THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 177000. June 19, 2017.]

NESTOR GUELOS, RODRIGO GUELOS, GIL CARANDANG and

SPO2 ALFREDO CARANDANG y PRESCILLA, petitioners, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

REYES, J : p

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated November 17, 2006 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 27021, affirming in toto the
conviction of Nestor Guelos (Nestor), Rodrigo Guelos (Rodrigo), Gil
Carandang (Gil) and Senior Police Officer 2 Alfredo Carandang y Prescilla
(Alfredo) (petitioners) rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanauan
City, Batangas, Branch 83 in its Decision 3 dated January 24, 2003 in
Criminal Cases Nos. P-204 and P-205. The CA Resolution 4 dated March 6,
2007 denied the motion for reconsideration thereof. HTcADC

The Facts
On December 5, 1995, two separate Informations 5 were filed with the
RTC against the petitioners for Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in
Authority with Homicide, defined and penalized under Articles 148 and 249,
in relation to Article 48, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The accusatory
portions of the two Informations state:
Criminal Case No. P-204
That on or about the 4th day of June, 1995, at about 5:00
o'clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Boot, Municipality of Tanauan,
Province of Batangas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together, acting in common accord and mutually
helping one another, [Nestor] while armed with an Armalite Rifle, with
intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the
said firearm one SPO2 Estelito Andaya, a bonafide member of the
Philippine National Police assigned at Tanauan Police Station, while
engaged in the performance of his official duties as peace officer, and
while the latter is being held from the back by [Gil] and other
companions, whose identities and whereabouts are still unknown,
thereby hitting and inflicting upon the said SPO2 Estelito Andaya
gunshot wounds on his body which caused his instantaneous death.
Contrary to law. 6
Criminal Case No. P-205
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 That on or about the 4th day of June, 1995, at about 5:00
o'clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Boot, Municipality of Tanauan,
Province of Batangas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together, acting in common accord and mutually
helping each other, [Nestor] while armed with an Armalite Rifle, with
intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the
said firearm, one P/Chief Inspector Rolando M. Camacho, a bonafide
member of the Philippine National Police and concurrently the Chief of
Police of Tanauan, Batangas, while engaged in the performance of his
official duties as peace officer, and while the latter is being held at
the back including his two arms by [Alfredo] and the barrel of his
armalite rifle is being held by [Rodrigo], thereby hitting and inflicting
upon the said P/Chief Inspector Rolando M. Camacho gunshot wounds
on his head which caused his instantaneous death. CAIHTE

Contrary to law. 7
The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the foregoing charges. Thereafter,
the joint trial of the two cases ensued. The prosecution and the defense
presented their respective versions of the case. 8
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: PO2 Edgardo
Carandang (PO2 Carandang), Alex Malabanan, PO2 Pastor Platon Castillo,
Ruel Ramos, Ricardo Jordan, SPO1 Anacleto Garcia (SPO1 Garcia), Dr. Olga
Bausa, Rowena Rios, Police Inspector Lorna Tria, Dr. Hermogenes Corachea,
PO3 Eugenio Llarina, Marilou Reyes Camacho and Teodora Torres Andaya. 9
On the other hand, the defense presented: Cancio Angulo (Angulo),
Juana Precilla and herein petitioners Nestor, Alfredo and Rodrigo as its
witnesses.
The version of the prosecution is as follows:
In the morning of June 4, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Rolando M.
Camacho (P/C Insp. Camacho), SPO2 Estelito Andaya (SPO2 Andaya), PO2
Carandang and SPO1 Garcia set off for Sitio Mahabang Buhangin in Tanauan,
Batangas to conduct their routine as peace officers of the area. It was
already 10:00 a.m. when they left Tanauan Police Station on board a patrol
car driven by SPO1 Garcia. While they were in Barangay Gonzales waiting for
a boat that would bring them to Sitio Mahabang Buhangin, they heard
successive gunshots apparently coming from Barangay Boot. P/C Insp.
Camacho then decided to proceed to Barangay Boot to check and to
apprehend those who were illegally discharging their firearms. Upon arrival
at the place, they were invited for lunch in the house of Angulo. Thereafter,
they stayed at the house of the incumbent Barangay Captain, Rafael
Gonzales. 10
At around 2:45 p.m., P/C Insp. Camacho instructed SPO2 Andaya and
PO2 Carandang to join the religious procession to monitor those who will
indiscriminately fire guns. As they were moving on with the procession, they
heard successive gunshots, which they determined to have emanated from
the backyard of Silveria Guelos (Silveria). They went back to the house of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Barangay Captain to report to P/C Insp. Camacho what they found out. Acting
upon their report, P/C Insp. Camacho decided to go with them to the place of
Silveria. In going to the house, they rode a passenger jeepney in order to
conceal their purpose. SPO1 Garcia drove their patrol car and followed them.
11

