Facts:
Jonie Pilen was charged with three counts of murder, eight counts of frustrated murder and two counts of Attempted murder. On Pilen’s defense, he stated that he was forced to sniff a shiny rolled object and drink what his friends gave to him. He lost consciousness thereafter and woke up inside a detention cell.
The RTC convicted him on all charges. Aggrieved, Pilen elevated the case before the CA. The CA found Pilen's appeal to be partly meritorious. The Court held that, except for the case of Leslie Ann where treachery qualified the killing to Murder, Pilen could only be convicted of Homicide in the other cases because the Information filed against him failed to specifically aver the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Additionally, the CA also did not find merit in Pilen' s defense of insanity.
In this regard, Pilen was found guilty of committing Murder only against Leslie Ann, and was convicted of Homicide against Princess and Maria; Frustrated Homicide against Aiza, Wenefredo, Roger, Love Joy, and Genara, and attempted Homicide against Georgia, Jolito, Maximo, Zenaida, and April Rose.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the conviction of Pilen.
Ruling:
Yes, the Court affirms the conviction of Pilen for the crime of Homicide, not murder, except for the case of Leslie Ann. For an accused to be convicted of Murder, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned .in Art. 248 of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Jurisprudence dictates that qualifying circumstances must be sufficiently pleaded in the Information in order to not violate the accused's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him.
Here, it is conceded that the Informations against Pilen are defective given that they failed to specify the particular acts and circumstances that would constitute the qualifying circumstance of treachery or evident premeditation. However, it is nevertheless submitted that Pilen is deemed to have waived this defect, considering his failure to avail of the proper procedural remedies (motion to quash/motion for bill of particulars).
Pilen 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. Since Pilen is considered to have waived his right to question the defective statemen; of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, treachery or evident premeditation may be appreciated against him if proven during trial.
Furthermore, Leslie Ann was only about a year old when she was brutally hacked several times by Pilen. Jurisprudence teaches that the mere allegation of the victim's minority is sufficient to qualify the crime to Murder. The killing of a child is characterized by treachery regardless of whether the manner of the assault is shown in the Information, as the weakness of the victim due to his or her tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused.
Both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of Leslie Ann, especially considering that she was only a helpless baby who had no way of defending herself.
As to his neighbor victims, a scrutiny of the facts on record indicates that the prosecution failed to prove that the above-stated conditions were present to qualify the senseless killings and attacks done by Pilen, either by treachery or by evident premeditation, to Murder. Here, there is no showing that Pilen made any preparation to kill his victims in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or render it impossible or hard for the person attacked to resort to self-defense or retaliation. Therefore, with the removal of the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, the crime committed by Pilen is Homicide, not Murder.
As to the other victims, In the case at bar, there is no doubt that for the cases of Princess and Maria, Pilen consummated the crime of Homicide, having successfully completed all the elements necessary for its execution. Both Princess and Maria succumbed to their deaths because of the stab wounds they suffered from Pilen's attacks.
Meanwhile, for the cases of Roger, Wenefredo, Genara, Love Joy, Jolito, April Rose, and Aiza, the Court finds that the crime committed was Frustrated Homicide. It was sufficiently shown that, were it not for the timely medical assistance extended to them, the victims would not have survived such fatal wounds.
For the cases of Georgia and Zenaida, the doctors that attended to them testified that their wounds were not fatal and that they would have survived even without medical intervention. For this reason, the crime committed against them was only Attempted Homicide.
Lastly, for the case of Maximo, the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove that the victim would have died from his wound without timely medical assistance, as his medical certificate85 alone, absent the testimony of the physician who diagnosed and treated him, or any physician for that matter, is insufficient proof of the nature and extent of his injury. It is settled that, "where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be fatal if not medically. attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful" then such doubt', should be resolved in favor of the accused. Thus, the crime committed against Maximo was Attempted Homicide.
DEFENSE OF INSANITY
When an accused claims insanity, he or she admits the commission of the criminal act but seeks exemption from criminal liability because of the lack of voluntariness or intelligence. In the case at bar, the defense failed to satisfy the tests ( (1) insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime; (2), insanity, which is the primary cause of the criminal act, must be medically proven; and, (3) the effect of the insanity is the inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act.)
Pilen's claim of insanity was self-serving, unsubstantiated, and wanting in material proof. Apart from his own statement that he had no recollection of what transpired at the time of the incident, Pilen did not provide any other witness testimony or evidence which would prove that he was completely deprived of intelligence or reason at the time of the commission of the crime.
An accused whose mental condition is under scrutiny cannot competently testify on their state of insanity. An insane person would naturally have no understanding or recollection of their actions and behavioral patterns. They would have to rely on hearsay evidence to prove their claims as to what actually happened.
Moreover, there was no expert witness presented by the defense to testify on the mental state of the accused from a medical standpoint. While testimonies from medical experts are not absolutely indispensable in cases involving the insanity defense, their observation of the accused are considered to be more accurate and authoritative in determining an accused's mental state.