THIRD DIVISION Another neighbor, Vilma Juadines Rodriguez, resident of No. 7-A St.

Peter Street, declared that

G.R. No. 177223 November 28, 2007 while she was at home taking care of her baby at between 3:00 and 3:30 pm of October 21,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 1994, she heard someone challenging others to a fight; that looking out of her window
vs. CASTOR BATIN, Accused-Appellant. ("dungaw"), she saw that it was Boy Batin – Castor – and he was then walking about on St.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Peter Street; that just then, her child cried, and so she went to him; that upon returning to the
window to call her other child, she saw Castor hand over a handgun to Neil, and the latter
We are reviewing herein the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 6 February 2007, in CA- thereafter entered through their gate; that she next saw Neil load bullets into the gun and then
G.R. CR HC No. 01396, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon tucking it in his right waistline; that after loading, Neil went out to the street, went between the
City, convicting father and son, Castor and Neil Batin, of the crime of murder. The conviction parked white car and yellow taxicab, aimed the gun at Eugenio and Josephine who were at the
was for the killing of one Eugenio Refugio, who was shot in the afternoon of 21 October 1994, mango tree, and then asked Castor: "Tay, banatan ko na?"; that Castor replied: "Sige, anak,
while he was leaning against a mango tree near his house on St. Peter Street, San Paolo banatan mo na." that, at that instant, Neil fired two shots; that as she went down to get her other
Subdivision, Nagkakaisang Nayon, Novaliches, Quezon City. child upon hearing the gunshots, she heard Josephine say: "Tay, may tama ka"; that she later
reentered her house; and that she knew that Eugenio died afterwards.
The Information2 against Castor and Neil Batin was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Quezon City on 11 April 1995, alleging as follows: Although Eugenio was rushed to the Quezon City General Hospital right after the shooting and
was operated on, he expired the next day. His remains were properly identified in writing by his
That on or about the 21st day of October, 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named brother, Tito Eugenio.3
accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, did, then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, with treachery, taking advantage The medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, Dr. Florante Baltazar,
of superior strength, and with evident premeditation, attack, assault and employ personal conducted an autopsy on Eugenio’s remains. In his Medico-Legal Report No. M-1715-94,4 he
violence upon the person of one EUGENIO REFUGIO y ZOSA, by then and there shooting indicated that Eugenio sustained one gunshot wound, which was, however, fatal, because "it
him with a handgun, hitting him on the right side of his stomach, thereby inflicting upon him went slightly upward, slightly anteriorward from the right to the left of the body, fracturing the
serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to right to [the] left [of the] thoracic region, lacerating the right lumbar region." Dr. Baltazar made
the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Eugenio Refugio y Zosa, in such amount as may the certification as to the cause of death in the death certificate.5
be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code.
Upon a written request6 from the Novaliches Police Station, Quezon City, Police Inspector
Castor and Neil Batin entered pleas of not guilty. Solomon Segundo, Chief of the Firearms Identification Branch of the Central Crime
Laboratory, Northern Police District Command, Quezon City, conducted the ballistics
The prosecution, presented as its witnesses Eusebio Farrales, Vilma Juadinez Rodriguez, examination to ascertain whether or not the bullet recovered from the victim was fired from the
Florante Baltazar, Josephine Refugio, PO3 Marifor Segundo and Police Inspector Solomon specimen firearm submitted for examination. P/Insp. Segundo prepared Ballistics Report No. B-
Segundo, offered the following version of the facts, as summarized by the trial court: 042-94,7 wherein he certified that the bullet from the recovery box8 and the bullet recovered
from the victim’s body9 were fired from the same specimen firearm.10 This conclusion was
Eugenio’s wife, Josephine Refugio, was with him when he was shot, facing him as he leaned arrived at after a test fire and a comparison under the bullet comparison microscope.
against the mango tree and, in fact, had her arms resting on his shoulders. She recalled that
before the shooting, she was at home at No. 4-A St. Peter Street that afternoon when, looking The defense, on the other hand, presented accused Neil Batin, Castor’s common-law wife
out of the window, she caught sight of Castor Batin washing his feet at a nearby faucet. Castor Maricon Pantoja, and one Restituto Paller. Neil Batin’s testimony is summarized by the trial
was angrily muttering, and she distinctly heard him say, among the other things he said: "Mga court as follows:
