G.R. No. L-35022. December 21, 1977
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO VERZOLA & JOSEFINA MOLINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
ANTONIO, J.:
Appeal by Ricardo Verzola and Josefina
Molina from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Abra,
finding them guilty of the crime of Murder and sentencing them, respectively, viz.:
Verzola, as principal, to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P12,000.00
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay 3/4 of the costs; and Molina, as an
accessory after the fact, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto
mayor as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional as
maximum, and to pay 1/4 of the indemnity and costs.
At about 10:00 o’clock
on the night of September 28, 1969,
Bernardo Molina was clubbed to death by Ricardo Verzola
in the presence of appellant Josefina Molina inside Molina’s house at Barrio Lipcan, Bangued, Abra. The body of the victim was subsequently
carried by the two appellants to the ground and left at the foot of the
stairs. Appellant Verzola
then went to his house, changed his clothes and threw his bloodstained sweater,
undershirt and underwear, including the piece of wood he used in clubbing the
deceased, inside their toilet. Afterwards,
he went to the municipal building and reported to the police authorities that
Bernardo had died in an accident. The police authorities, together with the
Municipal Health Officer, the Municipal Judge and a photographer went to Lipcan to conduct the investigation. They found the body of the deceased Bernardo
Molina sprawled at the foot of the bamboo ladder (Exhibit “I”). Blood had oozed from the mouth, nose
and ears. There were bloodstains on the
floor of the bedroom of the house, on the mat, as well as on the beddings of
the deceased. The bloodstains led to the
bamboo ladder where some of the stains could be found on the steps of the
ladder. When questioned by the police,
Josefina revealed that the assailant of her husband was Ricardo Verzola. Upon her
request, she was brought to the Office of the Chief of Police of Bangued, where at about 2:00 o’clock in the morning of September
29, 1969, she gave a written statement narrating the circumstances surrounding
the incident in question and pointing to appellant Verzola
as the assailant of her husband (Exhibits “K” and
“9”). In that extra-judicial
statement, she stated that immediately after 10:00 o’clock in the evening of
September 28, 1969, appellant Ricardo Verzola went to
their house in Barrio Lipcan, Bangued,
Abra, entered the room where she was sleeping with
her husband, Bernardo Molina, woke her up and had carnal knowledge of her;
that when Bernardo Molina woke up and attempted to rise from the floor, that
was the moment when Verzola clubbed Bernardo, hitting
him on the head several times; that afterwards, she heard the sound of a body
being dragged downstairs and the voice of Verzola
saying that he was leaving and warning her not to say anything about the incident. She looked out of the door and saw her husband
already lying prostrate at the foot of the stairs. This statement was sworn
to by her before Municipal Judge Francisco T. Valera.
At about 4:00 o’clock that same morning, appellant Verzola was picked up by the police and brought to the
municipal building, and there he also executed a written statement (Exhibit
“L”) admitting that he clubbed the victim several times. Thus, in his extra-judicial confession of September
29, 1969, the
following statements appear:
“6. Q:-
You stated that you killed Bernardo Molina
inside his house, will (you)
relate the true events or what happened when you killed him?
A:- Yes, sir.
Last
night at the stated hour in Barrio Lipcan, Bangued, Abra, inside the house
of Bernardo Molina I went and when I was under their house that was the time
when I pricked with a bamboo twig just under the place where Josephina Molina,
wife of Bernardo Molina was lying down, and I noticed that she was awake, and not long afterwards she came down and
came to my place, and that was
the time when we did everything that wanted both of us to do, but before that in the night, Josephina
Molina told me “THAT HER
HUSBAND WAS PLANNING TO KILL ME” and just after we were through what both of us did, Josephina went upstairs
inside (the) house, and because I cannot withstand anymore the plan of her
husband to kill me that was why I went upstairs and I went direct inside their
room and I saw Bernardo Molina lying down sleeping, and that was the time when
I clubbed him three times at the nape, and when he did not move anymore that
was the time when we both with Josephina Molina throw him downstairs of their
house. After that I went home.
7. Q:- What is the
weapon that you used in clubbing Bernardo Molina?
