FACTS:

Before the Regional Trial Court of Culasi, Antique, Branch 13 (RTC), John Francis Sualog was
charged with three counts of murder against Amado Chavez Maglantay, Eppie U. Maglantay,
and Jessa Amie U. Maglantay.

Per Criminal Case Nos. L-505, L-506, and L-507, John Francis Sualog is hereby declared
"guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge of Murder in connection with the passing of
Amado Chavez Maglantay, Eppie U. Maglantay, and Jessa Amie U. Maglantay. He is
additionally sentenced to the permanent confinement penalty. Furthermore, he is ordered to
give the victim's heirs civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

John Francis brought the case to the CA. The prosecution, according to John Francis, did not
prove the elements of murder or the specific facts that would have qualified as aggravating
circumstances. The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, countered that the killing
was qualified as murder because of treachery. In addition to the location and severity of the
wounds, the weapon used indicated that John Francis intended to kill the gullible victims.

Thus, the appeal is REJECTED. The RTC’s decision on Criminal Case Nos. L-505, L-506, and
L-507 are AFFIRMED with some modifications. Hence, an Appeal before the Supreme Court
assailing the same decision of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the prosecution failed to establish the elements of murder and its qualifying
circumstances to aggravate the crime to the category of murder.

RULING:
The information against John Francis was incomplete without specifics indicating the conditions
of betrayal and clear premeditation. He waived these flaws when he disregarded the appropriate
procedural remedies by did not raising a motion to quash or a bill of particulars to contest the
information's inadequacy. Therefore, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, he may be
found guilty of betrayal and clear premeditation.

April did not witness the start of the attack or the developments that led to the Maglantay
family's demise because of treachery. There was unquestionably good reason to doubt how the
aggression began, progressed, and ended.Regarding the time frame in which John Francis
decided to carry out the crime and used reason and contemplation to reach a composed
decision, there is no proof. The CA was correct to discount evident premeditation because there
is no evidence regarding the timing or manner of the plan's decision-making or the amount of
time prior to its execution. Without proof that John Francis specifically sought out or exploited
nocturnity to facilitate the commission of the crime or hide his identity as he stabbed the victims
inside their home, nighttime could not be justified as an aggravating circumstance. Similarly,
abusing one's superior strength necessitates using deliberate, excessive force that is out of
proportion to the victim's available means of defense.

These circumstances all meet the requirements for a mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt:
"(1) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was
made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and (3) that the
confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution." John
Francis entered a prompt plea of guilty to every charge at his arraignment, declining to proceed
with the trial until after the prosecution had finished presenting its case. Therefore, this situation
may be taken into consideration in John Francis' favor when determining the proper
punishment.

Thus, the appeal is denied, the prosecution did not established the aggravating circumstances
to elevate the crimes committed under the category of murder and thus the ruling is hereby
AFFIRMED. The appellant, who is the accused, has been found guilty of three counts of
homicide. Additionally, it is directed that the accused-appellant pay civil indemnity, moral
damages, and temperate damages to the heirs of the victims for each count. Finally, due to a
lack of factual and legal support, the award of exemplary damages is revoked.