matatandang kunsintidor, dapat manahimik na." Then, being through with washing himself,
Castor moved towards the street. Seeing this, she went down and also went to the street because Neil substantially claimed that it was his responsibility to conduct his younger brothers to
of a feeling of uneasiness ("Para po akong kinakabahan, kasi, ganoon naman ang ginagawa nila school and fetch them by car; that he also drove their taxicab; that it was about 7:00 o’clock in
lagi, eh, pag nalalasing"). Finding her husband leaning against the mango tree on the side of St. morning of October 21, 1994, while he was cleaning the family-owned taxicab, that he found a
Peter Street, she went to him. She tried to talk Eugenio into going home with her because short gun ("de bola") underneath it beside the right rear wheel; that he picked the gun and
Castor was again into one of his wild ways ("Nagwawala na naman, daldal ng daldal"). As he concealed it in the compartment of the taxicab; that he continued with his chore of cleaning;
was talking with Eugenio, she glanced to her left and saw Neil Batin standing at the gate to their that as soon as he finished cleaning the taxicab, he drove the white Datsun car to Tondo to fetch
(Batins’) compound, looking towards her and her husband. A few moments later, Neil went to his six-year old brother Mark, the son of his father with Maricon Pantoja; that Mark was a pupil
one of the parked cars, opened its door, and took a gun from inside. She next noticed Castor at the Magat Salamat Elementary School in Tondo; that after picking up Mark, they drove to the
going towards Neil as the latter stood at the side of the car and shouting: "Huwag!" Castor house of his uncle, Domingo Batin, in Marulas, Valenzuela, to get his clothes from his cousin;
grabbed the gun from Neil. After the gun was taken from him, Neil just proceeded towards the that they arrived there at 11:00 am, and spent around two hours there; that from Marulas, they
right rear of the car. Castor followed Neil and handed the gun back to him. went home, arriving at St. Peter Street at around 2:30 pm; that he parked the car on the road in
front of their fence; that he and Mark first entered the house to deposit Mark’s school things and
When she shifted her glance from the Batins, Josephine heard Castor ordering his son: "Sige, later went outside to await the arrival of Mark’s mother; that his other brothers were outside;
banatan mo na." Neil responded by drawing the gun from his waistline, raising and aiming it at that Castor was also outside talking with a man whose name he did not know but whom he had
her and her husband, and firing twice from his eye-level. Both Josephine and Eugenio fell to the seen thrice before as well as with Boy Iñigo in front of the latter’s house; that Iñigo’s house was
ground, the former, backwards, and the latter landing on top of her. As they tried to get up, 15 meters from their gate; that Pantoja soon arrived at around 2:45 pm; that he continued
Eugenio uttered to her: "Nanay, may tama ako." She then pulled her husband by the shoulder of talking and playing with his brothers; and that at that point he decided to take the gun from the
his shirt so that she could take him to their house as he was already slumped to the right. She compartment of the taxicab – then parked around 2 ½ meters away from where he and his
later rushed her husband to the Quezon City General Hospital, where he underwent surgery, but brothers were – and tucked it in his waistline.
later expired.
Having thus tucked the gun, Neil went to stand at the right rear side of the Datsun car which
Other eyewitnesses from the neighborhood were presented and they substantially corroborated was parked facing the mango tree ("halos magkatapat lang po"). Maricon came out to the street
her testimonial account. at that point to ask him about the time he had fetched Mark. It was while he was standing there
with the others that, according to Neil, he suddenly felt the impulse of drawing the gun from his
One of them, Eusebio Farrales, a resident of No. 7 St. Paul Street, in relation to which St. Peter waistline ("Bigla kong naisipang bunutin ang baril"). He thus drew the gun and turned around,
Street was perpendicular, recalled being at the barangay outpost near the corner of St. Peter but, as he did so, he accidentally pulled the trigger, causing the gun to fire twice ("Tumalikod
Street and St. Paul Street between 3:00 and 3:30 pm of the afternoon of October 21, 1994 – po ako, tapos nakalabit ko, pumutok ng dalawang beses").
engaged in the clearing of the debris of the recent typhoon – when he heard someone cursing
and challenging to a fight. Walking towards St. Peter Street where the voice came, he saw that it Neil admitted knowing the late Eugenio Refugio and his wife Josephine because they were his
was Castor. He also saw other neighbors, namely, Eugenio, Josephine, and Eugenio’s mother, neighbors with only a high wall separating their houses; but denied seeing them that afternoon
Emilia Refugio. According to Farrales, Castor was moving aimlessly for around five minutes beside the mango tree.
("Walang direktion at pa-ikot ikot lang siya doon") while cussing: "Putang ina ninyo, sino ang
matapang lumabas." At the sound of gunfire, Castor rushed towards Neil from where he was in front of Iñigo’s