A:- A wooden club which is rounded and about two palms in
length, Sir.
8. Q:- You stated that
while you were under the house of Bernardo Molina and you pricked with bamboo
twig in awakening Josephina Molina and not long afterwards she came down and
went to you, what is your relationship
with Josephina Molina the wife of Bernardo Molina?
A:- Josephina Molina is my paramour.
9. Q:- How long have
you been in that relationship with Josephina Molina?
A:- What I know is that it is already about 10 years,
Sir. Because her
daughter who is already 12 years old
was still small.
10. Q:- With this
relationship that you have with Josephina Molina did not her husband Bernardo
Molina notice, so that Josephina told you that her husband was planning to kill
you?
A:- Probably he had already, Sir. Because that is what his
wife told me.
11. Q:- Who witnessed
when you killed Bernardo Molina that you know?
A:- It was only Josephina the wife of Bernardo Molina, Sir.
12. Q:- What did
Josephina say when you delivered club blows at her husband?
A:- ‘That is enough he is dead, let us bring him down’ , that
is what she said, Sir.
13. Q:-Therefore, you want to say that you and
Josephina Molina the wife of Bernardo helped each other in this killing?
A:- I told her when she was going up, ‘I’LL GO AHEAD OF HIM’ and what she answered
to me ‘IT IS UP TO YOU’ , Sir.
14. Q: And where was Josephina while you were
clubbing Bernardo, if you remember?
A:
She was there lying down, and when Bernardo did not move she said that is enough.
15. Q:- What was your
clothing when you went to club Bernardo Molina and also your trousers that you
used?
A:- Sweater with long sleeves colored light gray and white
shorts, Sir.
16. Q:-,Where are these sweater and shorts?
A:- I dropped it inside our toilet, Sir.
17. Q:- And where is
that club that you said you used in clubbing Bernardo Molina?
A:- I also dropped it
inside our toilet, Sir.
18. Q: Is it not correct that you kill Bernardo
Molina because he surprised you while you
were beside his wife inside their room that night?
A:- No, Sir.
19. Q: – So that in this where you clubbed to
death Bernardo Molina you admit as your guilt?
A:- Yes, Sir.
20. Q: Do you have something more to add to this
statement of yours?
A:- No more,
Sir. Unless there are
more questions to me.
21. Q:- Were you
forced, intimidated, instructed or you were mauled in this where you made your
statement?
A:- No, Sir.
22. Q:- Do you want to
sign this statement of yours?
A:- Yes, Sir.” (Exhibit “L-Translation”)
After executing his aforesaid written statement, he was brought
to the residence of Judge Francisco T. Valera. Judge Valera sent
the policemen out of his house, apprised Verzola of
his constitutional rights, then read to him the
contents of his aforementioned extra-judicial confession. After satisfying himself that the statement
was given voluntarily, he administered the oath to said appellant. Appellant Verzola
then guided the police authorities to his house where, in their presence, he
retrieved from the toilet his bloodstained clothes, as well as the piece of
wood which he used in clubbing the deceased.
Dr. Luis F. Briñgas, Municipal Health Officer of Bangued,
Abra, who conducted the autopsy, testified that the
deceased died instantaneously as a result of cardio-respiratory
failure caused by “cerebral compressions and hemorrhages”. The deceased sustained the following wounds:
“LACERATED WOUND NO. I:- 7 Cm. in length with irregular borders or edges
extremities, the deeper tissues unevenly divided with tags of tissues showing in the wound. The edges and surrounding parts bruised and
some hairs were found in the
wound. Situated 6 Cm.
in level of the posterior outer upper part of left Helix of the left ear,
extending slantingly downwards below to middle portion of Occipital region.
“LACERATED WOUND NO. II:- 6 Cm. in length situated 3 Cm. lateral to Lacerated Wound
No. I, plated horizontally form mid point of the Lacerated Wound. The characteristics of the
wound is the same as the above wounds.
“LACERATED WOUND NO. III:- Same characteristics as of the above wounds. 5 Cm.
in length situated 2 Cm. below Lacerated Wound No. II,
extending slightly to the right side.
