G.R. No. 100938-39 - People vs. Devaras

Case Summary (G.R. No. 100938-39)

Parties, Court, and Anchoring Dates

The Regional Trial Court convicted Blademir Devaras as principal for the murder of Efren Verzosa, Pablo Devaras as an accessory in the murder of Efren Verzosa, and Ronilo Caisek as principal for the murder of Felix Verzosa. All three accused appealed. The Supreme Court decision was promulgated on December 15, 1993. The appeal challenged (a) the trial court’s classification of the acts as murder rather than homicide, and (b) the refusal of the prosecutor, and consequently the trial court, to include Ruel Animos as a co-accused and convict him as an accessory.

Facts Found by the Trial Court

The Supreme Court accepted the trial court’s factual findings, noting that they were not reached arbitrarily or without basis and emphasizing that credibility determinations rested better with the trial judge who observed the witnesses’ deportment. The prosecution case, centered on the testimony of Raul Animos, narrated that on July 10, 1990, at about seven o’clock in the evening, the three accused were drinking tuba with Raul at the house of Pablo Devaras. After joining Raul on his tour of duty as bantay-bayan, the group made rounds for about four hours in town. At the Daguitan bridge, when a pedicab approached, the attack occurred suddenly and without provocation.

As the pedicab moved halfway across the bridge, Blademir Devaras, carrying a long bolo identified as a sansibar, suddenly attacked Efren Verzosa, the pedicab driver. Efren fell from his seat, and Blademir continued hacking him, striking him in the head and neck. At about the same time, Ronilo Caisek, also carrying a long bolo, attacked Felix Verzosa, the passenger, who tried to parry with his arms as he got out of the vehicle. Felix fell, staggered, and ran, but Ronilo overtook him and continued striking him in the head, neck, chest, and shoulders. The prosecution testimony also described the victims as unarmed and defenseless at the moment of the sustained assault.

Subsequent Conduct and Implication of the Accused

The prosecution further described how the bodies were disposed of after the killings. Raul stated that Pablo Devaras did not participate in the slaying, but later helped Blademir throw Efren’s body over the bridge into the river. For Felix’s body, Ronilo testified that he was ordered to help throw it as well, that he initially hesitated, and that he ultimately complied due to threats that he would be killed if he refused.

The investigative sequence followed immediately after the crime. The abandoned pedicab was found by Doring Leano, who reported it to the accused. The accused went together to see barangay captain Benigno Tadeno, who then alerted the police after suspecting foul play. Pat. Romulo Perido investigated with policemen. When he observed blood on the back of Ruel Animos’ shirt, he took Ruel into custody for questioning. Ruel revealed what had happened earlier and implicated the three accused. The bodies were recovered the following morning and shortly thereafter: Felix’s body was found under the bridge the next morning, while Efren’s body was found about three hours later near the seashore. The autopsy revealed that Felix sustained twenty wounds and Efren suffered nine wounds.

Accused’s Defenses and the Trial Court’s Assessment

All three accused denied participation. Blademir claimed that he was alone in his house during the incident, but on cross-examination he admitted being with the other two accused at the time. Ronilo asserted that he had been at home with Blademir and Pablo. Pablo maintained that he was with his mother on that evening, but his testimony shifted when confronted with Ronilo’s statement, which Pablo affirmed to be true. The trial court rejected the denials and alibis as inconsistent and incredible.

On this evidentiary record, the trial court convicted Blademir Devaras as principal and Pablo Devaras as accessory for the murder of Efren Verzosa, and convicted Ronilo Caisek for the murder of Felix Verzosa. It found the presence of treachery but found no conspiracy between the accused.

Issues on Appeal

The appellants assigned two main errors. First, they argued that the trial court erred in convicting them of murder instead of homicide. Second, they contended that the prosecutor and trial court should have charged and convicted Ruel Animos as an accessory, aligning with the prosecution’s own investigative findings implicating him as a participant in later acts connected to the crime.

