1l\epublic of tbe flbilippine%

$Upreme QC:ourt
;!flflanila

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 254381

Plaintiff-Appellee,'

Present:

PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J,
Chairperson,
- versus - HERNANDO,
INTING,
GAERLAN, and
DIMAAMPAO, JJ

Promulgated:
GILBERT ALEGRE y NAZARAL,
Accused-Appellant. FEB 14 2022 ~~
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

HERNANDO, J.:

This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the January 30, 2020 Decision2
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12447, which affirmed
the November 13, 2018 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Valenzuela City, Branch 75, in Criminal Case No. 179-V-14 finding accused-
appellant Gilbert Alegre y Nazaral (Alegre) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Murder.

1
Rollo, pp. 13-15.
2
Id. at 4-12. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices
Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Louis P. Acosta.
3
CA rollo, pp. 51-62. Penned by Presiding Judge Lilia Mercedes Encarnacion A. Gepty.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 254381 ,

"' v.t eoruary

un t ,,,,
I, 2 . . . , an I-1t..orr:nJ1:bon
"'014 -r ' 4 {Qr
.c: .i\rluroer
- ' w~s filed against Alegre,
the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about December l, 2013, in Valenzuela City and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above~narned, without any justifiable
cause, with deliberate intent to kIU and acting with treachery, did then and there
willfully, unlawfi1lly and foloniously shoot with a gun one Ronald Pascuay Raza
(victim), hitting the latter's head imd neck, thereby inflicting upon the latter
serious physical ir~h1ries which caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAVv. 5

Upon his arraignment on March 21, 2014, i,,Jegn) pleaded "not guilty" tQ
the crime charged. 6 After the termination of the preliminary conforence 7 and
pre-trial, 8 trial on the merits subsequently ensued.

Version of the Pirosecution:

On December 1, 2013, at around 7:00 p.m., security guards John Monito

Tagle (Tagle), Rona.kl Pa,scua y Raza (Pascua), and Isidro J\1agpusao
(1\lfagpusao ), were on duty at Century Glass Center located in Valenzuela City.
At that time, they had just finished eating and Pascua was washing dishes. 9

A few moments later, Tagle heard a k,,11ock, on the gate. He opened the gate
and saw Alegre, who was also a security guard thereat. Tagle asked Alegre what
he was doing there and the latter replied that he just dropped by to ask how they
were and to kr1ow ifhe could already report for duty. Tagle infom1ed 1!1.legre to
report to the operations manager and he subsequently let him in. 10

Alegre then told Tagle th;3.t Pascua had been saying bad things about him.
Tagle cautioned him to keep quiet as Pasqw. was just washing dishes inside.
However, Pascua overheard their conver~ation and asked Alegre about what he
was saying. Alegre then started cursing ~t Pascu~. and told him that he lost his
job because of him,. A heatGd vxchange ensued between the two. TagJe tried to
pacify and stop the squabble by leading Alegre out of the premises. However,

4
Records, p. L
5
Id,
6
Id. at 32-33.
7 Id. at 39-41.
~ Id. at 45-48.
9 Rollo, p, 5.
io Id.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 254381

Alegre continued to shout and curse at Pascua, who did not back down and also
shouted expletives against Alegre. 11 Afterwards, Alegre motioned to his waist
area and drew his .3 8 caliber gun. Pascua then told Alegre, "wag mo akong
daanin sa ganyan," but Alegre still pulled the trigger and shot him on the neck. 12
When Pascua dropped to the ground, Alegre approached him, almost k:neeled
on top of him, and proceeded to shoot him on the head. 13 Tagle then wrestled
the gun away from Alegre, and he and Magpusao closed the gate to prevent
Alegre from leaving but he was able to escape through another exit.
Nevertheless, Tagle was able to chase after him and Alegre was brought to the
police precinct thereafter. 14

Pascua instantly died from the shooting and was later taken to Candido
Funeral Homes. The autopsy conducted by medico-legal officer Police Chief
Inspector Jocelyn Cruz confirmed that he died due to the gunshot wounds on
the head and neck. 15 By reason of his death, Pascua's family allegedly incurred
expenses totaling the amount of ?86,900.00. 16

Version of the Defense:

