You are on page 1of 2

People v.

Tigle
G.R. No. 147667. January 21, 2004

FACTS:

Version of the prosecution: Luisa Lapera (Luisa) went to the house of Catalina Clarin (Clarin) to buy cigarettes. At
the same time, Resty Tigle (Tigle) was drinking beer with two of Clarins sons on the porch. After Clarin sold the
cigarettes to Luisa, she went inside the house to pray the rosary. After a while, Luisa heard the sound of falling
object outside. Because of this, she went out and saw bloodied faced Tigle with a bolo. Tigle told Luisa to ignore the
situation. Clarin went inside the house to wake up her husband, but when she looked out Tigle and Luisa were gone.

Version of the defense: Luisa went to the house of Clarin to buy cigarettes. At the same time, Tigle was drinking
beer with two of Clarins sons on the porch. When Tigle came out from the kitchen and was on the mouth of the
stairway when Luisa suddenly struck him on the left eyebrow with an empty beer bottle. Because of this, his left
eyebrow was wounded, thus the bloodied face. After this, Tigle saw a bolo under a bench, took it, and stabbed Luisa.
When Clarin saw this, Tigle told her not to involve herself. Tigle then carried Luisas body away from the house.

Tigle was found guilty by the trial court of murder qualified by treachery and attended by the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, and disregard of the age and sex of
the victim. Tigle pleaded not guilty during his arraignment. However, during pre-trial he manifested that he would
like to withdraw his plea of not guilty and replace it with a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide. He
invoked the mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, which the prosecution rejected.

ISSUE: W/N the qualifying and aggravating circumstances have been proven beyond reasonable doubt

HELD: NO. (Tigle was held guilty of homicide, not murder.)

Although the Information alleged treachery and evident premeditation, the Information did not state these
circumstances with specificity as qualifying the crime to murder. According to Sections 8 and 9 [of Rule 110] of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:

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 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.

Citing People v. Rodelio Aquino y Roda, the Court held that:

[S]ections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 merely require that the Information allege, specify or
enumerate the attendant circumstances mentioned in the law to qualify the offense. These
circumstances need not be preceded by the words aggravating/qualifying, qualifying, or
qualified by to be considered as qualifying circumstances. It is sufficient that these
circumstances be specified in the Information to apprise the accused of the charges
against him to enable him to prepare fully for his defense, thus precluding surprises
during the trial.

The Court was not convinced that the qualifying and aggravating circumstances were proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Moreover, the Court subscribed to the statements of the defense witnesses that Luisa struck Tigle with an
empty beer bottle, because the witnesses were found to be credible and the prosecution was not able to rebut the said
statements.

As to treachery: The Court held that this circumstance was not proven, because there is no treachery where the
sudden attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the
part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim.
As to evident premeditation: The Court found the testimony of Saturnino Lapera (Luisas son; saw Tigle in the act
of stealing coconuts and was threatened by the latter not to talk or else his family will be killed) as merely
speculative. Threats to kill do not necessarily prove evident premeditation without a showing that appellant
performed acts indicating that he clung to his determination.
As to abuse of superior strength and disregard of age and sex: The Information did not actually allege these
circumstances. Aggravating circumstances, even if proven during trial, cannot affect Tigles liability when the
Information fails to allege such circumstances. This is pursuant not only to Section 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, but also to an accuseds constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him.

In the end, the Court found no qualifying, aggravating, or mitigating circumstances. Because of this, Tigle was
found guilty of homicide, not murder.

You might also like