The Appellants’ First Assignment of Error: Murder vs. Homicide

The Supreme Court held the first assignment untenable. The Court reasoned that the evidence showed that Blademir and Ronilo suddenly attacked their unarmed victims with bolos, thereby ensuring the commission of the offense without risk to themselves arising from defenses the victims might make. This sudden, unexpected mode of attack qualified the crime as murder because treachery attended the killings. The Court clarified that the killings would have been homicide absent treachery, since treachery is one of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Appellants’ Second Assignment of Error: Exclusion of Ruel Animos

On the second assignment, the Supreme Court dismissed the contention. It explained that the determination of persons to be prosecuted rests primarily with the prosecutor, who exercises quasi-judicial discretion in selecting accused based on the evidence. The Court recognized an exception: the prosecutor may be compelled by mandamus if there is an abuse of discretion, but mandamus is available only if the petitioner has exhausted ordinary remedies in the course of law, such as filing a motion with the trial court seeking the inclusion of persons allegedly excluded by the prosecutor. The Court found no showing that such a motion had been filed by the appellants.

The Court also addressed the trial court’s factual stance on conspiracy, agreeing that there was no conspiracy between the appellants to justify common conviction for both murders. It found no evidence that Blademir and Ronilo had earlier agreed to kill the Verzosas. Instead, the Court inferred that their conduct reflected impulse and independent action rather than a prearranged common plan.

Liability and the Trial Court’s Allocation of Roles

In line with the absence of conspiracy, the Court agreed with the trial court’s allocation of liability across the two killings. It held that the trial court correctly made Blademir guilty of the murder of Efren Verzosa only and Ronilo guilty of the murder of Felix Verzosa only, instead of rendering both equally liable for both murders.

With respect to Pablo Devaras, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal definition of an accessory: one who, with knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without participating as principal or accomplice, takes part after the commission by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, to prevent discovery. Since Pablo assisted in throwing Efren’s dead body into the river, the Court concluded that his conviction as an accessory was correct.

Penalties and the Supreme Court’s Modification

The Supreme Court adjusted the penalty for Pablo Devaras but sustained those imposed on Blademir Devaras and Ronilo Caisek. It applied Article 53 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that the penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony is imposed on accessories. Since murder under Article 248 carries a prescribed penalty with reclusion temporal in its maximum period up to death, two degrees lower corresponded to prision correccional in its maximum period up to prision mayor in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and noting that no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attended Pablo’s participation, the Court reduced Pablo’s indeterminate sentence to four years and two months of prision correccional as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum.

Civil Liability: Solidary vs. Several and Subsidiary Liability

The Court also modified the civil indemnity arrangements to reflect Pablo’s status as accessory rather than principal. It recognized that had both Blademir Devaras and Pablo Devaras been convicted as principals, they would have been solidarily liable for civil indemnity to the heirs of Efren. However, because Pablo was convicted only as an accessory, the Court applied Articles 109 and 110 of the Revised Penal Code. It held that persons civilly liable for a felony are liable according to their respective class, with liability enforced first among principals and then in subsidiary order among accomplices and accessories, and that each defendant is liable for quotas within the solidum and subsidiarily for others’ shares.

