G.R. No. 227748 - People vs. Verona

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227748)

Factual Background

At approximately 8:40 in the morning of October 27, 1998, Romeo Ortega (Ortega) drove his passenger jeepney known as “Valizing” along the highway in Barangay Guingauan, Tanauan, Leyte. The jeepney plied the Burauen–Tacloban City route, with Manuel as conductor.

According to the prosecution, Dioscoro and Eddie flagged down the jeepney, and Ortega stopped to allow them to board. While the vehicle was in motion or in the process of departing, Edgar, who was standing on the left side of the jeepney, attempted to stab Ortega with a short bolo (pisao). The injury struck instead the right hand of Arlene Yepes, a passenger seated on the left side of Ortega, prompting Ortega to drive off.

During the same incident, a prosecution eyewitness, Eva Castafio (Eva Castano in the text)—a passerby riding a motorcycle about twelve meters behind the departing jeepney—saw Dioscoro, Eddie, Edwin, Edgar, and Efren. The eyewitness observed that Dioscoro, Eddie, and Edwin carried long bolos (about seventy centimeters), while Edgar and Efren carried short bolos (about thirty-three to thirty-four centimeters). She also saw Rogelio standing near a barangay tanod outpost about six meters away.

Manuel was positioned at the rear of the jeepney, holding on with both hands. The prosecution narrated that Efren and Eddie suddenly and unexpectedly stabbed Manuel at the back, causing Manuel to fall to the ground. As Manuel lay on the ground, Edwin hacked him on the head and repeatedly on his body, while Edgar hacked him. Dioscoro was seen holding a bolo near Manuel.

The prosecution further relied on the medico-legal evidence. Dr. Nemia Yebron-Sangrano (Dr. Sangrano) examined the dead body and, in her Medico Legal Necropsy Report dated October 28, 1998, found the cause of death as severe hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds. The report identified multiple wounds as fatal because they injured vital organs and major blood vessels. The medico-legal findings supported the conclusion that the injuries could have been inflicted by a sharp-edged instrument such as a bolo.

Defense Version

The defense presented Edwin, Efren, and Dioscoro. Edwin testified that on October 27, 1998 he was in Barangay Guingauan, Tanauan, Leyte, waiting for results of a jai-alai game. He claimed that after about an hour, his brother Edgar and Manuel were fighting. Edwin said he retrieved a long bolo from inside a house about thirty meters away. He maintained that when he arrived, Edgar and Manuel were already delivering stab thrusts at each other, with Edgar armed with a long bolo and Manuel armed with a short bolo. Edwin insisted that Efren did not get involved, and that he did not know where Dioscoro was during the fight. He further claimed that after the fighting, Edgar remained and Edwin left to go to his nipa hut in his ricefield in Barangay Cansamada, Dagami, Leyte.

Efren’s testimony, in turn, asserted that on October 27, 1998 he was in the house of his uncle Manuel Manubay in Barangay Cansamada East, watching television until noontime, and that he remained there until he was arrested by the police in September 1999. Efren claimed that he did not know Manuel.

Dioscoro testified that on October 27, 1998 he was in the barangay hall of Barangay Cansamada East and on duty as a barangay councilor. He asserted that he was implicated only three months after the incident, that he stayed in their house and did what he customarily did, and that the distance from Barangay Cansamada East to Barangay Guingauan, Tanauan, Leyte was about two kilometers. Dioscoro stated that he did not know what the prosecution witnesses testified against the accused.

Trial Court Proceedings

In its 20 February 2012 Judgment, the trial court convicted Efren and Edwin of murder, finding the existence of qualifying and aggravating factors including treachery, abuse of superior strength, intent to kill, and conspiracy. The court rejected the defenses of alibi and denial, holding that the prosecution’s version was more credible and consistent with ordinary human experience.

The trial court sentenced each of Efren and Edwin to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. It ordered them, jointly and severally, to indemnify the heirs of Manuel Tingoy in the amounts of PHP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, PHP 75,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The trial court acquitted the accused in the separate charge for attempted murder due to insufficiency of evidence.

