’s reasoning is fallacious
with Section 8 (a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedureattach the Informations they o In the 1st place, the accused had no duty or
will be filing in courts their resolutions finding obligation to remind the State by motion to
probable cause against the accused. quash on what charge he should be made to
answer to.
Finally, trial courts are enjoined to ensure that the
accused is furnished a copy of the said resolutions If he was legally and genuinely
finding probable cause against the accused. presumed not to know of any act
or omission that would soon be
HOWEVER, Rolando Solar has waived his right to alleged against him, he could not
question the defects in the Information filed against even be expected to speak at all or
him be heard from.
o An information which lacks certain essential
allegations may still sustain a conviction o In the 2nd place, he must be fully informed of
when the accused: (1) fails to object to its every act or omission that could render him
sufficiency during the trial, and (2) the criminally liable because fully informing
deficiency was cured by competent evidence him thereof is the ESSENCE OF DUE
presented therein. PROCESS.
o The only defects in an information that are
not deemed waived are: (1) where no
offense is charged, (2) lack of jurisdiction of
the offense charged, (3) extinction of the
offense/penalty, and (4) double jeopardy
o Rolando filed neither a motion to quash or
motion for bill of particulars.
“You asked for my hustle. I gave you my heart.”
#MambaForever
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | Prof. Dante Gatmaytan
LA Manlangit | B2023
o In the 3rd place, the omission from the 4. For cases which are still pending before the trial court,
information of the acts constituting treachery the prosecution, when still able, may file a motion to
and abuse of superiority was not due to his amend the Information pursuant to the prevailing
fault; hence, that the information actually Rules in order to properly allege the aggravating or
filed against him did not fully or adequately qualifying circumstance pursuant to this Decision.
inform him of his supposed crime should
never be blamed on him. 5. For cases in which a judgment or decision has already
been rendered by the trial court and is still pending
It is the State’s obligation to correct appeal, the case shall be judged by the appellate court
it, not his. depending on whether the accused has already
waives his right to question the defective statement of
NOTE: the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the
Information.
Supreme Court’s guidelines on Informations and Aggravating
Circumstances: Right to Be Heard
1. Any information which alleges that a qualifying or Villareal v. People (2012)
aggravating circumstance—in which the law uses a
broad term to embrace various situations in which it Context of consolidated petitions:
may exist—is present, must state the ultimate facts Case of hazing-related death (Lenny Villa) committed prior to
relative to such circumstance. Otherwise, the the Anti-Hazing Act
information may be subject to a motion to quash
under Section 3( e) (i.e., that it does not conform FACTS:
substantially to the prescribed form), Rule 117 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a motion February 1991 – 7 freshman law students of the
for a bill of particulars under the parameters set by ADMU School of Law signified their intention to join
Said Rules. the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity, as neophytes
Failure of the accused to avail any of the said Eve of February 8, 1991 – The 7 freshmen-neophytes
remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to question were met by the members of the fraternity (Aquilans)
the defective statement of the aggravating or at the lobby of the Ateneo Law School
qualifying circumstance in the Information, and
consequently, the same may be appreciated against o After dinner, they went to the house of
him if proven during trial. Michael Musngi, also an Aquilan, who
briefed the neophytes on what to expect
Alternatively, prosecutors may sufficiently aver the during the initiation rites.
ultimate facts relative to a qualifying or aggravating
circumstance by referencing the pertinent portions of There would be physical beatings
the resolution finding probable cause against the They could quit any time
accused, which resolution should be attached to the The rites were schedules to last for
Information in accordance with the second guideline three days
below.
o After the briefing, they were brought to the
2. Prosecutors must ensure compliance with Section 8 Almeda Compound in Caloocan City for the
(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal commencement of their initiation
Procedure that mandates the attachment to the
Information the resolution finding probable cause The neophytes were subjected to traditional forms of
against the accused. Trial courts must ensure that the Aquilan initiation rites.
accused is furnished a copy of this Decision prior to o Indian Run – a gauntlet the neophytes had to
the arraignment run, where they received blows from the
Aquilans
3. Cases which have attained finality prior to the
promulgation of this Decision will remain final by
virtue of the conclusiveness of judgment
“You asked for my hustle. I gave you my heart.”
#MambaForever
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | Prof. Dante Gatmaytan
LA Manlangit | B2023
o Bicol Express – the neophytes had to sit on the o 1 passed away before the promulgation of
floor with their backs against the wall and the CA Decision, 19 were acquitted, 4 were
their legs outstretched while the Aquilans found guilty of slight physical injuries, and 2
walked, jumped, or ran over their legs (the alumni) were found guilty of homicide
o Rounds – the neophytes were held at the back 1 – DEAD, 19 – ACQUITTED, 4 –
of their pants by the Aquilans charged with SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES, 2 –
aiding them throughout the rites (auxiliaries), HOMICIDE
while they were being hit with fist blows and
paddles Villareal v. People: Certiorari (1) CA denied the
petitioner due process, and (2) the petitioner was
o Auxies’ Privilege Round – the auxiliaries were convicted absent proof beyond reasonable doubt
given the chance to inflict physical pain on
the neophytes o Petitioner filed a Notice of Death of Party
(Villareal died); counsel thus asserts in the
February 9, 1991 – Accused alumni fraternity instant petition that the subject matter not
members Fidelito Dizon and Artemio Villareal survive the death of the accused
demanded that the rites be reopened to include them,
and eventually they were included. On the ratio, the Court held that the
death extinguished Villareal’s personal
o They subjected the neophytes to paddling and pecuniary penalties, including his
and to additional rounds of physical pain civil liability arising from the delict
complained of by virtue of Article 89(1)
o Lenny Villa received several paddle blows, of the Revised Penal Code
one of which was so strong it sent him
sprawling to the ground Dizon v. People: Certiorari CA denied the
petitioner due process when: (1) the CA sustained the
The neophytes heard him trial court’s forfeiture of his right to present
complaining of intense pain and evidence2, and (2) the CA did not apply to him the
difficulty in breathing same “ratio decidendi that served as basis of
acquittal of the other accused.”
After an hour of sleep, Lenny started to shiver and
mumble. When his condition worsened, he was o On (1): The trial court expected Dizon to
rushed to the hospital, pronounced dead on arrival. present evidence on an earlier date since a
co-accused no longer presented separate
Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed evidence during trial. Upon failing to attend
against the 35 Aquilans present. on that date, the trial court considered
Dizon’s right waived.
o 26 of the 35 Aquilans were jointly tried
o On (2): The petitioner contends that he
o 9 of the 35 Aquilans’s trial was held in should have likewise been acquitted since
abeyance due to certain matters that had to his acts were also part of the traditional
be resolved first. initiation rites and were not tainted by evil
motives; their additional paddle blows could
November 8, 1993 – The 26 Aquilans were found not have resulted in Lenny’s death.
guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court
Petitioner further argues that his
January 10, 2002 – The CA set aside the finding of alleged motivation of ill will was
conspiracy by the trial court and modified the negated by his show of concern for
criminal liability of each of the 26 accused according Villa after the initiation rites.
to individual participation.
2
Most relevant to Section 14(1), Article III, 1987
Constitution
“You asked for my hustle. I gave you my heart.”
#MambaForever
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | Prof. Dante Gatmaytan
LA Manlangit | B2023
People v. CA: Certiorari reversal of CA’s Decision
insofar as it acquitted 19 of the Aquilans and ISSUE: W/N the CA committed grave abuse of discretion
convicted 4 only of slight physical injuries; the CA when it set aside the finding of conspiracy by the trial court
erred in holding that there could have been no and adjudicated the liability of each accused according to
conspiracy to commit hazing, as hazing or fraternity individual participation. HELD: NO
initiation had not yet been criminalized at the time
Lenny died. Since the killing of Lenny Villa was absent the initial
malicious intent to commit the felony of homicide,
ISSUE3: W/N the forfeiture of petitioner Dizon’s right to conspiracy to commit it cannot exist.
present evidence constitutes denial of due process. HELD:
YES ISSUE: W/N Dizon is guilty of homicide. HELD: NO
The right of the accused to present evidence is The ill motives attributed by the CA to Dizon and
guaranteed by the Constitution (AIII, Section 14(2)) Villareal were baseless, since the statements of the
“in all criminal prosecutions, the accused…shall enjoy accused were just part of the psychological initiation
the right to be heard by himself and counsel calculated to instill fear on the part of the neophytes.
o The right includes the right to present Accused Dizon’s way of inflicting psychological
evidence in one’s defense, as well as the right pressure was through hurling make-believe
to be present and defend oneself in person at accusations at the neophytes.
every stage of the proceedings.
ISSUE: W/N the 4 Aquilans were guilty of slight
The trial court should not have deemed the failure of
physical injuries. HELD: NO
petitioner to present evidence on the earlier date as a
waiver of his right to present evidence.
Even if the specific acts of punching, kicking,
On the contrary, it should have considered the excuse paddling, and other modes of inflicting physical pain
of counsel justified, especially since the counsel for were done voluntarily, freely, and with intelligence,
the other accused had made a last-minute adoption of the fundamental ingredient of criminal intent was
testimonial evidence that freed up the succeeding trial not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
dates.
o On the contrary, all that was proven was that
HOWEVER, an invalid waiver of the right to present the acts were done pursuant to tradition.
evidence and be heard does not per se work to vacate
a finding of guilt in the criminal case or to enforce an o All those who wished to join the fraternity
automatic remand to the trial court. went through the same process of traditional
initiation; there is no proof that Lenny Villa
o Where facts have adequately been was specifically targeted or given a different
represented in a criminal case, and no treatment.
procedural unfairness or irregularity has
prejudiced either the prosecution or the
defense as a result of the invalid waiver, the
rule is that a guilty verdict may nevertheless
be upheld if the judgment is supported
beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on
record.
HOWEVER, the accused fraternity members guilty of
33 reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Most relevant to Section 14(1), Article III, 1987
Constitution
“You asked for my hustle. I gave you my heart.”
#MambaForever
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | Prof. Dante Gatmaytan
LA Manlangit | B2023
o Apart from the cumulative effect of the
paddle and fist blows, there is also evidence
to show that some of the accused fraternity
members were drinking during the
initiation rites.
o More importantly, the incident may have
been prevented had the alumni Aquilans
restrained themselves from reopening the
initiation rites.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment finding Fidelito
Dizon guilty of homicide is MODIFIED and SET IN PART. The
appealed Judgment finding the 4 Aquilans is also MODIFIED
and SET ASIDE IN PART. Instead, they are all found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide.
“You asked for my hustle. I gave you my heart.”
#MambaForever