Upon reaching the place of Silveria who let them in, P/C Insp. Camacho,
PO2 Carandang and SPO2 Andaya then proceeded to the back of the house
where they saw around 15 persons drinking liquor. They also noticed empty
shells of armalite rifle scattered on the ground. P/C Insp. Camacho then
introduced himself as the Chief of Tanauan Police Station and told the group
that he and his men were verifying who fired the shots. Someone from the
group of drinking men asked him: "Who are you going to pick-up here?"
Before P/C Insp. Camacho was able to respond to the taunting question, PO2
Carandang pointed to him the "empty shells" near the comfort room located
at the right side from where the group was drinking. Consequently, P/C Insp.
Camacho instructed him to collect the scattered empty shells. 12
When PO2 Carandang was about to follow P/C Insp. Camacho's orders,
the former noticed a person, whom he identified as Nestor, wearing a white
sando and blue walking shorts stand up. While PO2 Carandang was
collecting the empty shells, somebody hit him on his nape which caused him
to drop his armalite. When he tried to retrieve his firearm, someone hit his
hand. 13 aScITE

As he was trying to stand up, he saw Alfredo tightly holding(yapos-

yapos) P/C Insp. Camacho from behind while Rodrigo grabbed the former's
baby armalite. As soon as PO2 Carandang was able to stand up, he was hit
by Nestor on his left jaw, even as he received a blow to his left eye.
Thereafter, as P/C Insp. Camacho was in a helpless and defenseless position,
he was shot by Nestor causing him to fall to the ground and later die. 14
While PO2 Carandang was retreating, he saw SPO2 Andaya being
tightly held by the neck by Gil. He then saw Nestor shoot at SPO2 Andaya,
who then fell to the ground and died. 15
PO2 Carandang retreated and started to run but Nestor went after him
and shot at him. It was at this juncture when SPO1 Garcia arrived at the
scene and returned fire at Nestor, hitting the latter with three out of six
shots. 16
For the defense, petitioners Nestor, Alfredo and Rodrigo took the
witness stand and denied the accusations. They narrated a different story. 17
Nestor testified that at around 3:00 p.m. on June 4, 1995, he was
inside the house of his mother when he heard several gunshots. He told his
children to lie flat on the floor until it stopped. Thereafter, he went out of the
house and saw four persons lying on the ground; he identified two of them
as Gil and Alfredo. He also saw an old man standing nearby and asked the
latter what happened, but the old man did not reply. Just when he heard that
people were rushing towards his mother's house, the old man asked him to
pick up the gun laying on the ground. He followed and picked up the same
with the intention of surrendering it to a police officer but as he was on his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 way towards the gate, SPO1 Garcia shot him instead. He was hit three times:
on his stomach, his left side, and on his left hand. 18
Alfredo, on the other hand, testified that as they were drinking, P/C
Insp. Camacho together with two other police officers came. They entered
one after the other but P/C Insp. Camacho came in first. They were wearing
civilian clothes, although he noticed that P/C Insp. Camacho was also
wearing a vest where extra ammunition-magazines were kept. P/C Insp.
Camacho was armed with a baby-armalite, while his companions were
carrying M-16 rifles. The police officers asked who among them fired a gun
to which somebody answered, "We do not know who fired the shot." At this
point, Alfredo introduced himself as a fellow-member of the Philippine
National Police (PNP); he even saluted P/C Insp. Camacho, but the latter
merely ignored the former. Instead, P/C Insp. Camacho pointed the nozzle of
his baby armalite at Alfredo's stomach and used it to lift his t-shirt, as the
former asked the latter if he had a gun. Alfredo answered that he had none.
While P/C Insp. Camacho was frisking three other men, Rodrigo approached
him to ask if he can be of help to the former. P/C Insp. Camacho did not
answer Rodrigo's query. Rather, while he was in "port-hand position," P/C
Insp. Carnacho pushed Rodrigo with his firearm; the latter was out-balanced
and fell on his back. While P/C Insp. Camacho was pushing Rodrigo with the
use of the nozzle of his "armalite rifle", the latter swiped the said firearm as
he told the former, "Baka pumutok iyan." Thereupon, the firearm of P/C Insp.
Camacho fired; a bullet hit Alfredo's thigh. Thereafter, the latter lost
consciousness and awakened only when being transported to a nearby
hospital. 19 DETACa