Accordingly, although the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 100938-39)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case involved People of the Philippines as Plaintiff-Appellee and Blademir Devaras, Pablo Devaras, and Ronilo Caisek as Accused-Appellants.
The Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte tried the accused jointly after informations for murder were filed alleging commission in conspiracy with each other and with treachery and abuse of superior strength.
The trial court convicted Blademir Devaras as principal and Pablo Devaras as accessory in the murder of Efren Verzosa, and convicted Ronilo Caisek for the murder of Felix Verzosa.
All three accused appealed to challenge the murder convictions and the failure to charge Pablo Devaras as a co-accused corresponding to the prosecution’s theory.
The appellate review deferred to the trial court’s factual findings absent any showing that they were reached arbitrarily or without basis.
The Court affirmed the convictions with modifications on the penalty and civil indemnity allocations.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecution evidence depicted a nighttime attack in which a pedicab driver and his passenger were attacked without provocation by two men who hacked them to death.
The victims’ bodies were later thrown over a bridge with the help of another person.
Investigation conducted the same night led to the identification and participation of Blademir Devaras, Pablo Devaras, and Ronilo Caisek.
The principal prosecution witness was Raul Animos, who testified that on July 10, 1990, at about 7 o’clock in the evening, he saw the three appellants drinking tuba at the house of Pablo Devaras.
Raul Animos stated that the group joined his tour of duty as bantay-bayan and made rounds in town for about four hours.
At the Daguitan bridge, the witness saw a pedicab approach in a zigzag manner while the victims were then crossing.
When the pedicab was halfway across the bridge, Blademir Devaras suddenly attacked Efren Verzosa, who was the pedicab driver.
Raul Animos related that Efren fell from his seat, yet Blademir continued hacking him with a long bolo known as a sansibar, hitting the victim in the head and neck.
Raul Animos further testified that at about the same time, Ronilo Caisek, also carrying a long bolo, attacked Felix Verzosa, the passenger.
Felix tried to parry the blows with his arms as he got out of the vehicle, then fell, staggered, and ran.
Raul Animos testified that Ronilo overtook Felix and continued striking the helpless old man in the head, neck, chest, and shoulders.
Ronilo testified that he was only about 5 meters away from the assailants and was so shocked that he could barely move or speak.
Pablo Devaras did not participate in the initial slaying but later helped his cousin Blademir throw Efren’s body over the bridge into the river.
Ronilo also testified that he was ordered to help throw the body of Felix, that he initially hesitated, and that he complied only because he was threatened with death if he refused.
A third person, Doring Leano, found the abandoned pedicab and reported it to the accused.
The accused then went to see barangay captain Benigno Tadeno, who immediately went to the bridge, suspected foul play, and notified the police.
Pat. Romulo Perido investigated with policemen and noticed blood on the back of Ruel’s shirt, after which he took Ruel into custody for questioning.
Ruel disclosed what had happened earlier and implicated the three appellants during the same investigation.
The bodies were found as follows: Felix’s body under the bridge the following morning, and Efren’s body about three hours later near the seashore.
The autopsy revealed twenty wounds for Felix and nine wounds for Efren.
The accused denied participation in the killings and invoked alibis.
Blademir Devaras claimed he was alone in his house at the time of the incident but admitted on cross-examination that he was with the other accused at the relevant time.
Ronilo Caisek confirmed that he was in his house with Blademir and Pablo at the time of the incident.
Pablo Devaras claimed he was with his mother that evening but altered his testimony when confronted with Ronilo’s statement, which Pablo affirmed as true.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court rejected the accused’s alibis and denials as inconsistent and incredible.
The trial court found treachery present in the killing of the victims.
The trial court found no conspiracy between the accused to justify a joint criminal liability for both murders.
The trial court convicted Blademir Devaras as principal in the murder of Efren Verzosa.
The trial court convicted Pablo Devaras as accessory in the murder of Efren Verzosa based on his participation after the killing by assisting in throwing Efren’s body.
The trial court convicted Ronilo Caisek for the murder of Felix Verzosa.
The trial court sentenced Blademir and Ronilo to reclusion perpetua and ordered civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of their respective victims.
The trial court sentenced Pablo Devaras as accessory with an indeterminate penalty of six years, one month and eleven days to eight years and twenty days.

Issues on Appeal

The appellants argued that the trial court erred in convicting them of murder instead of homicide.
The appellants argued that the trial court erred in not holding that Ruel Animos should have been charged and convicted as an accessory like appellant Pablo Devaras.
The underlying dispute included whether treachery attended the killing and whether the prosecution evidence supported conspiracy.
The case also required determination of the proper criminal classification of Pablo Devaras and the related civil indemnity allocations.

Appellants’ Arguments

The appellants maintained that the evidence should have led to convictions for homicide rather than murder.
The appellants asserted that Ruel Animos should have been included and convicted as an accessory similar to Pablo Devaras.
They relied on their denials and alibis to negate participation in the killings.
They effectively sought penalty reduction by attacking the legal qualification of the offense and the completeness of the prosecution’s charging theory.

Prosecution Evidence and Credibility Rulings

The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credib