For his part, Alegre averred that on the day of the incident, he went to
Century Glass Center to retrieve his things. At the premises, he saw Pascua,
who started shouting and cursing at him. Alegre asked him what he wanted, but
Pascua continued to hurl invectives at him. Alegre got fed up and brought out
his gun. Pascua then told him not to resort to such, but Alegre already lost his
patience and shot Pascua. Shocked at the sight of Pascua falling to the ground,
Alegre ran out and boarded a "kuliglig" to leave the place. 17

Ruling of the Regional Trial

Court:

In a Decision dated November 13, 2018, the RTC ruled that all the
elements of the crime of Murder were present in this case. The RTC found that
the killing was qualified by treachery when Alegre deliberately shot Pascua
twice one on the head and another on the neck, which the latter did not foresee
'
and which did not give him the opportunity to defend himself. 18 The dispositive
portion of the RTC Decision states:

II Id.
12
Id. at 5-6.
13
Id. at 6.
14 Id.
is Id.
16
Id.; Records, pp. 62-76.
17
CA rollo, p. 54.
18
Id. at 60-61.

b.,
Decision 4 G.R. No. 254381

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding

the accused GILBERT ALEGRE Y NAZARAL guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua withou~
eligibility for parole. ·

The accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Ronald Pascua y Raza the
following:

1. civil indemnity in the amount of Php 100,000.00;

2. moral damages in the amount of Php 100,000.00;
3. exemplary damages in the amount of Php 100,000.00; and
4, actual damages in the amount of Php 86,900.00.

The aforesaid monetary award payable by accused are subject to interest at

the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until
fully paid.

With costs against the accused. 19

Aggrieved, Alegre appealed to the CA, averring that the RTC gravely erred
in convicting him of Murder despite the failure of the prosecution to prove all
the elements thereof, and to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 20 In
particular, Alegre argued that treachery was not sufficiently alleged in the
Information and was not adequately proved during trial. 21

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

On January 30, 2020, the CA promulgated its Decision denying Alegre's

appeal. Similar to the R TC, the CA found that the prosecution sufficiently
proved all the elements of Murder, including the qualifying circumstance of
treachery. It likewise held that the same was adequately alleged in the
Information, and noted that this issue was only brought up for the first time on
appeal; thus, it became too late for Alegre to raise such an objection pursuant to
Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. 22 The CA thus ruled:

19
Id. at 61-62.
20
Id. at 39.
21
Id. at 43-47.
22 Rollo, p. 11; Rule 117, 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 on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a),(b ), (g), and (i)
of Section 3 of this Rule.
.Decision 5 G.R. No. 254381

. _'VHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The

Dec1S1on of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 75, dated 13
November 2018 in Criminal Case No. 179-V-14 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 23

Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

In this case, Alegre admitted to shooting Pascua. There is no question that

such act led to Pascua's death. 24 Thus, the sole issue to be resolved is whether
the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing of Pascua.

Our Ruling

After a judicious review of the records of the case, the Court holds that the
conviction of Alegre for Murder cannot be upheld. He is properly liable only
for Homicide.

Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend to directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. 25 To appreciate
treachery as a qualifying circumstance, two conditions must be met: ( 1) the
assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal
act which give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself/herself or
to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately
or consciously adopted by the assailant. The essence of treachery is the sudden
and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, denying the
latter any chance to protect himself, and thereby ensuring its commission
without posing any risk to the aggressor. 26

Jurisprudence dictates that for treachery to be appreciated, it must be

sufficiently pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the accused's
constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the charge
against him. 27 In People v. Solar28 (Solar), this Court held that:

23
Rollo, p. 11.
24
Id.at 10.
25
Revised Penal Code, A1i. 14, par. 16.
26
People v. Gura, G.R. No. 230619, April 10, 2019.
27
People v. Natindim, G.R. No. 201867, November 4, 2020.
28
G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 254381'

[I]t is insufficient for prosecutors to indicate in an Information that the act

supposedly committed by the accused was done "with treachery" or "with abuse
of superior strength" or "with evident premeditation" without specifically
describing the acts done by the accused that made any or all of such
circumstances present. Borrowing the words of the Court in Dasmarifias, "to
merely state in the information that treachery was attendant is not enough because
the usage of such term is not a factual averment but a conclusion oflaw."