Rodrigo testified that in the afternoon of June 4, 1995, he was watching

a religious procession in front of the gate of his parents' house when P/C
Insp. Camacho and two others, all in civilian clothes and each bearing a long
firearm, entered the premises of his parents' house. The group went directly
to the area where people were drinking liquor. P/C Insp. Camacho introduced
himself as the Chief of Police of Tanauan, and asked who among them fired a
gun. He poked his gun at the people there and then started frisking some of
them. Alfredo stood up and introduced himself as a fellow-member of the
PNP, to which P/C Insp. Camacho responded by poking his gun at the former,
asking him if he had a gun. Answering "none," Alfredo pulled-up his t-shirt to
show he had no gun. His t-shirt was lifted by P/C Insp. Camacho with the
nozzle of his gun. Rodrigo approached P/C Insp. Camacho and offered to
assist the latter, but instead, P/C Insp. Camacho pointed the gun at his face.
Rodrigo swayed the gun away from his face, but he was, in turn, pushed
back by P/C Insp. Camacho with the use of the barrel of the same gun
causing him to fall to the ground. Then he heard several gunshots, so he
covered his head with his hands. When the gunshots stopped, he saw two
persons lying, one by his left side and the other, by his right. He then ran for
help but on his way out of the premises, he saw a wounded person whom he
offered to help. The wounded person ignored him and continued to walk
towards a jeepney. Rodrigo proceeded to approach a Barangay Tanod and
asked him to report the incident to the Barangay Captain. Soon thereafter,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 the Barangay Captain arrived; police officers from Tanauan also came and
Rodrigo was invited to the Police Station for investigation. 20
On January 24, 2003, the RTC issued a Joint Decision, 21 the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. P-204, this Court finds
accused [NESTOR] and [GIL] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Homicide,
defined and penalized under Articles 148 and 249, in relation to
Article 48, of the [RPC], for killing [SPO2 Andaya], and hereby
sentences each of the accused to suffer the penalty of eleven (11)
years of prision correccional maximum, as minimum, up to eighteen
(18) years of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum, and a fine
of One Thousand Pesos (Php1,000.00). The accused are directed to
pay the heirs of victim [SPO2 Andaya] an indemnity of Fifty Thousand
Pesos (Php50,000.00), actual damages in the amount of One Million
Pesos (Php1,000,000.00), and moral damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php50,000.00). HEITAD

