FACTS:

The accused, Jerson Dasmariñas and Nino Polo, were charged with murder for the killing of PO2 Marlon Anoya. The information alleged that the accused, without justifiable motive, with intent to kill and with treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation, unlawfully attacked and assaulted the victim by shooting him twice on the head, causing his death. Both accused pleaded not guilty. Witnesses for the prosecution testified on the circumstances surrounding the killing, including the presence of the accused and the manner of the shooting. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the judgment of the trial court finding the accused guilty of murder.

Mrs. Anoya testified that her husband, PO2 Marlon Anoya, was shot and killed by the accused. She witnessed her husband with gunshot wounds when she went to the Funeraria Filipinas with her relatives. Mrs. Anoya incurred expenses for transporting her husband's remains and for the wake in Leyte. She filed a claim for damages amounting to P100,000. Accused Dasmariñas denied the accusation, claiming that he was with his live-in partner, Ms. Pascua, at her house during the time of the incident. Accused Dasmariñas was arrested for another case and only learned about the murder charge when he was brought to the police station. Ms. Pascua testified to confirm her alibi with the accused.

During the trial, the defense presented the accused's sister, Jeanneth Dasmariñas, as a witness. Jeanneth testified that on the evening of the incident, the accused was at home attending to their siblings in Barangay Rivera, San Juan. She stated that their gate was closed in the evening and denied that the accused went to Las Pinas City on that day.

The prosecution presented Asst. City Prosecutor Azares as a rebuttal witness. He testified that he conducted a preliminary investigation regarding the case against the accused and recalled that the accused waived his right to submit a counter-affidavit.

The accused, Jerson Dasmariñas, testified during the trial. He insisted that he did not receive a subpoena for a preliminary investigation and denied his signature on the minutes of the investigation conducted by Prosecutor Azares. He presented a Certificate of Detention to prove that he was detained on a different date than the one stated in the investigation minutes.

After the trial, the RTC found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. However, co-accused Nino Polo was acquitted. The RTC also ordered the accused to pay various amounts as compensatory damages, indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim's family.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the civil liability. The CA declared that the accused would not be eligible for parole and revised the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages, and loss of earning capacity.

The accused, Jerson Dasmariñas, appealed the decision, maintaining his innocence. The Court, however, held that while the appeal lacked merit, the conviction for murder could not be upheld. The accused was properly liable only for homicide.

In its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals (CA) observed the arguments presented by the parties. The case involved a dispute over labor issues. The petitioner, a private corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing cigarettes, filed a petition for certiorari against the respondent labor union and the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The petitioner sought to nullify the decision of the Secretary which ordered the petitioner to negotiate and enter into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the respondent labor union. The petitioner claimed that it committed no unfair labor practice and that there was no legal ground to compel it to engage in collective bargaining with the respondent labor union. On the other hand, the respondent labor union argued that the petitioner committed unfair labor practice and sought the enforcement of their right to collective bargaining. The CA considered the arguments of both parties and rendered its decision in favor of the respondent labor union and the Secretary of DOLE.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the out-of-court identification of the accused was tainted with grave infirmities.

2. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Whether the identification process of the suspect was dubious and violated the accused's right to a fair trial.

4. Whether the identification of the accused in this case is free from impermissible suggestions.

5. Whether the killing of the victim was attended by treachery.

6. Whether the designation of the offense in the caption or preamble of the information is material and necessary for the sufficiency of the complaint or information.

7. Whether the information in this case sufficiently informed the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

8. Whether the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.

9. Whether the accused should be convicted of murder or homicide.

10. Whether the respondent judge's refusal to inhibit himself from hearing the case on the grounds of bias constitutes a violation of the petitioner's right to due process.

11. Whether the respondent judge's decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction should be upheld.

RULING:

1. The appeal lacks merit, but the Court holds that the conviction of the accused for murder cannot be upheld. He is properly liable only for homicide.

2. The identification process of the suspect in this case is not dubious and does not violate the accused's right to a fair trial. The identification of the accused by the eyewitness was based on a description given by the witness and a cartographic sketch prepared by the police. The identification at the Quezon City Jail was only for confirmation and the witness was behind a tinted glass at the time. Therefore, the identification is free from impermissible suggestions.