An information alleging that treachery exists, to be sufficient, must

therefore have factual averments on how the person charged had deliberately
employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the act that tended directly
and specially to insure its execution without risk to the accused arising from the
defense that the victim might make. The Information must so state such means,
methods or forms in a manner that would enable a person of common
understanding to lmow what offense was intended to be charged. 29

Further, the Court, in Solar, laid down the following guidelines for the
guidance of the Bench and Bar:

1. Any Information which alleges that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance

- in which the law uses a broad term to embrace various situations in which it
may exist, such as but are not limited to (1) treachery; (2) abuse of superior
strength; (3) evident premeditation; (4) cruelty - is present, must state the
ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. Otherwise, the Information may be
subject to a motion to quash under Section 3 ( e) (i.e., that it does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules [on]
Criminal Procedure, or a motion for a bill of particulars under the parameters set
by said Rules.

Failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies constitutes a waiver
of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying
circumstance in the Information, and consequently, the same may be appreciated
against him if proven during trial.

xxxx

5. For cases in which a judgment or decision has already been rendered by the
trial court and is still pending appeal, the case shall be judged by the appellate
court depending on whether the accused has already waived his right to question
the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the
Information, (i.e., whether he previously filed either a motion to quash und~r
Section 3(e), Rule 117, or a motion for a bill of particulars) pursuant to this
Decision. 30

29 Id.
Jo Id.
, Decision 7 G.R. No. 254381

Here, it is conceded that the Information against Alegre is defective insofar

as it merely averred the existence of the qualifying offense of treachery without
specifying the particular acts and circumstances that would constitute such.
However, it is submitted that Alegre is deemed to have waived this defect,
considering his failure to avail of the proper procedural remedies. 31

Based on the records, Alegre did not question the supposed insufficiency
of the Information filed against him, through either a motion to quash or a
motion for bill of particulars. He voluntarily entered his plea during the
arraignment and proceeded with the trial. Thus, he is deemed to have waived
any of the waivable defects in the Information, including the supposed lack of
particularity in the description of the attendant circumstances. In other words,
Alegre is deemed to have understood the acts imputed against him by the
Information. 32 Further, as the CA had observed, the issue on the insufficiency
of the Information was only raised for the first time on appeal.

From the foregoing, since Alegre is considered to have waived his right to
question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance
in the Information, treachery may be appreciated against him if proven during
trial.3 3

On this score, both the R TC and CA found that treachery was present in
this case. In its decision, the CA ruled:

In this case, Alegre drew a gun. While Pascua told Alegre to not resort to
violence (" Wag mo akong daanin sa ganyan"), Alegre proceeded to shoot him in
the neck, a vulnerable area. Immediately thereafter, as Pascua slumped to the
ground, Alegre approached Pascua and shot him in close range on the head. There
was no way for Pascua, who was unarmed, and had instantaneously fallen, to
retaliate. The attack was sudden, and being co-workers in Century Glass, Pascua
could not have expected that Alegre would actually shoot him, in the neck no
less.

Moreover, the means Alegre employed to execute the crime was

deliberately and consciously adopted. As pointed out by the OSG, Alegre brought
a gun to the company premises when he allegedly only meant to retrieve his
things. As soon as Tagle let him in, Alegre started talking about how Pascua had
said bad things about him that cost him his job. Alegre knew exactly what he
wanted to do when he went to Century Glass Center. 34

31
People v. Ukay, G.R. No. 246419, September I 6, 2020.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34
Rollo, p. 11.
DeQision 8 G.R. No. 254381 '

The Comi disagrees. It has been repeat1;;dly held that "chance encounters,
impulse killing or crimes Qon1mitted at the spur of the moment or that were
preceded by heated altercations are generaHy not ~ttended by treachery
for la~k of opportunity of the ~ccused to deliberately en:rploy a treacherous
wode of attack.n 35 Stated otherwise, there can be no tl;eachery when the attack
is preceded by a heated exchange of words between the accused a.nd the victim,
or when the victim is aware of the hostility of the ?1.ssailant towards the fonner. 36

Here, Alegre had a heated altercation with Pascua before he finally lost his
patience and shot him. When Pascua slumped to the ground after getting shot in
the neck, Alegre moved closer and proceeded to shoot him in the head. Upon
realizing what he had just done, he ran and attempted to escape, but was
eventually caught by Tagle.

