People of the Philippines vs. Getulio Verzo, et al.

Conspiracy and abuse of superior strength are established where three armed persons simultaneously attack an unarmed victim who is trying to flee, and absent any modifying circumstance the penalty for murder is life imprisonment, the medium period.

Bad blood existed between the Verzo and Casis families arising from several incidents between their children. On the afternoon of the occurrence, Benjamin Camino had escorted Filemon Casis’s son David Casis, who was reluctant to pass alone near the Verzos’ house; the Verzos evidently regarded Camino as having identified himself with the Casises.

On July 6, 1962, at about 6:30 p.m., Filemon Casis was riding a bicycle toward Labo, Camarines Norte, to buy medicines. He noticed that Reynaldo Verzo was seemingly trailing him. Sensing, from this and other circumstances, that Reynaldo and other members of his family wanted to waylay him, Filemon went to the municipal building after buying the medicines and asked policeman Lope Jariel to escort him home. Jariel agreed and followed about 15 meters behind.

As Filemon passed in front of the house of Getulio Verzo, about 100 meters from the municipal building, Getulio threw a stone at him, hitting his bicycle and causing him to fall. Filemon shouted and asked why Getulio had stoned him. Benjamin Camino, a former patrolman then inside a bar across the street from the Verzos’ house, overheard him, stepped out, asked what had happened, and advised him to report to the authorities. When Filemon and Camino began to proceed to the municipal building, they noticed that Jariel had approached Getulio and asked why he had stoned Filemon. Getulio replied that his son had been struck by Filemon’s son, Carlito, but Jariel told him not to take the law into his hands. Camino then approached and remarked, “What more do you want? You already threw a stone.” Instead of answering, Getulio entered his house and immediately returned with his sons Reynaldo and Roberto, each holding a bolo. The three then attacked Camino with their bolos; Camino ran away, severely wounded. The Verzos then turned on Filemon, hacking and stabbing him until he fell unconscious.

Camino sustained several incised wounds, one of which, inflicted from behind, affected the liver; he died less than an hour and a half later from hemorrhage and shock. Filemon sustained twelve wounds, including the loss of three fingers of his right hand, which were cut off. For Camino’s death, the Verzos were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 1905 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte; for the injuries to Filemon, they were accused in Criminal Case No. 1909 of the same court of frustrated murder.

The defense presented a different account. According to the Verzos, on the evening of July 6, Camino entered the store in their house in a drunken condition, accompanied by Manuel Cambronero and Filemon, Carlito, and David Casis. Camino boxed Reynaldo Verzo, who fell down. As Reynaldo rose and went to the barber shop in the adjoining compartment, Camino stabbed Roberto Verzo three times with an ice pick; the first thrust hit Roberto on the arm and the second on the back. When Camino made the third thrust, Roberto held his arm. Carlito Casis then came and tried to stab Roberto, but Roberto used Camino’s body as a shield, and Carlito’s thrust landed on Camino’s back. As Getulio Verzo passed by the barber shop to call a policeman, Filemon Casis and Manuel Cambronero hit him with pieces of wood on the head and shoulder, rendering him unconscious. Filemon then tried to attack Getulio with a bolo, and Reynaldo grappled with him for its possession; in the struggle, Filemon’s bolo wounded his own hand. When Filemon would not yield the weapon, Reynaldo pushed him into a nearby ditch where there were broken bottles.

