THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DARWIN VELOSO Y MILITANTE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Veloso

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Darwin Veloso y Militante for the killing of Jesus Diez on the evening of May 20, 1970, in Barrio Sto. Tomas, Camaligan, Camarines Sur. The trial court convicted him of murder and imposed the death penalty, and the case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review because a sentence of death cannot be executed without the Court's scrutiny. The case matters for the bar because it is a compact lesson in qualifying and aggravating circumstances, in what must be alleged in the information, and in the weight of eyewitness testimony and extrajudicial confession.

Procedural History

An information for murder was filed before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. After trial, that court rendered judgment on November 7, 1970, finding the accused guilty of murder attended by five aggravating circumstances and sentencing him to the maximum penalty of death, with an award of damages. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The Court, sitting en banc through a per curiam opinion, reviewed the conviction and the penalty.

Facts

At about eight o'clock in the evening of May 20, 1970, thirteen-year-old Andres Diez was sent by his mother to fetch his elder brother Jesus for supper. Andres found Jesus talking with some persons in front of a store, told him of the errand, and the two walked home, with Jesus ahead and Andres following with his friend Federico Agotilla.

On the way, Jesus met three men, one carrying a ukelele and another an attache case. Jesus asked, "From where are you boy?" and, getting no answer, "Do you understand Bicol?" One of the men retorted, "What if Bicol or Tagalog?" and immediately stabbed Jesus with a dagger. Almost simultaneously, the other two fired at Jesus several times. The boys hid behind a wall until the men left. The barrio captain, Andres Servidad, went to investigate and was himself threatened at gunpoint by one of the trio. The three later commandeered a jeep at gunpoint and went to Barrio Keburac. The autopsy showed four gunshot wounds and a stab wound in the abdomen.

The next day, the house of former Vice-Governor Felimon Odiamar was robbed and his son Henry was shot and killed. Investigators learned that the accused had participated in that robbery and homicide. Theorizing that the same group might be responsible for the killing of Jesus Diez, they showed the accused's picture to witnesses, and Andres Diez and Catalina Asico identified him. Apprehended in Makati, the accused confessed to both the Odiamar robbery and killing and to the shooting of Jesus Diez, naming his companions. He was charged with murder, and the trial court convicted him, finding nighttime, abuse of superior strength, use of an unlicensed firearm, aid of armed men, and habitual delinquency or recidivism as aggravating circumstances.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating nighttime, use of an unlicensed firearm, recidivism, and habitual delinquency as aggravating circumstances.
• Whether or not abuse of superior strength qualified the killing to murder, and whether treachery may be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance although not alleged in the information.
• Whether or not the testimony of Andres Diez, a young relative of the victim, and of Roque Custodio, who did not identify the accused, is sufficient to establish identity.
• Whether or not conspiracy attended the killing.
• Whether or not the failure to prove motive is fatal to the prosecution.
• Whether or not the accused was denied a fair trial.

Applicable Provisions

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court consulted on the aggravating circumstances, provides in its opening: "The following are aggravating circumstances:" The Court used this enumeration to hold that the use of an unlicensed firearm cannot aggravate the offense because it is not among those listed.

The following are aggravating circumstances:

The information in this case, as quoted by the Court, charged the qualifying circumstances in this language:

That on or about the 20th day of May, 1970, at approximately 8:00 o'clock in the evening, in the barrio of Sto. Tomas, municipality of Camaligan, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, together with Badong Doe and Romy Doe who are still at large, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, taking advantage of nighttime, with the aid of armed men and also taking advantage of superior strength to better accomplish their purpose, did then and there wilfully and feloniously assault, attack, stab and shot one Jesus Diez, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on the different parts of his body which directly caused his instantaneous death.

The absence of any allegation of recidivism or habitual delinquency in this information is what barred the Court from appreciating them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court struck down most of the aggravating circumstances. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because it was not shown that the accused purposely sought the cover of darkness; the meeting with the victim was accidental and the attack was made on the impulse of the moment. The use of an unlicensed firearm cannot aggravate because it is not among those enumerated in Article 14. Recidivism cannot be appreciated because it was not alleged in the information, and the Court held that if there is no allegation of recidivism in the complaint or information, it would be error for the trial court to allow evidence on such fact over the objection of the defendant. For the same reason, the special penalty for habitual delinquency cannot be applied, since habitual delinquency must be alleged specifically and in detail, including the dates of the previous crimes, convictions, and releases.

On the second issue, the Court held that abuse of superior strength qualified the crime to murder, because the accused and his two companions, all armed with deadly weapons, attacked the deceased together and took advantage of their greater number and greater power to overwhelm their unarmed victim. Having so qualified the crime, the Court could no longer consider the aid of armed men as a separate aggravating circumstance. The Court further held that treachery attended the attack and, although not alleged in the information, may still be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the conviction. Mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not destroy his testimony where no improper motive is shown, and the youth of Andres Diez did not render his simple and straightforward testimony unworthy of belief. As for Roque Custodio, the Court noted that the judgment did not rest solely on his identification, since identity was also established by the testimony of Catalina Asico and by the accused's extrajudicial confession.

On the fourth issue, the Court found a conspiracy, because the evidence showed a unity of purpose and concert of design: the companions fired almost simultaneously after the accused stabbed the victim, and the group left together to commit another crime the following night.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that motive is not an essential element of a crime and need not be proven for conviction; it is essential in murder cases only when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit, which did not obtain here because the accused was positively identified.

On the sixth issue, the Court rejected the claim of denial of fair trial, since the record showed that the accused was attended by counsel and was substantially given a fair trial. The Court nevertheless observed that the information was ill-prepared, and directed that a copy of the decision be furnished the Minister of Justice so he may take note of the actuations of the prosecutor concerned.

Doctrine

First, qualifying circumstances raise the crime to murder, but once a circumstance is used to qualify, it cannot again be counted as a separate aggravating circumstance. Second, recidivism and habitual delinquency must be alleged in the information; absent such allegation, evidence of them cannot be admitted over objection, and the special penalty for habitual delinquency cannot be imposed. Third, the use of an unlicensed firearm is not an aggravating circumstance under Article 14. Fourth, treachery, though not alleged, may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Fifth, relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair credibility absent proof of improper motive. Sixth, motive is not an element of the crime and is essential only where identity is in doubt.

Disposition

The Court found the accused guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Jesus Diez in the amount of 12,000 pesos and to pay the costs.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that recidivism and habitual delinquency must be alleged in the information, and that a qualifying circumstance cannot be counted twice. Examiners use this case to test aggravating circumstances, the requirements of the information, and the weight of eyewitness testimony and confession.