Based on the attendant facts, Alegre's acts were more of a result of a

sudden hnpulse or a spur of the moment d~cision due to his previous heated
altercation with the victim, rather than a planned and deliberate action. There is
no showing that he consciously employed a particular mode of attack in order
to facilitate the killing without any risk tq himself. It appears that Alegre shot
Pascua because he got fed up and was carried away by the anger arising from
his confrontation with the deceased, Further~ it bears noting that Alegre shot
Pascua in their workplace and in the presence of Tagle and Magpusao. If Alegre
deliberately intended that no risk would come to him, he could have chosen
another time and place to attack Pascua to ensure success in c01m11itting the
crime. The records are also bereft of any indication that Alegre went to Century
Glass Center l<nowing that Pascua would actually be th,~re. Moreover~ it is clear
that Pascua was aware of A.legre~s hostility against him and that there was a
possibility of an impending attack

Given the circumstances, the Co1-1rt finds thi:it treachery was wanting in this
case. In the absence thereof, Alegre can only be convicted of Homicide, not
Murder.

Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty imposed for the
crime of Homicide is re<;lusion temporal. 37 Considering that no modifying
circumstances attended the conunission of th~ crime, the penalty shall be
imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indet~rminate Sentence Law, the
maximum penalty sh~,11 bi1! taken from the range of the mediurn period of

35 People v. M.;nil, G.R. No. 233205, Jtirie 26, 2019,

36 Id.
37 ART. 249. Homicid(;). ,.~-A11y person who, not frtlling within the provision~ of Article 246, shall kill another
without the attendance of as1y of the 9ircurnstiinces en\m1ernt{,)d in the n{,)xt preceding ii.rtJcie, shall l;)e deemeq
guilty of homicide and be punished by reciusion temporal.
, Decision 9 G.R. No. 254381

re~l~sion temporal, wit? the minimum penalty selected from the range of
1:rzsz?n mayor. Thus, this Court hereby imposes upon Alegre the penalty of
nnpn_s~nment for a period of eight (8) years and one ( 1) day of prision mayor,
as mm1mum, to fourteen ( 14) years, eight (8) months and one ( 1) day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum. 38

Anent the award of damages, this Court finds that the RTC incorrectly
granted Pl 00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages, and
Pl 00,000.00 as exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim. In People v.
39
Silvederio III, this Court explained that these amounts are imposed when the
penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of Republic Act No.
40
(RA) 9346. Since the penalty imposed by the RTC in this case was reclusion
perpetua only (not "death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to RA
9346"), the amounts awarded should have been P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. 41 At any
rate, considering that the conviction of the accused has been downgraded to
Homicide, the amounts of the said damages must be modified to PS0,000.00
each, following the ruling in People v. Jugueta. 42

With regard to the actual damages awarded, this Court also finds that the
RTC erred when it granted the amount of P86,900.00, given that this amount
was a mere estimate provided by the wife of Pascua. 43 The amount of actual
damages awarded to the heirs of the victim should be P59,712.25 since this is
the amount supported by the receipts on record. 44 Finally, the amounts awarded
shall earn interest of six percent ( 6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of
this Decision until full payment.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED IN PART. The Court

DECLARES accused-appellant Gilbert Alegre y Nazaral GUILTY of
HOMICIDE, for which he is SENTENCED to suffer the indetenninate penalty
of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
He is further ordered to PAY the heirs of Ronald Pascua y Raza the amounts of
PS0,000.00 as civil indemnity, PS0,000.00 as moral damages, PS0,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and P59,712.25 as actual damages. All monetary awards
shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from the date
of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

38
People v. Ukay, supra note 31.
39
G.R. No. 239777, July 08, 2020, citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
40
Entitled "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENAL TY IN THE PHILIPPINES."
Approved: June 24, 2006. . .
41
People v. Silvederio /II, G.R. No. 239777, July 08, 2020, citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
42
People v. Menil, supra note 35, citing People v. Jugueta, supra.
43
Records, p. 158.
44
Id.atl57-172.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 254381 .•

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

AAfl~µ/'
1
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

----
H E N R ~ INTING ~:iMU~N
Associate Justice Associate Justice

Associate Ju ·
~ · · · ·
Decision 1 1l. G.R. No, 254381

A.TTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

ESTELA M. P~~RNABE
Senior Associate Justice
·Chaitperson

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the wTiter of
the opinion of the Comi1s Division.

G. GESlVIUNDO