People v. Feliciano G.R. No. 196735

 

G.R. No. 196735              

May 5, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR, Accused-appellants.

Facts:

At around 12:30 to 1:00 PM, the victims who were members of Sigma Rho Fraternity were eating lunch at Beach House Canteen, located at the back of the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City. Suddenly, Dennis Venturina shouted, "Brads, brods!". There were men, who were later identified as members of Scintilla Juris Fraternity, charged towards them. The men were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes, and their heads were covered with either handkerchiefs or shirts. Some of the members sustained injuries while Venturina died from the event. He was brought to the UP Infirmary and was later transferred to St. Lukes Hospital where he died.

The defense all provided alibis and presented their own witnesses. Subsequently, the court rendered its decision and held the accused guilty of murder and attempted murder. Through the automatic appeal, they argued that the prosecution should not have included the phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information since they were presenting testimonial evidence that not all the accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell off. They argued that it violates their constitutional right to be informed since it was not explicitly stated in the information.

Issue:

Is there an aggravating circumstance of disguise?

Ruling:

Yes.  The inclusion of the phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information does not violate their constitutional rights.

In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows the accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes.

The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to prove that the accused were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent them from including disguise as an aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused that in the commission of the offense they were being charged with, they tried to conceal their identity.

The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the accused were not wearing masks is also not violative of their right to be informed of their offenses.