9. Edgardo Herrera and Redentor Mariano v.

Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines

G.R. Nos. 119660-61
February 13, 2009
Sec. 7, Rule 117
Aira Marie M. Andal

FACTS:

Pat. Edgardo Herrera and Pat. Redentor Mariano, together with Pat. Roberto Barrera and
Pat. Rodolfo Alcalde, all members of the Paranaque Police Station, were charged with 2 counts of
murder, for killing Shi Shu Yang and George Go, before the Sandiganbayan (SB).
(NOTE: The other two accused, Barrera and Alcalde, did not file any more pleading after
they were convicted thats why they are not part of the case.)
The two original Informations, both dated December 4, 1990, against Herrera and
Mariano alleged that: On December 28, 1989 in Paranaque, Herrera and Mariano who were then
public officers, being then members of the Paranaque Police Force, armed with guns, and
conspiring, confederating, mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill and with
treachery and by taking advantage of their public positions as members of the Paranaque Police
Force, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shoot Shi Shu Yang and George Go on different
parts of his body, thereby inflicting serious mortal wounds upon the victim thereby inflicting
serious and mortal wounds upon the victim which were the direct and immediate cause of his
death. (One Information for each victim)
During the arraignment, Herrera and Mariano pleaded not guilty. They also filed a Joint
Petition for Bail and raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction for failure of the prosecution to allege
in the Information that they committed the crimes in relation to their office.
HOWEVER, on the same day, Sandiganbayan ordered the amendment of the
Informations and stated that the evidence adduced during the pre-trial of the case and the hearing
on the petition of the bail shall be deemed automatically reproduced as evidence during the trial
of the case on the merits.
The amended Informations, both dated July 15, 1992, alleged that: On December 28,
1989 in Paranaque, Herrera and Mariano who were then public officers, being then members of
the Paranaque Police Force, armed with guns, and conspiring, confederating, mutually helping
and aiding one another, committing the offense in relation to their public position or office,
with intent to kill and with treachery and by taking advantage of their public positions as
members of the Paranaque Police Force, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shoot Shi Shu
Yang and George Go on different parts of his body, thereby inflicting serious mortal wounds
upon the victim thereby inflicting serious and mortal wounds upon the victim which were the
direct and immediate cause of his death. (Again, one Info per victim)
Herrera and Mariano were arraigned anew on September 1992, and both entered their
pleas of not guilty. They also withdrew their prior objections to the issue of lack of jurisdiction of
the SB.
During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated that Herrera and Mariano were public officers
at the time of the commission of the crimes and thus the cases were consolidated and a joint trial
on merits ensued.
According to the prosecution, this is basically what happened:
The police officers were lighting firecrackers near Chow Chow which is the restaurant
owned by Go, and when Go came down with his pistol, he was apprehended by Pat. Barrera who
introduced himself as a policeman, asked for the license of the .45 caliber pistol, and told Go that
he will bring the firearm to the police station for verification. Barrera ordered Go and his
Taiwanese friend Shi Shu to board their jeepney. (In short, kinda like entrapment/ instigation)
The police officers also ordered the Go and Yang to undergo medical examination and thus they
were taken to the Paranaque Community Hospital (PCH). Thereafter, Go and Yang were brought
to Timothy Street, Multinational Village where they were killed.
They presented many witnesses and testimonies such as (1) Reynaldo Ong, the manager
of Chow Chow; (2) Edna Go, wife of Go; (3) Winterhalter, a foreigner who witnessed the killing
using a pair of binoculars (woah); (4) Dr. Garcia who conducted the autopsy important
details: Go sustained 8 fatal gunshot wounds and has blood type B, Yang sustained 3 gunshot
wounds and has blood type A; (5) Forensic Chemist of NBI who reported that the victims never
fired a gun based on a paraffin test.
The defense on the other hand claims that Herrera and Mariano were just assisting
Barrera in bringing some persons for medical examination. Prior to the shooting incident, they
were informed that George Go was previously arrested by Barrera for illegal possession of
firearm. They brought Go and Yang to the PCH and on the way back to the police station, they
heard a struggle ensue at the back of the patrol van as Alcalde said, George, bitawan mo ang
baril ko. And then they heard successive shots. When they looked back, they saw Go grappling
for the possession of a firearm (later on, they said it was an armalite) with Alcalde, they stopped
the car and alighted to pacify the trouble but alas there were more shots and they found Go and
Young bloodied. (Basically, Herrera and Mariano testified individually but they said almost the
same things.) The defense also presented Dr. Solivens findings that Go was positive for alcohol
and that Go had no signs of physical injuries.
What really happened: Mariano parked the patrol van along Timothy Street which was a
practically deserted area, isolated from traffic and pedestrians. Alcalde, Barrera, and petitioner
Herrera brought out the two handcuffed victims from the back portion of the patrol van in order
to eventually salvage them. Petitioner Mariano appeared to be faking an alleged interrogation and
was trying to get the name of Shi Shu Yang, whose identity was then not yet immediately known.
Later, petitioner Mariano also participated in shooting at the unarmed victims.
The SB convicted Herrera and Mariano each for 2 counts of murder, and denied
petitioners Joint Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, Herrera and Mariano filed a petition for
review on certiorari.