Appellate Review by the Court of Appeals

On 1 August 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conviction with modification. It reiterated the principle that findings of fact of the trial court deserve great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that facts were overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied. The Court of Appeals modified the penalty phrase by deleting the portion “without eligibility for parole.”

Thus, while the Court of Appeals sustained the conviction, it adjusted the manner in which the penalty was stated, consistent with prevailing law.

The Parties’ Contentions

On ordinary appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed whether Efren and Edwin were guilty of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged, and whether the trial and appellate courts correctly appreciated treachery, conspiracy, and the manner by which the evidence identified the accused as perpetrators.

Efren and Edwin argued, in substance, that: the eyewitness Eva Castafio was not credible due to alleged inconsistencies and purported lack of visibility; the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy; treachery was improperly appreciated; and abuse of superior strength should have been absorbed in treachery. They also relied on their defenses of alibi and denial.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that Efren and Edwin’s defenses of alibi and denial deserved no credence because the appellants did not prove the impossibility of their physical presence at the time and place of the incident.

On the credibility of Eva Castafio, the Court acknowledged the claimed inconsistency regarding the moment she first saw Efren and Edwin. In her sworn affidavit, the eyewitness allegedly recounted that she first saw them before the jeepney left. In her direct testimony, she testified that she first saw them after the jeepney left. On cross-examination, she admitted she knew Efren and Edwin before the incident because she was connected with the cooperative in Brgy. Cansamada, where the accused were frequented. The Court ruled that these inconsistencies were minor, did not impair the essential veracity of her testimony, and did not affect the facts constituting the commission of the crime.

The Court also emphasized the eyewitness’s categorical and consistent statements on the identities of the assailants and on the murder of Manuel, even considering her approximation of the distance from the locus criminis and the fact that she testified three years after the killing. It further relied on the principle that findings on credibility by the trial court merit great respect, absent glaring errors or gross misapprehension.

Comparing the prosecution and defense versions, the Court agreed that the defenses of alibi and denial failed to establish the impossibility of the accused’s presence during the incident. It noted that the eyewitness was familiar with the accused, that the locus criminis afforded adequate visibility, and that no improper motive was attributed to her. As a result, the prosecution eyewitness’s account prevailed.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court reiterated that criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of two things: first, the fact of the crime, i.e., the presence of all elements of murder; and second, the identity of the accused as the perpetrator. It likewise stressed that the prosecution’s first duty was to establish the identity of the offender beyond reasonable doubt, even if the commission of the crime itself was established.

With respect to murder, the Court found the elements proven: Manuel was killed; Efren and Edwin killed him; the killing was attended by a qualifying circumstance under Article 248 such as treachery; and the killing was not parricide or infanticide.

The Court sustained the finding of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. It described treachery as a sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim that deprives the victim of any real chance to defend himself, ensures the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressors, and occurs without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. Here, the manner of killing—stabbing of Manuel immediately after the jeepney stopped, while Manuel was positioned at the rear standing on the stepboard and holding on—showed that Manuel was caught by surprise and unprepared to put up a defense.

On abuse of superior strength, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and held that this generic aggravating circumstance was absorbed in treachery. Since treachery qualifies murder, the aggravating circumstance was necessarily included in the qualifying circumstance.

As for conspiracy, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy. It reiterated that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to carry it out, and that direct proof is not essential because conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. It held that the hacking acts of Efren and Edwin, together with Efren’s stabbing act, revealed unity of action and design. It also considered that the defense could not treat the acts of other accused who carried weapons as non-overt acts, because weapon-carrying in the context of the attack was aligned with the commission of murder. Once conspiracy was shown, all co

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 227748)

The case proceeded as an ordinary appeal seeking reversal of the 20 February 2012 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 6, as affirmed with modification by the 1 August 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 01481.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Efren Verona and Edwin Verona of murder for the death of Manuel Tingoy, while it acquitted them of attempted murder for insufficiency of evidence.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the conviction of Efren and Edwin for murder was supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Eddie Verona remained at large, while Dioscoro Verona died while under detention.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines appeared as plaintiff-appellee, with Eddie Verona as accused.
The appeals were prosecuted by Efren Verona and Edwin Verona as accused-appellants.
The case originated from Criminal Case No. 99-01-42 in the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 6, and involved also a separate attempted murder charge (Criminal Case No. 99-01-40), from which the trial court acquitted the accused.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court’s judgment by deleting the phrase “without eligibility for parole” from the penalty.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, with a further modification on the interest rate for monetary awards.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information alleged that on or about 27 October 1998, in Tanauan, Leyte, the accused acted with intent to kill and with treachery and abuse of superior strength, conspiring and mutually helping one another.
The Information alleged that Dioscoro Verona and Eddie Verona flagged down the passenger jeepney driven by Romeo Ortega and that when the vehicle stopped, Efren Verona, Edwin Verona, and Edgar Verona took turns in hacking and stabbing Manuel Tingoy using short bolos and a long bolo the assailants provided.
The Information alleged that Rogelio Verona, who was also armed with a bolo, stood guard during the assault.
The Information alleged that the multiple stab and incised wounds inflicted on different parts of Manuel’s body were the direct and immediate cause of his death.
During the incident, Manuel was allegedly holding onto the jeepney’s bars while standing on the rear step board.

Prosecution Evidence and Narrative

The prosecution presented two witnesses: Eva Castafio, a passerby riding a motorcycle, and Dr. Nemia Yebron-Sangrano, the Municipal Health Officer of Dagami, Leyte.
The prosecution formally offered Exhibit A and series, consisting of the medico-legal necropsy report dated 28 October 1998, and Exhibit B and series, consisting of a sketch of the human anatomy with printed name and signature of Dr. Sangrano.
The prosecution’s version described that the passenger jeepney was plying the Burauen–Tacloban City route with Manuel as conductor and that the accused flagged it down.
The prosecution’s version described that after the jeepney stopped, Edgar attempted to stab Ortega, but it was Arlene Yepes whose right hand was hit.
The prosecution’s version described that Ortega then drove off, and Eva Castafio watched the accused during the incident.
The prosecution’s version alleged that Efren and Eddie stabbed Manuel at the back, causing Manuel to fall to the ground.
The prosecution’s version further alleged that Edwin hacked Manuel on the head and many times on the body, and that Edgar also hacked Manuel.
The prosecution’s version alleged that Dioscoro was seen holding a bolo near Manuel.
Dr. Sangrano determined that death resulted from severe hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds and identified specific wounds as fatal because they injured vital organs and major blood vessels.
Dr. Sangrano opined that the incised and stab wounds could have been inflicted by a sharp-edged instrument such as a bolo.

Defense Evidence and Narrative

The defense presented testimonies from Edwin Verona, Efren Verona, and Dioscoro Verona, with Dioscoro dying after testifying.
Edwin claimed that he was in Barangay Guingauan, Tanauan, Leyte waiting for the results of the Jai-Alai game, and asserted that after an hour, Edgar and Manuel fought.
Edwin testified that he went inside another person’s house to get a long bolo and that when he saw them, Edgar and Manuel were stabbing each other.
Edwin claimed that he left after Manuel fell, went to his nipa hut in his ricefield in Barangay Cansamada, Dagami, Leyte, and asserted that Efren did not get involved during the fight.
Edwin asserted that he did not know where Dioscoro was during the fight and that he did not know Eva Castano.
Efren claimed that on 27 October 1998 he was in the house of his uncle Manuel Manubay watching television, and that he remained there until noon before leaving for home.
Efren asserted that he did not know Manuel and that after the incident he stayed in Barangay Cansamada until his arrest by police in September 1999.
Dioscoro testified that on 27 October 1998 he was in the barangay hall of Barangay Cansamada East and was on duty as a barangay councilor, and denied personal knowledge of what prosecution witnesses testified against the accused.

Issues Presented for Review

The central issue was whether Eddie (at large), Efren, and Edwin were guilty of murder penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The appeal raised, in substance, challenges to the credibility of the prosecution witness, conspiracy, treachery, and the proper appreciation or absorption of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength into treachery.

Appellants’ Contentions

Efren and Edwin argued that prosecution witness Eva Castafio was not credible and reliable due to alleged material inconsistencies and contradictions, and due to allegedly insuf