“LACERATED WOUND NO. IV:- 4.5 Cm. in length same as the characteristics of the
other wounds above, but extending opposite Lacerated Wound No. I only from the right side.” (Exhibit
“A”).
He
also declared that on the basis of the location and direction of the
wounds, the assailant must have been
behind the victim and said wounds
were inflicted while the victim was
lying in prone position, face downwards.
Both appellants admit
that it was appellant Verzola who inflicted
the fatal blows on the victim. Verzola,
however, after impugning the veracity of the facts contained in his
extra-judicial confession (Exhibit “L”), claims that he did so in
self-defense. Thus, Verzola testified that while he was feeding his two cows in
front of his house at about 10:00 o’clock
on the night of September 28, 1969,
he heard cries for help coming from the direction of the house of Bernardo
Molina. Upon recognizing it to be the
voice of the wife of Bernardo, he proceeded to the couple’s house. Upon reaching the yard of said house, he
heard the loud voice of a man. Thus
thinking that some intruder had entered the Molinas‘
residence, he decided to arm himself. At
the threshold of the ladder, he picked up a part of a plow (Exhibit
“B”). At the door of the room,
he heard the man say: “Vulva of
your mother, I will kill you.” As he entered the small room, he saw his
co-appellant Josefina Molina crouching in a corner, being maltreated by
Bernardo Molina. After Bernardo noticed
his presence, he said: “Vulva of
your mother, I will kill all of you.” At that juncture, Bernardo stooped to pick up a bolo from the floor. As Bernardo was still bending towards the floor,
Verzola struck him twice with the piece of wood,
hitting the head of the victim, causing him to fall. After he had fallen, he tried to revive the
victim by placing the head of the latter on his lap and shaking it, saying: “Hoy,
Hoy, Hoy“.
He explained that this
was the reason why there were bloodstains on his clothes. When Josefina asked him what happened, he replied that Bernardo met an
accident. At his suggestion, they both
carried the body of the victim down the stairs because according to him they
wanted to bring the body to the hospital.
As the hospital was too far and it was too dark, they left the body on
the ground. After instructing Josefina
to go and summon persons to help the victim, he went home. After changing his clothes and throwing his
bloodstained clothing inside their toilet, he went to the municipal building in
Bangued, Abra, and reported
to the guard that there was a person who met an accident in Barrio Lipcan.
His co-appellant, Josefina Molina, also testified that during the
first week of September, 1969 she
had a quarrel with her husband because of Bernardo’s jealousy of three men,
namely, Ambrocio Bocarile,
Santos Beloy and appellant Ricardo Verzola; that on the night in question, she and her husband
had another quarrel and in the course thereof, she was boxed and strangled by
her husband, causing her to shout for help; that after a while, as she was
crouching in a corner of the house, with her face covered, she heard a
thud. As she looked up, she noticed that Verzola
was already inside their room, squatting on the floor and holding on his lap
the head of her husband; that while Verzola was
shaking the head of the deceased, he was saying: “Hoy, Hoy, Hoy.” She claimed that out of fear, she assisted Verzola in carrying the body of Bernardo at the foot of the
stairs where Verzola left her. After looking at the wounds of her husband,
she became afraid and went up the house where her children were sleeping.
Both appellants claimed that they were not aware of the contents
of their extra-judicial confessions as
they were made to sign them by the police authorities without being able
to read their contents.
There can be no question that once an accused has admitted the
killing of a human being, the burden is on him to establish the existence of
any circumstance which may justify the killing or at least attenuate the
offense committed. To establish his
exculpation, or the justification for the act, he must prove such affirmative
allegation by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.[1]
He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of
that for the prosecution, for even if that were weak, it could not be
disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing.[2]
It is evident that no such proof was
adduced by appellant Verzola.
To begin with, the conduct of appellant Verzola
immediately after he committed the crime is incompatible with the reaction of
one who killed another in legitimate
self-defense. Although he claims that he
brought the victim down the stairs in order to bring him to the hospital, yet
when he was able to get a jeep he did not utilize it for that purpose but
instead used it in going to town.