3. The out-of-court identification of the accused did not result from any impermissible suggestion by the police or other external source. The eyewitness witnessed the crime from a short distance and repeated the identification in court during the trial. The reliability of the identification was based on the proximity of the witness to the crime scene and the adequate illumination at the time.

4. The killing of the victim was not attended by treachery. The information did not sufficiently aver the acts constitutive of treachery. The mere use of the term treachery in the information, without further factual averments, did not suffice. The rule applicable at the time of filing required that the acts constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language to enable a person of common understanding to know the offense being charged.

5. The designation of the offense in the caption or preamble of the information is immaterial and unnecessary. The facts alleged in the body of the information, not the technical name given by the prosecutor, determine the character of the crime. The accused's attention should be directed to the facts alleged and whether he performed the acts alleged in the manner stated. The name of the crime is determined by the law and is not crucial for the protection of the accused's substantial rights. The court alone has the power to determine the name or nature of the crime.

6. The information in this case did not sufficiently inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To be sufficient, a complaint or information must state the name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. The description of the crime charged and the particular facts must enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to pronounce the proper judgment. The information must accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged.

7. The information did not make any factual averment on how the accused deliberately employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the act. Merely stating that treachery was attendant is not enough because it is a conclusion of law. Consequently, the accused could not be convicted of murder but only of homicide.

8. The accused is convicted of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The indeterminate sentence is nine years of prision mayor as the minimum, to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as the maximum.

9. Yes, the respondent judge's refusal to inhibit himself from hearing the case on the grounds of bias constitutes a violation of the petitioner's right to due process. The judge's conduct in openly showing bias against the petitioner creates a reasonable doubt as to his impartiality, which undermines the public's confidence in the fairness of the proceedings.

10. No, the respondent judge's decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction should not be upheld. The jurisdictional issue raised by the respondent judge was a mere afterthought and was not properly substantiated by the evidence presented. The judge's dismissal of the case shows a disregard for established legal principles and procedures.

PRINCIPLES:

• The identification procedure conducted by the police officers must not be seriously flawed and must not violate the right to due process of the accused.

• The totality of circumstances must be considered in assessing the admissibility of an out-of-court identification.

• The failure to prove the physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission weakens the defense of alibi.

• The credibility of a witness who is not a disinterested witness may be questioned.

• The identification process of a suspect may violate the accused's right to a fair trial if it is influenced by impermissible suggestions.

• Out-of-court identification must be free from impermissible suggestions and the reliability of the identification can be based on the proximity of the witness to the crime scene and adequate illumination.

• Treachery as a qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently averred in the information and cannot be based solely on the use of the term treachery without further factual averments.

• The designation of the offense in the caption or preamble of the information is immaterial and unnecessary. The facts alleged in the body of the information, not the technical name, determine the character of the crime. (United States v. Lim San)

• The accused's attention should be directed to the facts alleged and whether he performed the acts alleged in the manner stated. The name of the crime is determined by the law and is not crucial for the protection of the accused's substantial rights. (United States v. Lim San)

• To be sufficient, a complaint or information must state the name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. (People v. Dimaano)

• The description of the crime charged and the particular facts must enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to pronounce the proper judgment. The information must accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. (People v. Dimaano)

• An accused cannot be convicted of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (People v. Manalili)

• The means, methods, or forms of execution must be shown to be deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender in order to establish a claim of treachery.

• A factual averment of how the accused deliberately employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the act is necessary to properly charge an offense.

• Treachery is not indispensable for the purpose of granting exemplary damages in the civil aspect of the case. An aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages.

• Right to due process - The right to due process encompasses the right to a fair and impartial judge. A judge who openly displays bias undermines the fairness of the proceedings and violates the party's right to due process.

• Impartiality of judges - Judges are duty-bound to decide cases impartially and without bias. Any appearance of bias can undermine public confidence in the justice system and compromise the fairness of the proceedings.

• Substantiation of jurisdictional issues - Jurisdictional issues must be properly substantiated by the evidence presented before a court can dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction. Mere assertions without proper evidence are insufficient to deprive a court of its jurisdiction.