house, shouting twice to his son: "Huwag!" Pantoja, for her part, forced Neil to enter the
Farrales stated that a white car and a white-and-yellow colored taxicab were parked on the side compound, where she brought him inside the house of his aunt. Neil concealed the gun in the
portion of the street fronting the gate to the compound of the Batins and near where Eugenio ceiling of the aunt’s house.
and Josephine stood. Emilia, the mother of Eugenio, then came towards him, but he advised her
to seek assistance from the barangay tanod. After Emilia proceeded towards St. Paul Street to Neil said that he and his father did not grapple inside the Datsun car for possession of the gun;
do so, Neil came out through the gate, opened the door of the white car, took out a gun from that his father did not wrest the gun from him; that he did not enter the compound to put bullets
inside, and handed the gun to Castor, but the latter returned the gun to Neil. Upon getting back in the gun; that his father did not order him to shoot Eugenio; and that his father was not drunk
the gun, Neil reentered the yard through the gate. and challenging others to a fight. He insisted that he and the Refugios, with whom he was
acquainted since 1987, had no misunderstandings, for he even had shared drinks with the late
Farrales asserted that in the meanwhile Eugenio remained leaning against the mango tree with Eugenio before October 21, 1994.11
Josephine facing him and her arms resting on his shoulders. They were in this position when
Neil again came out through the gate a few moments later and proceeded to the right side of the As regards the testimonies of the defense’s two other witnesses, the trial court could not make
car, still holding the handgun. From there, Neil fired twice at the Refugios. The Refugios both an intelligible narrative of the version of the facts presented by them, considering the
fell to the left of the mango tree. Farrales saw both Castor and Neil quickly enter the compound. contradictions it found in their testimonies. The trial court found glaring Maricon Pantoja’s
At that point, Farrales decided to run home in order to summon Alfredo Dizon, his tenant, who "self-contradiction" as to where she and the accused were when Eugenio was shot. During the
was a police officer because he feared that the Batins might escape from the scene by car. trial, Maricon testified that she, Neil and Castor were outside their house when Neil drew the
gun and accidentally fired. However, in her affidavit,12 she alleged that they went outside their
Farrales and Dizon lost no time in going to the place of the Batins. After Dizon talked with house upon hearing a gun explosion and saw "Eugenio Refugio alone holding his stomach x x x
Castor at the gate of the latter’s compound, the latter entered the house of his nephew, Ricky we have no any knowledge whether he was hit by a bullet."13
Basilio, which was beside Castor’s own house. A few moments later, Castor came out of
Basilio’s house to let Dizon in through the gate. It was about this time that the responding On 8 June 1998, the trial court rendered its Decision finding both accused guilty of murder,
police officers arrived at the scene. The victim had been rushed to the hospital immediately. qualified by treachery, to wit:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused CASTOR BATIN and NEIL car for possession of the gun; (2) that Castor did not wrest the gun from him; (3) that Neil did
BATIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER as defined and penalized not enter the compound to put bullets in the gun; (4) that Castor did not order Neil to shoot
under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended, and they are hereby each sentenced to suffer Eugenio; and (5) that Castor was not drunk and challenging others to a fight.
reclusion perpetua; and ordered to pay the heirs of EUGENIO REFUGIO, through his wife,
JOSEPHINE REFUGIO, as follows: As stated above, Castor has already discarded Neil’s theory of accidental shooting and, instead,
focuses on distancing himself from the act of Neil in shooting Eugenio Refugio. Castor’s
1] ₱50,000.00, as death indemnity; principal defense in this appeal is that the conviction of a person as a principal by inducement
2] ₱61,500.00, as actual damages; requires (1) that the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the
3] ₱500,000.00, as moral damages; crime; and (2) that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material
4] ₱307,920.00, as indemnity for lost of earning capacity; and executor.19
5] The costs of suit.14
Castor claims that there is no conclusive proof that he participated in the shooting, and that
Neil and Castor Batin filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. However, on 13 November "(h)is alleged utterance of the words ‘Sige, banatan mo na’" cannot be considered as the moving
2000, accused Neil Batin filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal. The People interposed cause of the shooting. According to Castor, if he had wanted his son to shoot Eusebio Refugio,
no objection to the Motion, which was granted. he would not have shouted "Huwag" and struggled for possession of the gun.