ISSUES:
1. W/N H&Ms conviction will place them in double jeopardy

HELD/RATIO:
1. NO, the rule on double jeopardy does NOT apply.
H&M insist that SB erred in convicting H&M for the crime of murder under the amended
Informations as they had earlier been arraigned under the original Informations for murder and
their arraignment under the amended Informations placed them in double jeopardy. HOWEVER,
the SC found this argument untenable.
SB ordered the amendment of the Informations and made it of record that the evidence
adduced during the pre-trial of the case and the hearing on the petition for bail shall be deemed
automatically reproduced as evidence during the trial of the case on the merits. Double jeopardy
did not attach by virtue of petitioners plea of not guilty under the amended information. For a
claim of double jeopardy to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there is a complaint
or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2)
the same is filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) there is a valid arraignment or plea
to the charges; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is otherwise dismissed or
terminated without his express consent.
In the present case, H&M pleaded not guilty to the two original Informations for the
crimes of murder. Thereafter, in their Joint Petition for Bail, H&M raised the issue of lack of
jurisdiction on the ground that the prosecution failed to allege in the information that the crimes
were committed in relation to their office. On the same day, public respondent ordered the
amendment of the Informations accordingly. Thus, the first requirement for double jeopardy to
attach, i.e., that the Informations against the petitioners were valid, has not been complied with.
Likewise, the fourth element was lacking. H&M cannot be validly convicted on the basis of the
original Informations as the prosecution failed to allege in the Informations that the crimes were
committed in relation to their office. Thus, petitioners were not placed in danger of being
convicted when they entered their pleas of not guilty to the two original Informations which were
insufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction. There was also no dismissal or
termination of the cases.
Furthermore, it was well-within the power of SB to order the amendment of the two
original Informations. Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states that if
the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or Information which can
be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made. If it is based on
the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by
the court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the
prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or Information still suffers from the
same defect despite the amendment.

There were also issues about:

(1) Conducting further cross-examinations H&M were not deprived of the opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses against them
(2) Credibility of the foreigner Winterhalter has no reason to falsely implicate H&M
(3) Self-defense a person invoking self-defense still in effect admits that he has killed the
victim, and burden is shifted on him to prove the essential elements of self-defense so that he
can use it as a justifying circumstance
(4) Absence of evidence of conspiracy in the commission of the crime can be inferred from
the acts of the accused
(5) Presumption of regularity requisites of this defense are not established
(6) Guilt beyond reasonable doubt murder is sufficiently established as the killing was
attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery as frontal attack can be treacherous
when sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed
(7) Civil indemnity award of damages are awarded to the heirs

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Sandiganbayans Decision finding petitioners
Pat. Edgardo Herrera y Baltoribio and Pat. Redentor Mariano y Antonio guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as co-principals for two (2) counts of murder, for the killing of Shi Shu Yang
and George Go y Tan, and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
with the accessory penalties of civil interdiction during the time of their sentence and perpetual
absolute disqualification for public office is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that
petitioners are ORDERED to pay the heirs of Shi Shu Yang and George Go y Tan each in the
amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary
damages. Petitioners are further ORDERED to pay the heirs of George Go y Tan the amount of
P11,500 for actual damages and P1,433,418 in the form of unrealized earnings and income.