People vs Pamaril and Osotio (2000)

G.R. Nos. 128056-57

EN BANC

KAPUNAN, J.:

Ignacio, the tricycle driver of Aquino, was hired by Cruz, Pamaril and Osotio.
However, when they reached Brgy. Camanokan they told the victim that they
will take the tricycle from him but victim Ignacio resisted, so they mauled the
Ignacio, shot him to death with a .38 caliber gun. Pamaril and Osotio then
proceeded to Isabela to wait for Cruz and proceeded with the plan to sell the
stolen motor vehicle. Meanwhile, Cruz was already apprehended by police
officers who saw him suspiciously using his legs to stop the vehicle instead of
using the motor brakes. Cruz admitted that they stole the motor vehicle and
agreed to point Pamaril and Osotio who were waiting for him in Isabela. Pamaril
was apprehended but Osotio escaped. Two separate crimes of Murder and
Carnapping were filed against them. The information for murder, however, did
not include the qualifying circumstance of "advantage of superior strength" and
the information for carnapping did not allege that the driver was killed in the
course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. During
the trial, the Solicitor General, citing the Mejia case, said that the accused
should be convicted of qualified carnapping, instead of two separate crimes of
murder and carnapping. The trial court convicted them for the crime of Murder
qualified by abuse of superior strength and separate crime of carnapping.

Issue: WON the accused is liable for Murder.

Ruling: No, they are liable of homicide.

Xxx the qualifying circumstance of "advantage of superior strength" was not

included in the information. Consequently, the same cannot be used to qualify
the killing to murder. Nonetheless, if proven during trial, said circumstance may
be treated as generic aggravating to be considered in the imposition of the
penalty.

Sub Issue: WON the crime of homicide should be absorbed by carnapping.

Ruling: No.

Unlike in Mejia, the information for carnapping in the case at bar does not allege
that the driver was killed in the course of the commission of the carnapping or
on the occasion thereof. The information here only charged accused-appellants
with carnapping under the second clause of Section 14, that is, the carnapping
was allegedly committed "by means of force and violence."

To convict them under the last clause of Section 14 would violate their right to
be informed of the nature of the charges against them. xxx the accused-
appellants herein can only be convicted of, and penalized for, the crimes with
which they were charged or those necessarily included therein.