On 6 February 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision affirming, with We are not persuaded.
modification, the Decision of the trial court, to wit:
First of all, the theory presented by the prosecution in both the Information and in their
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon arguments before the courts is not Castor’s being a principal by inducement, but rather his being
City, Metro Manila in Criminal Case No. Q-95-61003 is hereby AFFIRMED with a co-conspirator. If conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all. As stated above, the
MODIFICATION as to civil liabilities. With the exception of the award of moral damages widow, Josephine Refugio, and the neighbors -- Eusebio Farrales and Vilma Juadinez
which is reduced to ₱100,000.00 and the indemnity for loss of earning capacity which is Rodriguez -- testified to the fact that Castor handed the gun to Neil and urged the latter to fire at
increased to ₱723,840.00, the awards for death indemnity and actual damages are retained.15 the Refugio spouses. The trial court, whose assessment of the credibility of witnesses deserves
great respect, since it had the important opportunity to observe first-hand the expression and
Castor Batin now comes before this Court, assigning the following errors: demeanor of the witnesses at the trial,20 found these witnesses credible, thus:

I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY From its careful and thorough evaluation of the record, the Court finds that Castor and Neil
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE conspired in shooting Eugenio. This finding is inexorable because the testimonies of the
DOUBT AS PRINCIPAL FOR INDUCEMENT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED. Prosecution witnesses – that Castor returned the gun back to Neil; that he instigated Neil to
shoot by shouting: "Sige, banatan mo na"; and that Neil then fired his gun twice – were credible
II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY and sufficed to prove Castor’s indispensable cooperation in the killing of Eugenio. Accordingly,
ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TRACHERY.16 Castor was as much liable criminally for the death of Eugenio as Neil, the direct participant in
the killing, was.
Castor Batin prays that the Decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside and a
new one entered acquitting him of the crime charged. In the alternative, he prays that he be held The reliability of witnesses Farrales and Rodriguez, for one, cannot be doubted. Being the
liable for the crime of homicide only, arguing that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was neighbors of both the Batins and the Refugios, their claim of witnessing the events that
not sufficiently stated in the Information. culminated into the shooting of Eugenio was unassailable. The accused, in fact, could not
provide any reason or motive for them to testify against the Batins unless it was upon the
Whether there was conspiracy in the killing of Eugenio Refugio truth.21