After a joint trial, the lower court accepted the prosecution’s version and found the witnesses for the defense unworthy of credence. It convicted the defendants as charged in both cases. In Criminal Case No. 1905, each was sentenced to the extreme penalty, ordered to indemnify the heirs of Benjamin Camino in the sum of P3,000.00, and to pay one-third of the costs. In Criminal Case No. 1909, each was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from ten years to seventeen years and four months, ordered to indemnify Filemon Casis in the sum of P5,000.00, and to pay one-third of the costs. None of the defendants appealed, and only Criminal Case No. 1905 was before the Supreme Court for review, pursuant to Section 9 of Rule 122, because of the penalty imposed.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Fatal Wound: Counsel maintained that the lower court erred in finding that the fatal wound causing Benjamin Camino’s death was criminally inflicted by the accused; the prosecution witnesses’ veracity was assailed for alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities, and the accused’s alleged lack of motive to kill Camino was raised.
• Conspiracy and Identity of Killer: Counsel argued that the lower court erred in convicting all three accused in the absence of proof of conspiracy and of who among them inflicted the fatal wound.
• Treachery and Abuse of Superior Strength: Counsel contended that the lower court erred in appreciating the presence of treachery and abuse of superior strength.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Counsel argued that the lower court failed to consider in favor of the accused the mitigating circumstances shown by the evidence.
• Penalty: Counsel maintained that the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty and imposing the death penalty.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Fatal Wound: Whether the trial court erred in finding that the fatal wound causing Benjamin Camino’s death was criminally inflicted by the accused, notwithstanding alleged inconsistencies and lack of motive.
• Conspiracy and Identity of Killer: Whether all three accused could be convicted absent proof of conspiracy and proof of who inflicted the fatal wound.
• Treachery and Abuse of Superior Strength: Whether the lower court erred in appreciating treachery and abuse of superior strength.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Whether the mitigating circumstances invoked by the accused should have been considered.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty was correctly imposed.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Fatal Wound: No. The trial court did not err in accepting the prosecution’s version; the testimonies of Jariel and Filemon were corroborated by Cambronero and Samson and by the number, nature, and location of the injuries.
• Conspiracy and Identity of Killer: No. The facts established conspiracy; all three were united in purpose and execution, so the act of one was the act of all.
• Treachery and Abuse of Superior Strength: Abuse of superior strength, yes; treachery, not conclusively. The three armed with bolos attacked an unarmed Camino who was trying to flee, qualifying the killing as murder on abuse of superior strength.
• Mitigating Circumstances: No. Provocation, incomplete self-defense, and voluntary surrender were not established.
• Penalty: No death penalty. No modifying circumstance attended the murder; the penalty should be the medium period, life imprisonment, and the civil liability should be increased to P6,000.00.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Fatal Wound: The trial judge did not err in accepting the prosecution’s version and rejecting the defense. The testimonies of Lope Jariel and Filemon Casis were substantially corroborated by Emmanuel Cambronero and Nestor Samson. Cambronero was admittedly in the bar in front of the Verzos’ house and had stepped out with Camino shortly before the occurrence; Jariel was a peace officer who had not taken sides; and Samson lived near the scene and had witnessed part of the occurrence. Their testimonies were plain, simple, and straightforward, and were corroborated by the number, nature, and location of the injuries sustained by Camino and Filemon, including a wound on Camino’s back. The alleged inconsistencies referred to minor details on which witnesses to the same occurrence are likely to disagree. Jariel’s failure to prevent the events did not affect his credibility, for he was young and had been in the police force barely three months; he fired warning shots and tried to dissuade the Verzos. The fact that Camino had been his colleague and that Filemon was the offended party in the frustrated murder case did not suffice to discredit them. Proof of motive was not indispensable where the record clearly showed that Camino’s death was due to injuries inflicted by the defendants; at any rate, bad blood existed between the Verzos and the Casises from several incidents between their children, and Camino had earlier escorted David Casis. The defense version was too artificious to merit credence. Although the defendants claimed to have been wounded, their injuries were not shown to any physician until several days after the filing of the complaint; the medical examination of Getulio Verzo took place on July 11, and those of Roberto and Reynaldo Verzo on July 17. The injuries were superficial; some might have been caused by a fall, and others could have been self-inflicted. The trial judge had the advantage of observing the witnesses’ behavior, and the findings of fact should not be disturbed.
• Conspiracy and Identity of Killer: The facts proven left no room for doubt that the defendants were united in their purpose and in carrying out the same into execution. They emerged from their house at the same time, each brandishing a bolo; they immediately attacked Benjamin Camino and chased him as he tried to run away; they did not desist despite the warning shots fired by Patrolman Jariel and his words of advice; and when Camino, after sustaining six wounds, managed to place himself beyond their reach, they proceeded to attack Filemon Casis. Reynaldo Verzo embraced or held Filemon Casis from behind and said, “Go ahead, father stab him,” which Getulio Verzo did. Conspiracy having been established, all three were properly convicted.
• Treachery and Abuse of Superior Strength: The defendants were given the benefit of doubt on whether treachery attended the killing, but abuse of superior strength was manifest: the three of them were wielding bolos, while Benjamin Camino was unarmed and trying to flee. The killing was therefore murder. Although Patrolman Jariel was present, the crime was not committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities, because a policeman is merely an agent of a person in authority, not a person in authority.
• Mitigating Circumstances: The defendants invoked provocation on the part of the victim, incomplete self-defense, and voluntary surrender, but none of these circumstances was established.
• Penalty: No modifying circumstance attended the perpetration of the murder. The penalty should therefore be imposed in its medium period, which is life imprisonment. The corresponding civil liability was increased from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 in line with settled jurisprudence. The decision was modified as to the penalty and civil liability and affirmed in other respects, with costs against the defendants.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when the accused are united in their purpose and in carrying out the same into execution. It may be established from the circumstances of the attack, such as the simultaneous emergence of the accused from their house, each brandishing a bolo; their immediate attack and chase of the victim; their refusal to desist despite warning shots and advice; their continued attack on another victim after the first escaped; and one accused holding the victim while another stabbed him.
• Abuse of Superior Strength — Abuse of superior strength qualifies a killing as murder where there is a notorious inequality of forces between the aggressors and the victim. In this case, three accused wielding bolos attacked Benjamin Camino, who was unarmed and trying to flee.
• Proof of Motive — Proof of motive is not indispensable where the record clearly shows that the death of the offended party is due to injuries inflicted by the defendants. In this case, bad blood between the Verzos and the Casises and Camino’s earlier escort of David Casis supplied motive in any event.
• Penalty for Murder Absent Modifying Circumstance — Where no modifying circumstance attends the perpetration of murder, the penalty is imposed in its medium period, which is life imprisonment. The civil liability is increased in line with settled jurisprudence.
• Person in Authority and Agent — A policeman is merely an agent of a person in authority, not a person in authority. Thus, the presence of Patrolman Jariel at the scene did not make the killing one committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities.

