THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOAQUIN VELEZ, ALEJANDRO VELEZ AND ANTONIETO VELEZ, ACCUSED, JOAQUIN VELEZ AND ALEJANDRO VELEZ, ACCUSED AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Velez

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted three brothers, Joaquin Velez, Alejandro Velez, and Antonieto Velez, for the killing of Narciso Becuna after a card game turned violent. The trial court convicted all three of murder on a theory of conspiracy, and two of them, Joaquin and Alejandro, brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The case matters for the bar because it is a compact illustration of how conspiracy is inferred from conduct, how alibi and self-defense collapse when they are interlinked, how treachery qualifies a killing as murder, and how voluntary surrender must be genuine rather than merely recorded as such.

Procedural History

The Municipal Court conducted the preliminary examination, did not give credence to Joaquin's alibi, and remanded the case. The Office of the Fiscal then filed an information for murder in the Court of First Instance of Northern Samar, Laoang Branch. After trial, that court convicted the three brothers of murder, sentencing Joaquin and Alejandro each to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to indemnify the heirs of Narciso Becuna solidarily in the sum of 6,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. Antonieto did not appeal his sentence, which ranged from ten years and one day of prision mayor to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal. Alejandro died during the pendency of the appeal, and the case against him was dismissed insofar as his criminal liability was concerned. The appeal of Joaquin proceeded to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in July 1974.

Facts

At around three o'clock in the afternoon of June 24, 1966, Narciso Becuna, upon the invitation of Joaquin Velez, played a card game called monte in the house of Joaquin's father, Ciriaco, in Barrio P. Rebadulla, Catubig, Northern Samar. Joaquin acted as banker, Narciso was the bettor, and Narciso's seventeen-year-old brother Ernesto watched. Later, Alejandro and Antonieto, Joaquin's brothers, and one Damaso Mercader joined. Because Narciso was winning, he took over as dealer, and the game lasted until the next morning. Narciso kept winning.

Having eaten nothing since the game began, Narciso suggested at around seven o'clock in the morning that the game be suspended so he could eat. The Velez brothers, who had already eaten, objected. Narciso was adamant. Alejandro left, saying he had to go home. Narciso dealt again, the others bet, and Narciso won. He collected his winnings, arranged the cards, stood up, and moved to leave. Joaquin, discombobulated by his losses, uttered the ominous threat that their lives would be involved if Narciso stopped playing, then ran to the kitchen, followed by Antonieto.

Suspecting that their lives were in jeopardy, Narciso and Ernesto jumped out through the window and ran. About twenty arms' length away they encountered Alejandro, who appeared to have been waiting for them and who was armed with a bolo. Narciso stopped and stepped backward while Ernesto took refuge in a grassy place. As Narciso backed out, Joaquin appeared from behind holding a barbed harpoon more than a meter long, which he plunged into Narciso's back and then tried to pull out. While Joaquin struggled to extricate the harpoon, Alejandro stabbed Narciso with his bolo. Narciso fell, and Antonieto, also armed with a bolo, slashed him in the abdomen. Alejandro and Antonieto repeatedly stabbed him while Joaquin pulled out the harpoon. Narciso died of his wounds. The autopsy disclosed fourteen wounds, two of them fatal, and the cause of death was shock due to massive internal hemorrhage.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses Ernesto Becuna and Agripino Baldostamo.
• Whether or not the alibis of Joaquin and Alejandro can stand in light of the rejection of Antonieto's plea of self-defense.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by conspiracy, treachery, abuse of superiority, and premeditation.
• Whether or not Joaquin and Alejandro are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
• Whether or not the penalty and the civil indemnity were correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes murder:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

This is the provision under which the killing was qualified as murder through treachery.

Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code governs the application of penalties:

Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances: 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.

Because no generic aggravating or mitigating circumstance remained, the medium period of the penalty for murder was correctly imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court's assessment of the eyewitnesses. The similarity in phraseology between Ernesto and Baldostamo was explained by the fact that the same interpreter translated their answers, and their testimonies followed the pattern of their sworn statements at the preliminary examination. Eyewitnesses to the same occurrence may be expected to dovetail in vital particulars. The discrepancy about whether the game was played in Joaquin's house or his father's house, and the trivial detail about a woman and child, did not impair credibility.

On the second issue, the Court held that the defenses were interlinked. If there was no self-defense, then the witnesses for the appellants were not telling the truth, and the prosecution's version is the true recital. Alibis can be concocted with facility. The Court also found that the defense did not prove any unlawful aggression by Narciso, and that Antonieto's story of self-defense had a patina of artificiality.

On the third issue, the Court found conspiracy from conduct, quoting the rule that:

if it is proven that two or more persons aimed by there acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, although apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them is proven.

Treachery was aggravating because the brothers employed a mode of attack deliberately designed to insure death without risk from any defense the unarmed victim could make. Abuse of superiority was also aggravating but was absorbed in treachery. Premeditation was not aggravating because the interval was too short for meditation and reflection.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that voluntary surrender was not mitigating. Although the police records used the word surrender, Joaquin admitted he was actually arrested while buying rice, and Alejandro yielded only because of the warrant of arrest.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the trial court properly imposed reclusion perpetua as the medium period, but raised the indemnity from 6,000 pesos to 12,000 pesos.

Doctrine

Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused showing a common unlawful object, even without proof of an actual meeting. Treachery qualifies a killing as murder under Article 248 where the mode of attack is deliberately designed to insure death without risk to the assailant from any defense the victim could make. Abuse of superiority is absorbed in treachery. Alibi is a weak defense that can be concocted with facility, and where one accused's self-defense fails, the interlinked alibis of his co-accused collapse with it. Voluntary surrender, to be mitigating, must be spontaneous and genuine, not the result of a warrant of arrest. Under Article 64, absent generic aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its medium period.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction as to Joaquin Velez, with the modification that the civil indemnity was raised to 12,000 pesos, and held that he is entitled to full-time credit for preventive imprisonment under Republic Act Number 6127, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

Memorize the line that conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among the accused is proven, because their acts, apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy inferred from conduct, treachery absorbing abuse of superiority, and the strict requirements of voluntary surrender.