It is evident from Castor’s Supplemental Brief and all his other issuances after the withdrawal While Castor was indeed heard to have shouted "Huwag," this cannot be considered as reliable
of Neil’s appeal that he had already discarded Neil’s theory of accidental shooting. Instead, his evidence that he tried to dissuade Neil from firing the gun. It was established by credible
arguments are geared toward his distancing himself from the act of Neil in shooting Eugenio testimony that he handed back the gun to Neil and urged him to shoot the Refugio spouses.
Refugio. Josephine Refugio plainly stated on cross-examination that Castor shouted "Huwag" while
inside the car grappling for possession of the gun, and not when Neil was aiming the gun at the
We cannot, however, dispose of the discussion of Neil’s theory of accidental shooting. As spouses. Thus:
Neil’s testimony had been the only evidence presented by the defense to rebut the prosecution’s
evidence concerning the acts of Castor during the incident, we should carefully scrutinize Neil’s (Atty. Siobal Cross-examining)
testimony to determine his credibility.
Q The second time around that you saw him was when he moved towards the right rear of the
Neil claims that while his back was still turned against the Refugios, he suddenly felt the car?
impulse to draw the gun from his waistline. He drew the gun, turned around with the gun in
hand, and accidentally fired it twice without aiming it at anyone. A I did not remove my sight at Neil Batin as he moved towards this car, sir.

As held by the trial court, this account is plainly far-fetched and incredible. As observed by the Q Also, without moving your glance or gaze at Neil Batin, you saw him proceed to the right
trial court, rear portion of the car and open the right rear door of said car, is it not?

The revolver involved herein was a mechanical firearm which belonged to the so-called double- A Yes, sir.
action type of guns. This type has a firing mechanism which permits two methods of firing – the
first is by manually cocking or retracting the hammer and then pressing the trigger to release the Q And without also removing your gaze or sight at Neil Batin, you saw him open and get a gun
hammer; the second is by applying continuous pressure on the trigger in order to cock the inside the car?
hammer and then releasing the trigger. The drop of the hammer by either method propels the
firing pin forward so that its other end strikes the primer cap to explode the propellant charge A I saw Neil Batin opened the right rear door, as if he is putting all his body inside the car,
inside the shell which then forces out the bullet through the gun barrel. From the nature of the when Mang Boy took hold of Neil, they were grappling for possession of the gun, and raised it
firing mechanism of Exhibit O, and there being no evidence showing that the hammer was above, and that was the time when my husband saw the gun raised, and I also saw the gun.
manually cocked before the gun fired, it was absolutely physically impossible for the gun to fire
accidentally. Court

In order to determine for himself how much pressure was necessary to cock the hammer into So they were both inside the car, their arms were both inside the car and the gun was inside the
firing position, the undersigned presiding judge personally tested the trigger pull of Exhibit O. car when you and your husband saw this particular scene?
Even assuming that the passage of time from the date of the shooting caused some change on
the efficiency of the firing mechanism, such change can only show up by way of a weakening A Yes, your Honor.
of the hammer spring. Nonetheless, it was not surprising for the undersigned presiding judge to
find heavy resistance at each trigger pull, such that he exerted some force to cock the hammer. Atty. Siobal
This actual testing easily validated the conclusion that firing the gun accidentally and
unintentionally was impossible.17 So you saw Castor Batin and Neil Batin grappling for the gun when they were inside the car?