In Criminal Case No. P-205, the Court finds accused [NESTOR],

[RODRIGO] and [ALFREDO] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Homicide,
defined and penalized under Articles 148 and 249, in relation to
Article 48, of the [RPC], for killing [P/C Insp. Camacho], and hereby
sentences each of the accused to suffer the penalty of eleven (11)
years of prision correccional maximum, as minimum, up to eighteen
(18) years of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum, and to pay
a fine of One Thousand Pesos (Php1,000.00) each. The accused are
directed to pay the heirs of victim [P/C Insp. Camacho] an indemnity
of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00), actual damages in the
amount of One Million Six Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php1,600,000.00), and moral damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php50,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 22

The RTC found that between the conflicting versions of the parties, that
of the prosecution is more credible; the positive declarations of the police
officers who testified for the prosecution, particularly that of eyewitness PO2
Carandang, were not impeached. 23 Further, the RTC did not find any reason
for any of the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against the accused.
The trial court observed that said witnesses, with special reference to PO2
Carandang, testified in a straightforward manner and showed signs of
candor, as compared to the accused, who were smart-alecky and did not
sound truthful. 24 The petitioners appealed to the CA.
On November 17, 2006, the CA affirmed in toto the petitioners'
conviction in its Decision 25 as follows: aDSIHc

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby

AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 26

Hence, this petition for review with the following assignment of errors:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 A. THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYING ON THE
UNSUBSTANTIATED TESTIMONY OF THE ALLEGED EYEWITNESS PO2
CARANDANG AND HOLDING THE PETITIONERS GUILTY OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.
B. THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE JUDGMENT OF THE
LOWER COURT NOTWITHSTANDING THE GLARING INSUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE TO WARRANT THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS.
C. THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS DESPITE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE SAME. 27
Forthwith, the petitioners fault the CA for affirming their conviction,
contending that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were
uncorroborated by evidence sufficient to establish the petitioners' guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the petitioners allege the following, to
wit:
1. There is no direct assault of a person in authority to speak of
because the group of P/C Insp. Camacho was not in the performance
of their duties. The prosecution failed to present the alleged mission
order supporting the intelligence operation conducted by P/C Insp.
Camacho and his men in Barangay Boot. Further, while the police
officers were in civilian attire (shorts, slippers and t-shirts) to go
undercover, they were carrying rifles that were not concealed; 28
2. The injuries suffered by PO2 Carandang, as a result of the
assault upon his person while he was in the act of collecting the
empty bullet shells, are also unsupported by evidence. The trial court
simply took the testimony of PO2 Carandang as the "biblical truth;" 29
and
3. The narration of PO2 Carandang on how P/C Insp. Camacho and
SPO2 Andaya were killed cannot stand the test of logic. He could not
have possibly witnessed the entire event at the precise moment that
he was also assaulted and injured. 30
Notably, in their Reply, 31 the petitioners incorporated a motion for
new trial based on alleged new and material evidence impugning the
credibility of PO2 Carandang. They averred that in the case for Direct Assault
with Attempted Homicide which PO2 Carandang also filed against Nestor,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 95-401 and pending before the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of Tanauan, Batangas, his testimony therein given from October
10, 2007 to July 30, 2008 was different from his testimony in the case at bar.
32 ATICcS

Ruling of the Court

It is clear that the petitioners basically raise only questions of fact.
Nonetheless, the Court gave due course to the instant petition due to the
following reasons:
Firstly, pursuant to the settled rule that in a criminal case an appeal
throws the whole case open for review, 33 the Court, however, finds that this
case actually presents a question of law; specifically, on whether or not the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 the accusation against them was properly observed.
Secondly, the petitioners, in the Reply, invite the Court's attention to
the subsequent testimony of PO2 Carandang in the later case filed against
Nestor. The petitioners assert that said testimony should be considered as
new and material evidence which thereby makes the findings of the trial
court in the instant case as manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible. Thus,
the petitioners moved for a new trial on the ground of alleged newly
discovered evidence without, however, necessarily withdrawing their
petition.
At the outset, the petitioners' motion for new trial is denied.
Clearly, the Rules of Court proscribe the availment of the remedy of
new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence at this stage of appeal.
Section 1 of Rule 121 states:
At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final, the
court may, on motion of the accused or at its own instance but with
the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration.
Under Section 14 of Rule 124, a motion for new trial on the ground of
newly discovered evidence may be filed at any time after the appeal from
the lower court has been perfected and before the judgment of the CA
convicting the appellant becomes final. Further, Rule 45, Section 1 clearly
provides that a motion for new trial is not among the remedies which may
be entertained together with a petition for appeal on certiorari.
More importantly, the alleged newly discovered evidence is not worthy
of the Court's consideration.
The petitioners allege that in the MTC proceedings, PO2 Carandang
failed to positively identify who actually hit him and/or the persons involved
in the killing of P/C Insp. Camacho and SPO2 Andaya which is a complete
turn-around from his testimony in the case at bar where he positively
identified the petitioners as the perpetrators. At any rate, aside from this
alleged glaring inconsistency of PO2 Carandang's testimony, said
subsequent testimony is marred by inconsistencies in itself. For instance, in
his cross-examination on May 14, 2008, he stated that when he came to his
full consciousness after being unconscious or dizzy for about two minutes,
he saw P/C Insp. Camacho and SPO2 Andaya lying down; then, during his re-
cross examination on July 30, 2008, he stated that when he regained
consciousness after being unconscious or dizzy for about five minutes, he
did not see where P/C Insp. Camacho or his other teammates were. Still, on
numerous occasions, he failed to categorically answer questions as he could
not recall. Considering the value of PO2 Carandang's testimony, he being the
only eyewitness to the said fateful event, there would have been no
sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioners. 34
However, the Court cannot agree with the petitioners' contention that
the testimony of PO2 Carandang before the MTC effectively cast doubt upon
his previous testimony or makes it a falsity. The MTC testimony was given
after 10 years from the time PO2 Carandang testified in the case at bar.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Considering the length of time that had elapsed and the frailty of human
memory, the Court gives more credence to PO2 Carandang's testimony in
the instant case which was given after a year and 10 months from the
incident testified upon. In fact, the drama of the fateful incident appeared so
fresh to PO2 Carandang that in the course of his direct examination on April
22, 1997 and while he was demonstrating how Alfredo embraced P/C Insp.
Camacho, he became 'emotional' when asked about the next thing that
happened to P/C Insp. Camacho. 35
Jurisprudence dictates that even if a witness says that what he had
previously declared is false and that what he now says is true is not
sufficient ground to render the previous testimony as false. No such
reasoning has ever crystallized into a rule of credibility. The rule is that a
witness may be impeached by a previous contradictory statement not that a
previous statement is presumed to be false merely because a witness now
says that the same is not true. Indeed, it is a dangerous rule to set aside a
testimony which has been solemnly taken before a court of justice in an
open and free trial and under conditions precisely sought to discourage and
forestall falsehood simply because one of the witnesses who had given the
testimony later on changed his mind. Such a rule will make solemn trials a
mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of
unscrupulous witnesses. 36
Thus, the Court finds no reason to give merit to the petitioners'
contentions of alleged new evidence.
In Sison v. People of the Philippines, 37 the Court has held that:
[W]hen the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and
their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and
conclusions deserve great respect and are often accorded finality,
unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of
weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the
result of the case. The trial judge enjoys the advantage of observing
the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, x x x all of which
are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty
and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if such
witness were telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh
conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of substance and value
were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the
case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to
observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying
and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the [CA]. 38
For this reason alone, the petition must fail.
However, the Court cannot totally affirm the rulings of the courts
below. As forthwith stated, an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire
case for review; the Court can correct errors unassigned in the appeal. The
Court finds that the Informations in this case failed to allege all the elements
which constitute the crime charged. ETHIDa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 The petitioners are being charged with the complex crime of Direct
Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Homicide, defined and
penalized under Articles 148 and 249, in relation to Article 48, of the RPC.
The RPC provides:
Art. 148. Direct assaults. — Any person or persons who,
without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the
attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes
of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously
intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while
engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such
performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000.00
pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon or when the
offender is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays
hands upon a person in authority. If none of these circumstances be
present, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and
a fine not exceeding P500.00 pesos shall be imposed.
Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of
any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article,
shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion
temporal.
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes . — When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is, a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty
for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied
in its maximum period.
While the elements constituting the crime of Homicide were properly
alleged in the two Informations and were duly established in the trial, the
said Informations, however, failed to allege all the elements constitutive of
the applicable form of direct assault. To be more specific, the Informations
do not allege that the offenders/petitioners knew that the ones they were
assaulting were agents of a person in authority, in the exercise of their duty.
TIADCc

Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be committed

in two ways: first, by "any person or persons who, without a public
uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any
of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and
sedition"; and second, by any person or persons who, without a public
uprising, "shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist
any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the
performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance."
39 (Citation omitted)

Indubitably, the instant case falls under the second form of direct
assault. The following elements must be present, to wit:
1. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c)
makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance;
2. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 3. That at the time of the assault, the person in authority or his
agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of official duties,
or (b) is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official
duties;
4. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a
person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his
duties; and
5. That there is no public uprising.
In the instant case, the Informations 40 alleged the following, to wit:
1. That on or about the 4th day of June 1995, at about 5:00 p.m., in
Barangay Boot, Municipality of Tanauan, Province of Batangas,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
together, acting in common accord and mutually helping one
another, Nestor while armed with an armalite rifle, with intent to
kill and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the said
firearm the victims, SPO2 Andaya/P/C Insp. Camacho;
2. That the said victims are bona fide members of the PNP assigned
at Tanauan Police Station, and one of them was the current Chief
of Police of Tanauan, Batangas; and
3. That at the time of the incident, they were engaged in the
performance of their official duties.
In the course of the trial, the evidence presented sufficiently
established the foregoing allegations including the fact that the petitioners
came to know that the victims were agents of a person in authority, as the
latter introduced themselves to be members of the PNP. cSEDTC

Nevertheless, the establishment of the fact that the petitioners came

to know that the victims were agents of a person in authority cannot cure
the lack of allegation in the Informations that such fact was known to the
accused which renders the same defective. In addition, neither can this fact
be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance under paragraph 3 of
Article 14 of the RPC for acts committed with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of his rank to justify the
imposition of an increased penalty against the petitioners.
As the Court held in People v. Rodil: 41