Moreover, although appellant Verzola was
present at the scene of the crime when the police authorities were
investigating the case, he kept quiet about the incident. It was only from Josefina Molina that the
police learned for the first time that Verzola was
the assailant of the deceased. Even
then, Josefina had to request the police authorities to bring her to the poblacion so that she could talk more freely about the
killing. For his part, Verzola attempted to conceal his participation in the crime
by hiding inside his toilet his bloodstained clothes and the weapon that he
used in clubbing the deceased. These
actuations of appellant Verzola reveal a behaviour which is incompatible with the reaction of one
who acted in legitimate self-defense.[3] More
significant, however, are the undisputed physical facts of the case, such as
the nature, character and location of the wounds sustained by the deceased and
the presence of the bloodstains on the beddings of the victim. These facts and circumstances belie the claim
of the appellant that he clubbed the victim in self-defense. On the contrary, they sufficiently indicate
that the fatal injuries were inflicted upon the victim when the latter was
lying defenseless on the floor, as he was either sleeping or was just beginning
to wake up.
Although appellant Josefina Molina admitted in her extra-judicial
statement (Exhibits “K”, “K-1” to “K-9”) that she
was the paramour of her co-appellant for over a year, there is no proof that she had knowledge of the criminal
design of her co-appellant. Neither has
she cooperated with him by previous or simultaneous acts, much less is there
any showing that she supplied the principal with material or moral aid. Her only
participation was in assisting her co-appellant in bringing the body of the
deceased to the ground. The question,
therefore, is whether or not by said overt act she could be held criminally
responsible as an accessory.
An accessory does not participate in the criminal design, nor
cooperate in the commission of the felony, but, with knowledge of the
commission of the crime, he
subsequently takes part in three (3) ways: (a) by profiting from the effects of
the crime; (b) by concealing the body, effects or instruments of the
crime in order to prevent its discovery; and (c) by assisting in the escape or
concealment of the principal of the crime, provided he acts with abuse of his
public functions or the principal is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or
an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
The main difference separating accessories after the fact from principal
and accomplice lies in the fact that the responsibility of the accessories is
subsequent to the consummation of the crime and subordinate to that of the
principal.
According to the trial court, “the bringing down of the body
of the victim * * * was to destroy the body of the crime, or its effect, that
is, to make it appear that the death of the victim was caused by an
accident.” We disagree. There is no
iota of proof that Josefina Molina ever attempted “to destroy the body of
the crime” or to make it appear that death of the victim was
accidental. It must be noted that
Josefina testified that she helped her co-appellant bring the body of the deceased
down the stairs because of fear. Even if
she assisted her co-appellant without duress, simply assisting Verzola in bringing the body down the house to the foot of
the stairs and leaving said body for anyone to see, cannot be classified as an
attempt to conceal or destroy the body of the crime. The concealing or destroying of the body of
the crime, the effects or instruments thereof, must be done to prevent the
discovery of the crime. In the case at
bar, the body was left at the foot of the stairs at a place where it was easily
visible to the public. Under such
circumstances, there could not have been any attempt on the part of Josefina to
conceal or destroy the body of the crime.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the judgment, insofar
as appellant Verzola is concerned, is hereby
AFFIRMED. The judgment against Josefina
Molina is, however, reversed and said appellant is ACQUITTED, with
proportionate costs de oficio.
Barredo, (Acting Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Guerrero*,
JJ., concur.
Fernando, (Chairman), and
Santos, JJ., on official leave.
[1]
People v. Quintab,
16 SCRA 146; People v. Bauden, 77 Phil. 105; People v. Berio, 59 Phil. 533; People v. Libed, 14 SCRA 410, 413; People v. Ordiales, 42 SCRA
238, 247.
[2]
People
v. Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772; People v. Silang Cruz, 53 Phil. 635; People v. Espenilla, 62
Phil. 265; People v. Navarra, 25 SCRA 491; People v. Talaboc,
Jr., 30 SCRA 87; People
v. Llamera, 51 SCRA 48.
[3]
People v. Pelago, 24
SCRA 1027, 1033.
*
J. Guerrero was designated to sit in the Second Division.