Neil’s claim that he accidentally fired the gun twice in quick succession is, thus, even more A Yes, sir, and then Castor Batin shouted "huwag."
incredible. Given the difficulty of pulling the trigger to cock the hammer into firing position, it
is inconceivable how the gun could have been fired by Neil twice in quick succession except by Q And at that time they were grappling for the gun inside the car and Castor Batin shouted
a deliberate and intentional pulling of the trigger. "huwag," after that, you and your husband saw the gun atop the roof of the car, is that what you
want to convey to the Court?
Given the physical attributes and condition of the gun involved in the case at bar, the testimony
of Eusebio Farrales is likewise observed to be much more credible than that of Neil. Whereas A The gun was still inside the car, only we saw it through the glass window, sir.
Neil claims that he accidentally fired the gun twice using only one hand, Eusebio Farrales
testified that Neil fired at the Refugios while holding the gun with both hands and from a Q And what happened after that?
standing position.
A Neil Batin got out of the car, followed by Castor Batin and then Castor gave the gun to Neil,
While the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact and after receiving the gun, Neil placed the gun at his waist, sir.
rarely applied in modern jurisprudence,18 Neil’s credibility has been severely tarnished by the
foregoing portion of his testimony. Thus, we should likewise take with a grain of salt the Q You said Neil Batin got out of the car ahead of Castor Batin, where did Neil Batin go or
following parts of his testimony which tend to refute the account of the prosecution concerning proceed, to what direction?
the acts of Castor during the incident: (1) that Neil and Castor did not grapple inside the Datsun
A He proceeded to that place labeled as Exhibit G-7, sir. concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient
to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as
Q And you said Castor Batin followed Neil Batin to the place where he proceeded here at its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
Exhibit G-7?
Pertinently, we have held in Balitaan v. Court of First Instance of Batangas29 that the main
A Yes, sir. purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set forth in an Information is to
enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent
Q Of course, when Neil Batin got out of the car ahead, his back, he must have turned his back knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. We added in said case that
from you?
[I]t is often difficult to say what is a matter of evidence, as distinguished from facts necessary to
A He was sidewise in relation to me, sir. be stated in order to render the information sufficiently certain to identify the offense. As a
general rule, matters of evidence, as distinguished from facts essential to the description of the
Q How about Castor Batin, when he got out of the car, he must have turned his back from you? offense, need not be averred. For instance, it is not necessary to show on the face of an
information for forgery in what manner a person is to be defrauded, as that is a matter of
A Yes, sir. evidence at the trial.

Q And where was Castor Batin facing when you said he gave the gun to Neil Batin? We hold that the allegation of treachery in the Information is sufficient. Jurisprudence is replete
with cases wherein we found the allegation of treachery sufficient without any further
A He was facing Neil, sir.22 explanation as to the circumstances surrounding it. Here are some of the cases:

As concluded by the trial court, the circumstances surrounding Castor’s utterance of "Huwag!" In People v. Lab-eo,30 Wilson Lab-eo was indicted for murder under the following
shows beyond doubt that Castor shouted the same, not to stop Neil from firing the gun, but to Information:
force him to leave the use of the gun to Castor. These circumstances only confirm the
conspiracy between the Batins in committing the crime: after the Batins grappled for the gun That on or about October 21, 1996, at the Barangay Hall, Poblacion, Tadian, Mountain
and Castor shouted "Huwag," Castor finally decided to give the gun to Neil – a crystal-clear Province, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with
expression of the agreement of the Batins concerning the commission of a felony. intent to kill and with the use of a sharp knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault, strike and stab Segundina Cay-no with a well-honed and pointed
Conspiracy may also be deduced from the acts of the appellants before, during, and after the knife and thereby inflicting a mortal stab wound upon the victim as reflected in that medico-
commission of the crime which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and legal certificate, to wit:
concurrence of sentiments.23 Prosecution witnesses Josephine Refugio and Eusebio Farrales
positively indicated in their testimonies that prior to the shooting of Eugenio Refugio, Castor Stab wound infrascapular area left, penetrating with massive hemathorax, which caused the
was drunk, was openly challenging others to a fight, and was uttering angry words. It was at this death of the victim thereafter.
juncture that witnesses saw Neil retrieve his gun from the parked car, after which Castor
grabbed the gun from his son, grappled with it, returned it to his son, and ordered the latter to That the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, abuse of superior
shoot the Refugios. strength and craft attended the commission of the offense.

