Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Verona
Case
G.R. No. 227748
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2019
Three brothers charged with murder for conspiring to attack and kill Manuel Tingoy with bolos; treachery and superior strength proven; alibi rejected; reclusion perpetua upheld.

Charge and Information

The three accused were charged with the crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as delineated in an Information signed by Provincial Prosecutor Teresita S. Lopez. The Information detailed the act of conspiracy among the accused, who, with treachery and abuse of superior strength, attacked Manuel Tingoy with bolos, leading to his death. The arraignment of the accused took place on November 22, 1999, where Efren and Edwin pleaded not guilty.

Outline of Proceedings

A pre-trial conference occurred on December 7, 1999, followed by a trial where the prosecution presented witnesses, including Eva Castaño, a passerby, and Dr. Nemia Yebron-Sangrano, the Municipal Health Officer, who provided expert testimony regarding the victim's injuries. The defense called upon testimonies from the accused themselves, leading to significant discrepancies in the narratives presented.

Prosecution's Version

The prosecution's account states that on the morning of October 27, 1998, while driving a jeepney, Romeo Ortega stopped for Dioscoro and Eddie Verona. Subsequently, Edgar attempted to stab Ortega, resulting in injuries to a female passenger. Eyewitness Eva Castaño observed the accused carrying different types of bolos, and she testified to the brutal attack on Manuel Tingoy, who was stabbed multiple times, leading to his death.

Defense's Version

The defense argued that the accused were not present during the killing. Edwin testified to being nearby, and Efren claimed he was at his uncle's house watching television during the incident. Dioscoro, who died during the trial, asserted he was unaware of any wrongdoing. The defense sought to portray the incident as a mutual combat between Edgar and Manuel, downplaying the involvement of Efren and Edwin.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court, in its February 20, 2012 judgment, found Efren and Edwin guilty of murder, citing the aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and conspiracy, concluding that the prosecution’s account was credible and compelling. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and were ordered to pay damages to the heirs of the victim.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On August 1, 2016, the Court of Appeals upheld the Regional Trial Court's decision, modifying the penalty regarding parole eligibility. The appellate court emphasized the deference given to trial court findings regarding witness credibility and the sufficiency of evidence linking Efren and Edwin to the crime.

Issues on Appeal

In their appeal, Efren and Edwin contended that the prosecution's witness, Eva Castaño, lacked credibility, argued against the prosecution's established conspiracy, questioned the appreciation of treachery, and claimed that the circumstance of abuse of superior strength should be absorbed by the treachery finding.

Analysis of Credibility and Evidence

The court found no merit in the defense's claims, asserting that minor inconsistencies in Castaño's testimony did not undermine her overall credibility. The court emphasized tha

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.