• “With respect to the second assignment of error the facts proven leave no room for doubt that defendants herein were united in their purpose and in carrying out the same into execution.” — This passage states the Court’s ratio on conspiracy, grounding the conviction of all three accused on their concerted action.
• “As regards the third assignment of error, we hold that, although the defendants may be given the benefit of doubt on whether or not there had been treachery, it is manifest that they had acted with abuse of superior strength, for whereas the three (3) of them were wielding boloes, Benjamin Camino was unarmed and trying to flee. Hence the crime committed was murder.” — This passage defines the qualifying circumstance actually relied upon and explains why the killing was murder despite the doubt on treachery.
• “No modifying circumstance having attended the perpetration of the crime of murder committed by the accused, the penalty therefor should be imposed in its medium period, which is life imprisonment. Moreover, the corresponding civil liability should, in line with settled jurisprudence, be increased from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00.” — This passage states the controlling rule on penalty and civil liability, and is the basis for the modification of the lower court’s judgment.
• “Although Patrolman Jariel was present at the scene of the crime, it cannot be said that the same has been committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities, inasmuch that a policeman is merely an agent of a person in authority, not a person in authority.” — This passage distinguishes a person in authority from an agent of a person in authority, a point relevant to the qualifying circumstances.

• People vs. Siojo, 61 Phil. 307, 317 — Cited for the rule that a policeman is merely an agent of a person in authority, not a person in authority, so the killing was not committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities.
• People vs. Jaravata, L-22029, August 15, 1967 — Cited, together with Lumiguis vs. People, People vs. Berdida, and People vs. Libed, as authority for increasing the civil liability from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00.
• U.S. vs. Tampacan, 19 Phil. 185 — Cited in the line of cases supporting the finding of abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance for murder.

• Section 9, Rule 122, Revised Rules of Court — Provides for review by the Supreme Court of criminal cases in which the death penalty is imposed; the case was before the Court on automatic review pursuant to this provision.

Reyes, J.B.L.; Dizon; Makalintal; Bengzon, J.P.; Zaldivar; Sanchez; Castro; Angeles; and Fernando, JJ.