THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GETULIO VERZO, REYNALDO VERZO AND ROBERTO VERZO, DEFENDANTS.

People versus Verzo

The Case

This is People versus Verzo, a criminal case decided by the Supreme Court in December 1967. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Getulio Verzo and his sons Reynaldo and Roberto for the killing of Benjamin Camino, a former patrolman, and for the grave injuries inflicted on Filemon Casis. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact illustration of three things examiners love: conspiracy inferred from concerted action, abuse of superior strength as the qualifying circumstance that raises a killing to murder, and the rule that the presence of a policeman at the scene does not amount to contempt of public authority.

Procedural History

The three Verzos were charged with murder for the death of Benjamin Camino in one case, and with frustrated murder for the injuries to Filemon Casis in another, both before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte. The two cases were tried jointly. The trial court accepted the prosecution's version, rejected the defense witnesses as unworthy of credence, convicted all three accused in both cases, and sentenced each of them to the extreme penalty in the murder case, with indemnity and costs. None of the defendants appealed. Because the murder case carried the death penalty, it was elevated to the Supreme Court automatically for review under Section 9 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court. Only the murder case was thus before the Court.

Facts

On the evening of July 6, 1962, Filemon Casis rode his bicycle toward the town of Labo, Camarines Norte, to buy medicines. He noticed Reynaldo Verzo seemingly trailing him. Fearing that the Verzos meant to waylay him, Filemon went to the municipal building and asked policeman Lope Jariel to escort him home. Jariel agreed and followed about fifteen meters behind.

As Filemon passed in front of Getulio Verzo's house, Getulio threw a stone that hit the bicycle and caused Filemon to fall. Benjamin Camino, a former patrolman then inside a bar across the street, stepped out and advised Filemon to report the matter. Jariel approached Getulio and told him not to take the law into his own hands. Getulio answered that his son had been struck by Filemon's son. When Camino remarked that Getulio had already thrown a stone, Getulio went inside his house and came back with Reynaldo and Roberto, each holding a bolo.

The three attacked Camino with their bolos. Camino ran away, severely wounded, and died less than an hour and a half later from hemorrhage and shock. The Verzos then turned on Filemon, hacking and stabbing him until he fell unconscious. Filemon sustained twelve wounds, including the loss of three fingers of his right hand. The defense claimed that Camino had been drunk and had started the aggression with an ice pick, and that the wounds of the accused came from a struggle. The trial court found this version too artificial, noting that the accused's superficial injuries were shown to a physician only days later, and that some could have been caused by a fall or self-inflicted.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the fatal wound causing Camino's death was criminally inflicted by the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting all three accused despite the absence of proof of conspiracy and of who among them inflicted the fatal wound.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating treachery and abuse of superior strength.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in failing to consider mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty and imposing the death penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, the provision under which the case reached the Court, provides:

Section 9. Appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death. — Whenever the penalty of death is imposed by the Court of First Instance, the case shall be elevated to the Supreme Court for review, whether the defendant appeals or not.

This is why the murder case reached the Supreme Court even though no accused appealed, and why the Court could modify the penalty on its own review.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial judge did not err in accepting the prosecution's version. The testimonies of Jariel and Filemon were substantially corroborated by other witnesses, and by the number, nature, and location of the injuries, one of which was on Camino's back. The alleged inconsistencies referred to minor details. The Court also held that proof of motive is not indispensable when the record clearly shows that the death was due to injuries inflicted by the defendants, and that in any event bad blood existed between the Verzos and the Casises.

On the second issue, the Court found conspiracy beyond doubt. The accused emerged from the house together, each brandishing a bolo; they immediately attacked Camino and chased him as he fled; they did not desist despite Jariel's warning shots; and when Camino escaped their reach, they attacked Filemon, with Reynaldo holding Filemon from behind and telling his father to stab him. These acts showed a unity of purpose and execution.

On the third issue, the Court gave the accused the benefit of the doubt on treachery, but held that abuse of superior strength was manifest, since three armed men with bolos attacked an unarmed man who was trying to flee. Hence the crime was murder. The Court added that although a policeman was present, the crime was not committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities, because a policeman is merely an agent of a person in authority, not a person in authority.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that none of the invoked mitigating circumstances — provocation on the part of the victim, incomplete self-defense, and voluntary surrender — had been established.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that no modifying circumstance attended the murder, so the penalty must be imposed in its medium period, which is life imprisonment. The civil liability was increased from 3,000 pesos to 6,000 pesos in line with settled jurisprudence.

Doctrine

Conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted acts of the accused showing a common purpose and unity in its execution, and once established, all conspirators are liable for the crime regardless of who inflicted the fatal wound. Abuse of superior strength qualifies a killing to murder where the aggressors are clearly superior in number and weaponry against an unarmed and fleeing victim. The presence of a policeman at the scene does not amount to contempt of or insult to public authority, because a policeman is merely an agent of a person in authority, not a person in authority. Proof of motive is not indispensable when the evidence clearly shows that the death resulted from injuries inflicted by the accused. Where no modifying circumstance attends the murder, the penalty is imposed in its medium period, which is life imprisonment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of all three accused for murder, modified the penalty to life imprisonment, and increased the civil indemnity to 6,000 pesos, with costs against the defendants.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a policeman is merely an agent of a person in authority, not a person in authority, so his presence at the scene does not raise the crime to contempt of public authority. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy inferred from concerted action, abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance, and the medium-period rule for murder without modifying circumstances.