PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
BUKA Edon Escobillo, boarded by 15 passengers and as a result thereof,
January 30, 1992 | Davide, Jr., J. | Murder
PLAINTIFF: People of the Philippines
ACCUSED: Lapnayo Buka, Pral Ngay, Angel Pral, Beren Mandong,
Purong Bilaan, John Does
SUMMARY: Buka, Pral, Ngaym Mandong, Bilaan, and 2 John Does
ambushed a weapons carrier with several passengers in tow. The
ambush caused the death of Pamoso and Imarga and caused injuries to
Noquera. Thereafter, three informations were filed against the assailants
which charged them of Murder and Frustrated Murder. The informations
alleged evident premeditation as its qualifying circumstance and band
and disrespect with regard to sex as its generic aggravating circumstance.
The Court, however, modified the crimes from Murder to Homicide. The
evidence was not enough in order for evident premeditation to be
appreciated. While treachery is present in the case, it could not qualify
the crimes to Murder as it is not alleged in the information. Same goes
with the circumstance of aid of armed men.
DOCTRINE: For a circumstance to qualify the crime from homicide to
murder, it must be alleged in the information. Otherwise, it will be only
considered as a generic aggravating circumstance.
NOTE: The information is an important fact of this case. I’ve replicated
the relevant part of it in the facts
FACTS:
• A weapons carrier with several passegers on board was ambushed by
armed men, causing the deaths of Elena Pamoso and Estelita Imarga and
the physical injuries of Felipe Noquera.
• Three separate informations were filed against Buka, Pral, Ngay,
Mandong, and Bilaan.
• The first (and the most important) information reads “xxx armed with
assorted high-powered weapons such as Surit, shotgun rifle, and garand rifle
and with evident premeditation and deliberate intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously ambush, attack, and assault
and shoot with the use of assorted firearms at the weapon carrier of
inflicting and mortally wounding Elena Pamuso which resulted to her
instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LAW, with qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation
and with the generic aggravating circumstance that the act was committed by a
band and with deliberate disregard of the respect due to the offended party on
account of her sex, being a woman.”
• The second charged them with Frustrated Murder in the case of Noquera
on account of the wounds he received which would have ordinarily
caused death, but did not happen due to timely medical intervention.
The same qualifying and aggravating circumstances were alleged except
for the circumstance of disrespect to sex
• The third charged them with Murder in connection with the death of
Estelita Imarga and alleged the same qualifying and aggravating
circumstances.
• Pral and Mandong pleaded not guilty.
• The prosecution submitted evidence which positively identified the
accused as the perpetrators of the ambush.
• The accused gave the defense of alibi.
• The lower court found them both guilty of two counts of Murder and
one count of Frustrated Murder
• The accused appealed to the SC.
ISSUE/s:
WoN the lower court charged the correct crimes - NO
RULING: SC modified the crimes from Murder to Homicide and from
Frustrated Murder to Attempted Homicide
RATIO:
• The trial court, in ruling that Murder was committed in the case of
Pamaso and Imarga and Frustrated Murder in case of Noquera,
considered the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and
treachery.
• For evident premeditation to be present, there must be:
o The time where the offender determined to commit the crime
o An act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his
determination
o Sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution
1
 to allow him to reflect on the consequences of his act.
• The evidence presented failed to to prove the foregoing requisites.
• Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons employing means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.
• While treachery was duly proven against appellants because the ambush
was so sudden and unexpected that the victims were unable to defend
themselves, such circumstance was not alleged in the three informations.
• For treachery to qualify the crime from homicide to murder, it must be
alleged in the information. Otherwise, it will be only considered as a
generic aggravating circumstance. Treachery is therefore only a generic
aggravating circumstance in these cases.
• The informations alleged that the aggravating circumstance of band
attended the commission of the crimes.
• There is a band whenever more than three armed men shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense.
• The information elaborated on this by stating that 7 armed men (5
named accused and 2 John Does) “armed with assorted high-powered
weapons … did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
ambush, attack, assault, and shoot with assorted high-powered
weapons.”
• The prosecution did not intend to make the aggravating circumstance of
aid of armed men as a qualifying circumstance. Otherwise, it would have
expressly alleged it as such. Band absorbed aid of armed men.