While the evidence definitely demonstrated that appellant

knew because the victim, who was in civilian clothing, told him that
he was an agent of a person in authority, he cannot be convicted of
the complex crime of homicide with assault upon an agent of a person
in authority, for the simple reason that the information does not
allege the fact that the accused then knew that, before or at the time
of the assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority. The
information simply alleges that appellant did "attack and stab PC Lt.
Guillermo Masana while the latter was in the performance of his
official duties,. . ." Such an allegation cannot be an adequate
substitute for the essential averment to justify a conviction of the
complex crime, which necessarily requires the imposition of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 maximum period of the penalty prescribed for the graver offense.
Like a qualifying circumstance, such knowledge must be expressly
and specifically averred in the information; otherwise, in the absence
of such allegation, the required knowledge, like a qualifying
circumstance, although proven, would only be appreciated as a
generic aggravating circumstance. Applying this principle, the attack
on the victim, who was known to the appellant as a peace officer,
could be considered only as aggravating, being "in contempt of/or
with insult to public authorities" (Par. [2], Art. XIV of the [RPC], or as
an "insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his rank,. . ." (Par. 3, Art. XIV, [RPC]).
It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the
person attacked was a person in authority or his agent in the exercise
of his duties, because the accused must have the intention to offend,
injure, or assault the offended party as a person in authority or agent
of a person in authority. 42
"The Constitution mandates that the accused, in all criminal
prosecutions, shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him. From this fundamental precept proceeds the rule
that the accused may be convicted only of the crime with which he is
charged."43 This right is accorded by the Constitution so that the accused
can prepare an adequate defense against the charge against him. Convicting
him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating on his defense against
the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. 44 It must be
noted that said constitutional right is implemented by the process of
arraignment 45 in which the allegations in the document charging an offense
is read and made known to the accused. Accordingly, a Complaint or
Information which does not contain all the elements constituting the crime
charged cannot serve as a means by which said constitutional requirement
is satisfied. Corollarily, the fact that all the elements of the crime were duly
proven in trial cannot cure the defect of a Complaint or Information to serve
its constitutional purpose.
Pursuant to the said constitutional precept, the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure requires that every element of the offense must be
alleged in the complaint or information so as to enable the accused to
suitably prepare his defense. Corollarily, qualifying circumstances or
generic aggravating circumstances will not be appreciated by the
Court unless alleged in the Information. This requirement is now laid
down in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110, to wit:
SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given by the
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is
no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section
or subsection of the statute punishing it.
SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise
language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged as well
as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the
court to pronounce judgment.
The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly mandates that
qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language in the complaint or information. When the law or rules
specify certain circumstances that can aggravate an offense or that would
attach to such offense a greater penalty than that ordinarily prescribed, such
circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the
imposition of the increased penalty. 46 Due to such requirement being pro
reo, the Court has authorized its retroactive application in favor of even
those charged with felonies committed prior to December 1, 2000 (i.e., the
date of the effectivity of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that
embodied the requirement). 47
I n People v. Flores, Jr. , 48 as reiterated in the more recent cases of
People v. Pangilinan 49 and People v. Dadulla , 50 the Court ruled that the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him cannot be waived for reasons of public policy.
Hence, it is imperative that the complaint or information filed against the
accused be complete to meet its objectives. As such, an indictment must
fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been
committed. For an accused cannot be convicted of an offense, even if duly
proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the complaint or
information. 51 In other words, the complaint must contain a specific
allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime
charged, the accused being presumed to have no independent
knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. 52 Under Section 9
of Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, an accused's
failure to raise an objection to the insufficiency or defect in the
information would not amount to a waiver of any objection based on
said ground or irregularity. SDAaTC

Section 9 of Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal procedure

reads:
Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground
therefor. — The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information,
either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the
same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections
EXCEPT THOSE based in the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a),
(b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.
Indeed, the foregoing provision provides that if an accused fails to
assert all the grounds available to him under Section 3 of Rule 117 in his
motion to quash, or if he, altogether, fails to file a motion a quash — any
objection based on the ground or grounds he failed to raise through a
motion to quash shall be deemed waived, except the following, thus:
SEC. 3. Grounds . — x x x:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an
offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
the offense charged;
xxx xxx xxx
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished; [and]
xxx xxx xxx
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or
acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Therefore, the petitioners can only be convicted of the crime of
Homicide instead of the complex crime of Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a
Person in Authority with Homicide due to the simple reason that the
Informations do not sufficiently charge the latter.
[T]he real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from
the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification
of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being
conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint
or information . . . it is not the technical name given by the Fiscal
appearing in the title of the information that determines the character
of the crime but the facts alleged in the body of the Information. 53 AaCTcI