Secondly, even if we pursue the theory that the defense is trying to stir us to, the results would The accused in this case argued that the Information above, while captioned as "Murder," only
be the same. Castor’s argument is that "(h)is alleged utterance of the words ‘Sige, banatan mo charged him with homicide as written. This Court found nothing wrong with the Information,
na’ cannot be considered as the moving cause of the shooting and, therefore, he cannot be and ruled that the Information sufficiently charged the accused with murder, not even
considered a principal by inducement. considering the absence of an explanation of the treachery stated therein, thus:

Inducement may be by acts of command, advice or through influence or agreement for The fact that the qualifying circumstances were recited in the second paragraph and not in the
consideration. The words of advice or the influence must have actually moved the hands of the first paragraph of the Information, as commonly done, is a matter of form or style for which the
principal by direct participation. We have held that words of command of a father may induce prosecution should not be faulted. That the Provincial Prosecutor decided to write the
his son to commit a crime. In People v. Tamayo,24 we held that the moral influence of the Information differently did not impair its sufficiency. Nothing in the law prohibits the
words of the father may determine the course of conduct of a son in cases in which the same prosecutor from adopting such a form or style. As long as the requirements of the law are
words coming from a stranger would make no impression. observed, the Information will pass judicial scrutiny.

There is no doubt in our minds that Castor’s words were the determining cause of the The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a person of common understanding
commission of the crime. As stated above, Vilma Juadines Rodriguez testified that the eighteen- to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. The rule is that
year-old Neil Batin asked his father before shooting: "Tay, banatan ko na?" Neil Batin was qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the
clearly seeking the consent of his father before proceeding with the act, and it was Castor’s accused’s constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
words "Sige, banatan mo na"25 that sealed Eugenio Refugio’s fate. against him. The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding
surprises during the trial. Significantly, the appellant never claimed that he was deprived of his
Whether treachery was specifically alleged in the Information right to be fully apprised of the nature of the charges against him because of the style or form
adopted in the Information.31
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure This Court went on to affirm the conviction of the accused therein with murder qualified by
its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might treachery.
make.26
The allegation in the Information of treachery as a qualifying circumstance was similarly
According to the trial court, treachery was attendant in the killing of Eugenio because Castor assailed in People v. Opuran,32 wherein the charge was as follows:
ordered Neil to fire at Eugenio after they clearly saw that he was still leaning against the mango
tree and being restrained by Josephine who had her arms on his shoulders. Thereby, "the Criminal Case No. 4693
accused insured their safety from any defensive or retaliatory act of Eugenio who, in that
position of helplessness and unpreparedness, obviously had no opportunity to defend himself or That on or about November 19, 1998, at nighttime, at Km. 1, South Road, Municipality of
to retaliate even if he wanted to. The accused thus consciously used the firearm to assault from Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
a distance, all the more to enhance the chances of killing the victim without risk to said accused, with deliberate intent to kill and treachery, did, then and there willfully,
themselves."27 unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr., with the use of a
bladed weapon (5" long from tip to handle with scabbard), thereby inflicting upon the victim
Castor does not refute the above findings of the trial court that treachery was sufficiently proven fatal stab wounds on the back of his body, which wounds resulted to his instantaneous death.
during the trial. All that Castor claims before us is that the qualifying circumstance of treachery
was not specifically alleged in the Information. The Information filed against the Batins states All contrary to law, and with attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery.
that "the accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, did,
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, with treachery, taking This Court again rejected the argument of the defense by finding the allegation of treachery
advantage of superior strength, and with evident premeditation, attack, assault and employ sufficient, and later on finding the accused therein guilty of murder qualified by treachery:
personal violence upon the person of one EUGENIO REFUGIO y ZOSA, by then and there
shooting him with a handgun, hitting him on the right side of his stomach, thereby inflicting We do not find merit in appellant’s contention that he cannot be convicted of murder for the
upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death of Demetrio, Jr. because treachery was not alleged with "specificity" as a qualifying
untimely death."28 Castor claims that this charge does not allege the specific treacherous acts of circumstance in the information. Such contention is belied by the information itself, which
the accused. According to Castor, the allegation therein that the accused "with treachery x x x, alleged: "All contrary to law, and with the attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery." In
attack, assault and employ personal violence" is a mere conclusion of law by the one who any event, even after the recent amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, qualifying
drafted the said Information. Hence, it did not satisfy the test of sufficiency of Information as circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as qualifying or qualified by to
provided in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. properly qualify an offense.33

Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 provides: Finally, the following constitutes the Information in People v. Bajar34 :

SEC. 8. Designation of the offense.—The complaint or information shall state the designation That on or about the 16th day of August 1999, at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening, at sitio
of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and Mohon, Barangay Mambayaan, Municipality of Balingasag, Province of Misamis Oriental,
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. named accused, then armed with a sharp bolo, with intent to kill, and with evident
premeditation, and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one
SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation.—The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the 85 year old Aquilio Tiwanak, accused’s father-in-law, hitting him on the different parts of his
offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
body, which caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Aquilio
Tiwanak in such amounts as may be allowed by law. CERTIFICATION

The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, taking advantage of superior strength, disregard of Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
the respect due the victim on account of his age, habitual intoxication and relationship attended Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
the commission of the crime. consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

CONTRARY to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation [to] Article 14, paragraph 3 CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
and 15, and Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. Acting Chief Justice

Like in the previous two cases, this Court found the Information to have sufficiently alleged
treachery as a qualifying circumstance. Evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the information
because these are matters of defense. Informations need only state the ultimate facts; the reasons
therefor could be proved during the trial.35

Whether the civil liabilities of the accused were correctly awarded by the lower courts

The trial court ordered the accused, Neil and Castor Batin, to pay the heirs of Eugenio Refugio
in the following amounts:

1) ₱50,000.00, as death indemnity;

2) ₱61,500.00, as actual damages;

3) ₱500,000.00, as moral damages;

4) ₱307,920.00, as indemnity for loss of earning capacity; and

5) the costs of suit.36

Jurisprudence pegs the death indemnity in the above amount (₱50,000.00) pursuant to the
current judicial policy on the matter. No proof thereof is required. The ₱61,500.00 in actual
damages consists of the expenses incurred by the family of Eugenio Refugio, which Josephine
Refugio testified to and was summarized in Exhibit H:37 (1) ₱25,000.00 for medicines, surgery
and other expenses for the hospitalization and emergency treatment;38 (2) ₱20,000.00 for
funeral expenses, inclusive of the costs of coffin, funeral services, and expenses during the
wake;39 and (3) ₱6,500.00 as for burial expenses.

The Court of Appeals also modified the trial court’s computation of the indemnity for loss of
earning capacity. The trial court, finding the work of Eugenio Refugio to be hazardous, reduced
his life expectancy to 20 years.

This modification is in accord with our ruling in Pleyto v. Lomboy.40 Pleyto offers the
following computation for the award for loss of earning capacity:

Net Earning = 2/3 x (80 – Age at x (Gross Annual

Capacity time of death) Income – Reasonable

& Necessary Living

Expenses)

Eugenio Refugio, who was 31 years old at the time of his death, had a daily income of ₱145.00.
The Court of Appeals multiplied this amount by 26 working days to get Eugenio Refugio’s
monthly income of ₱3,770.00. The Court of Appeals thus applied the Pleyto formula as follows:

Net Earning = 2/3 x (80 – 31) x [(₱3770 x 12) – (₱3770 x 12)]

Capacity

Net Earning = 2/3 x (49) x [(₱45,240) – (₱22,620)]

Capacity

Net Earning = 32 x [₱22,620]

Capacity

Net Earning = ₱723,84041

Capacity

Lastly, the Court of Appeals found the award of ₱500,000.00 as moral damages to be excessive,
and instead fixed the amount at ₱100,000.00. In accord with prevailing jurisprudence, however,
we further reduce this amount to ₱50,000.00.42

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the
conviction of accused-appellant Castor Batin for murder is AFFIRMED with FURTHER
MODIFICATION as to the amount of the moral damages, which is hereby reduced to
₱50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Acting Chief Justice
Chairperson

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Associate Justice RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice