People vs. Dayrit

An accused who fails to move to quash the information before arraignment waives any objection to the validity of a warrantless arrest; the subsequent entry of a plea cures any defect in the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the person. Further, the positive, credible testimony of a single eyewitness, even a child, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder when the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation are proved.

On the evening of 31 August 2013, spouses Ariel and Lourdes Serenilla were shot and killed while boarding a tricycle on Anak Dalita Street, Barrio Bitik, Marulas, Valenzuela City. Three minors playing on the street witnessed a man on a motorcycle, later identified as Angelito Dayrit y Himor, a school security guard, surveilling the area before the shooting. Dayrit was arrested without a warrant on 3 September 2013 and charged with two counts of murder.

• The Surveillance: On 31 August 2013, around 10:00 p.m., minors Lloyd Ontiveros, John Moises Vista, and Joseph Emmanuel Soliman were playing on Anak Dalita Street. A man on a green and black motorcycle, wearing a black jacket and helmet, arrived, alighted, removed his helmet, and wiped his perspiration while observing a group that included Ariel Serenilla. Ontiveros recognized the man as Angelito Dayrit, a school security guard at Serrano Elementary School, approached him, and asked, “Kuya, bakit po kayo palakad-lakad.” Dayrit replied he was waiting for someone, then left on the motorcycle. Moments later, Dayrit returned with a back-rider, both in black jackets and helmets; they drove back and forth on the same street.

• The Shooting: Ontiveros was later sent to buy cigarettes. He met the spouses Ariel and Lourdes Serenilla on the street and walked with them; Ariel teased him and had a bicycle in tow. Ontiveros noticed the two men on the motorcycle following them. He stopped at the store while the spouses continued toward a tricycle. As Ariel and Lourdes were boarding the tricycle, the motorcycle blocked them; the back-rider fired a handgun four times, fatally hitting Ariel (neck, chin, chest) and Lourdes (neck). The motorcycle then sped away toward Serrano Street. The victims’ son, Aliven Serenilla, learned of the shooting and rushed to Fatima Medical Center, where both were pronounced dead.

• Identification and Arrest: Police officers from Valenzuela City Police Station investigated. SPO1 Alexander Manalo and others responded to Fatima Medical Center and proceeded to the crime scene. PO3 Alexander Buan learned from Lourdes’ sibling, Genero Dudlao, that Ariel had a misunderstanding with a certain Angelito Dayrit, and that three children witnessed the shooting. The children were fetched and, upon being shown a picture of Dayrit, identified him as the shooter. On 3 September 2013, police went to Karuhatan National High School, arrested Dayrit without a warrant, informed him of his constitutional rights, and brought him to the police station.

• Medical Findings: Medico-legal officer PSI Jocelyn Cruz conducted post-mortem examinations. Ariel sustained three gunshot wounds (face, neck, pelvic region) causing blood loss and radical shock leading to death. Lourdes sustained a gunshot wound on the lateral neck region that caused instantaneous death.

• Defense Account: Dayrit claimed he was at home watching television with his family and cousins from 8:00 p.m. onwards on 31 August 2013 and went to sleep at 11:30 p.m. Defense witness Joseph Cabero, who was on Anak-Dalita Street between 9:30 and 10:00 p.m., testified he saw the shooting but did not see the shooter’s face; he described the shooter as having a smaller build than Dayrit. Dayrit asserted that when arrested on 3 September 2013, he was not informed of the reason for his arrest or shown a warrant, and was later placed in a police lineup.

• Warrantless Arrest: Petitioner contended that his warrantless arrest was illegal because the arresting officers lacked personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating he committed the crime, in violation of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner maintained that the testimony of child witness Ontiveros was unreliable and insufficient to overcome his denial and alibi; consequently, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Petitioner argued that the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not established.

• Identification and Credibility: The People maintained that Ontiveros’ positive, categorical identification, corroborated by other child witnesses, was entitled to full faith and credit and was sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.
• Conspiracy and Participation: The prosecution established that Dayrit and his companion conspired in the killing, making both equally liable regardless of who drove the motorcycle or fired the shots.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances: The People argued that treachery, evident premeditation, and use of a motor vehicle were properly appreciated, as the victims were caught defenseless, the crime was preceded by surveillance and cooling time, and the motorcycle was employed to commit the crime and facilitate escape.
• Waiver of Arrest Issue: Respondent contended that Dayrit’s objection to the warrantless arrest was waived because he failed to raise it before arraignment and entered a plea.

• Credibility of Child Witness and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the trial court correctly gave credence to the testimony of child eyewitness Lloyd Ontiveros and whether his identification was sufficient to establish Dayrit’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Treachery: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was established.
• Aggravating Circumstance — Use of Motor Vehicle: Whether the CA correctly appreciated the generic aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle.
• Warrantless Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrest of Dayrit was illegal, and, if so, whether the illegality affected the court’s jurisdiction over his person when the objection was raised only on appeal.

• Credibility of Child Witness and Sufficiency of Evidence: The trial court’s assessment of the credibility of child witnesses was accorded great respect and was not disturbed, no cogent reason appearing to overturn it. Ontiveros positively identified Dayrit as the man who surveilled the victims and later shot them. He recognized Dayrit from his work as a school security guard, approached him, and spoke to him minutes before the shooting. No improper motive was imputed to him. The testimony of a single credible witness, even a child of tender age, is sufficient to support a conviction for murder. Dayrit’s bare denial and alibi could not overcome such positive identification, and no physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene was demonstrated.

• Treachery: The prosecution established both elements: (1) the victims were not in a position to defend themselves, and (2) Dayrit consciously adopted the mode of attack to ensure execution without risk to himself. The victims were merely boarding a tricycle, completely unaware of any danger, when Dayrit’s motorcycle blocked them and he suddenly shot them successively. The attack was deliberate, unexpected, and deprived the victims of any real chance to retaliate or escape. Treachery was thus properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.

• Evident Premeditation: All three requisites were satisfied: (1) Dayrit determined to kill Ariel and Lourdes; (2) his acts of initially monitoring Ariel’s presence, driving back and forth on the street, wearing a black jacket and helmet to conceal his identity, and following the victims secretly showed he clung to that determination; and (3) the lapse of time between surveillance and execution was sufficient for cool thought and reflection upon the consequences of his act. Evident premeditation was correctly appreciated.

• Aggravating Circumstance — Use of Motor Vehicle: The CA correctly considered this generic aggravating circumstance. The motorcycle was used to trail the victims, effect the shooting, and facilitate Dayrit’s escape. Under People v. Herbias, use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is employed either to commit the crime or to facilitate escape, both of which were present.

• Warrantless Arrest: Dayrit never challenged the legality of his arrest before arraignment; he raised the issue for the first time on appeal. The rule is settled: an accused who enters a plea without moving to quash the information waives any objection involving the arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over his person. Even if the warrantless arrest were illegal, the defect is not jurisdictional and is cured by voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction through arraignment and entry of a plea. The objection was therefore deemed waived.

• Waiver of Objection to Warrantless Arrest — Any objection to a warrantless arrest or to the procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be interposed before arraignment; failure to move to quash the information and entry of a plea constitute a waiver. Even an illegal warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and is cured by submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
• Sufficiency of a Single Credible Witness — The positive and credible testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction even for murder, especially where no improper motive is attributed to the witness.
• Treachery (Article 14, par. 16, RPC) — Treachery requires: (1) the victim was not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate or escape at the time of the attack; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack that directly and specially ensured its execution without risk to himself. The essence is a sudden, unexpected attack that deprives the unsuspecting victim of any real chance to defend himself.
• Evident Premeditation — The requisites are: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating the accused clung to that determination; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient length of time between determination and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The essence is that execution is preceded by cool thought and reflection.
• Use of Motor Vehicle as an Aggravating Circumstance — The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is employed either as a means to commit the crime or to facilitate the offender’s escape.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime that point to a joint purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. Direct proof of a prior agreement is not required; it is sufficient that the malefactors were united in their purpose and execution at the time of the offense.

• “The testimony of a single witness, when positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even of murder.”
• “Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.”
• “The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by the aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor arising from the defense which the offended party might make.”
• “The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.”

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Applied to fix the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages for each count of murder.
• People v. Herbias, 333 Phil. 422 (1996) — Cited as authority for treating the use of a motor vehicle as an aggravating circumstance when used to commit the crime or facilitate escape.
• People v. Bringcula, G.R. No. 226400, 24 January 2018 — Followed on the rule that a warrantless arrest objection is waived if not raised before arraignment.
• People v. Avila, 787 Phil. 346 (2016) — Relied upon for the proposition that the testimony of a single credible witness suffices to convict for murder.
• People v. Lawa, 444 Phil. 191 (2003) — Applied on the deference accorded to trial judges in evaluating the credibility of child witnesses.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defined and penalized Murder; the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were proven to have attended the killings of the two victims.
• Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defined treachery; applied to qualify the killings because the victims were suddenly attacked while defenselessly boarding a tricycle.
• Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court — Argued by petitioner as basis for illegality of his warrantless arrest; the Court held the objection was waived for failure to raise it before arraignment.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Proscribed the imposition of the death penalty; the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was imposed in lieu of the otherwise imposable death penalty.
• Nacar v. Gallery Frames (716 Phil. 267, 2013) and BSP Circular No. 799, Series of 2013 — Applied to impose interest at six percent per annum on all monetary awards from the date of finality until full satisfaction.

Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, Lopez, and Rosario, JJ., concurred. Justice Lopez also filed a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.

• Lopez, J. (Concurring and Dissenting) — The substance of the separate opinion was not included in the provided decision text and is therefore N/A for purposes of this digest.