Nevertheless, by reason of the fact that the presence of the

aggravating circumstance of acts committed with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of his rank was proven in the
course of the trial, exemplary damages should be awarded in each case in
addition to such other damages that were already awarded by the courts
below. Exemplary damages are justified regardless of whether or not the
generic or qualifying aggravating circumstances are alleged in the
information. The grant in this regard should be in the sum of P30,000.00. 54
In the case of People v. Catubig , 55 the Court elucidated on the nature of
exemplary damages, thus:
Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary
or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to
serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue
sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a
punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. x x x In
common law, there is preference in the use of exemplary damages
when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for the sense
of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an
injury that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory
being that there should be compensation for the hurt caused by the
highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant — associated with such
circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or
recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraud — that
intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive damages are
often used to refer to those species of damages that may be
awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 conduct. In either case, these damages are intended in good
measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar
conduct in the future. 56 (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
Accordingly, since the petitioners are all found to be principally liable
for the crimes committed as conspiracy was duly proven, exemplary
damages in the amount of P30,000.00 should be awarded against each of
them.
WHEREFORE, the judgment is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Petitioners Nestor Guelos, Rodrigo Guelos, Gil Carandang
and SPO2 Alfredo Carandang y Prescilla are hereby found GUILTY of
Homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS
and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS
and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The fine of P1,000.00
is DELETED. In addition to the amount of damages and civil indemnity that
were already awarded by the courts below to the respective heirs of Police
Chief Inspector Rolando Camacho and Senior Police Officer 2 Estelito
Andaya, each of the petitioners are also directed to pay the amount of
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to each of the victims. acEHCD

SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Jardeleza and Tijam, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 11-39.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes Jr., with Associate Justices Hakim S.
Abdulwahid and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo concurring; id. at 42-59.
3. Rendered by Judge Voltaire V. Rosales; id. at 76-85.

4. Id. at 62.

5. Id. at 72-73, 74-75.

6. Id. at 72-73.

7. Id. at 74-75.
8. Id. at 77.

9. Id. at 46.

10. Id. at 46-47.

11. Id. at 47, 79-80.

12. Id. at 77-78.

13. Id. at 78.

14. Id. at 48.

15. Id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 16. Id. at 78.

17. Id. at 49.

18. TSN, August 28, 2001, pp. 3-9.

19. TSN, August 31, 2000, pp. 9-15.

20. TSN, February 13, 2001, pp. 4-14.

21. Rollo , pp. 76-85.

22. Id. at 85.

23. Id. at 83.

24. Id. at 84.

25. Id. at 42-59.

26. Id. at 59.

27. Id. at 21.

28. Id. at 25-26.

29. Id. at 26-27.

30. Id. at 27-28.

31. Id. at 206-227.

32. Id. at 211-221.

33. People v. Tambis , 582 Phil. 339, 344 (2008).

34. Rollo , pp. 211-221.

35. TSN, April 22, 1997, pp. 11-12.

36. Firaza v. People, 547 Phil. 572, 584 (2007).

37. 682 Phil. 608 (2012).

38. Id. at 622, citing People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 562-563 (2008).
39. People v. Recto , 419 Phil. 674, 689-690 (2001).

40. Rollo , pp. 72-73, 74-75.

41. 196 Phil. 79 (1981).

42. Id. at 99-100.

43. Navarrete v. People , 542 Phil. 496, 504 (2007).

44. People v. Mendigurin , 456 Phil. 328, 344 (2003).

45. See Lumanlaw v. Judge Peralta, Jr., 517 Phil. 588, 597 (2006).

46. People v. Corral, 446 Phil. 652, 667-668 (2003).

47. People v. Dadulla , 657 Phil. 442, 451 (2011).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 48. 442 Phil. 561 (2002).
49. 676 Phil. 16 (2011).

50. 657 Phil. 442 (2011).

51. People v. Flores, Jr., supra note 48, at 569-570.

52. Id. at 572.

53. Velasco v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 704 Phil. 302, 314 (2013) citing Pilapil v.
Sandiganbayan, 293 Phil. 368, 378 (1993).
54. People v. Reyes , 714 Phil. 300, 309-310 (2013).

55. 416 Phil. 102 (2001).

56. Id. at 118-119.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com