People v. Verona

 

People v. Verona

G.R. No. 227748

June 19, 2019

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted Efren and Edwin Verona for the crime of murder. That on or about the October 27, 1998, in the Municipality of Tanauan, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously performed the following acts, to wit: accused Dioscoro Verona and Eddie Verona flagged down the passenger jeepney driven by Romeo Ortega and when the vehicle stopped, accused Efren Verona, Edwin Verona and Edgar Verona suddenly and unexpectedly took turns in hacking and stabbing Manuel Tingoy with the use of short bolos and a long bolo which the said accused provided themselves for the purpose while accused Rogelio Verona who was also armed with a bolo, stood on guard, thereby inflicting multiple incised and stab wounds on the different parts of the body of Manuel Tingoy which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not Eddie, Efren and Edwin are guilty of the crime of Murder

HELD:

                No.  Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two things with the same quantum of evidence of proof beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the fact of the crime, that is, the presence of all of the elements of the crime for which the accused stands charged; and (2) the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. It is basic that when a crime is committed, the first duty of the prosecution is to prove the identity of the perpetrator of the crime beyond reasonable doubt for there can be no conviction even if the commission of the crime is established. Efren and Edwin allege that the prosecution eyewitness, Eva Castano, was not credible and reliable because first, there were material inconsistencies and substantial contradictions in her statements, and second, her relative position from the crime scene did not possibly afford her good visibility for her to recognize the faces of the assailants. The evidence very clearly established that the victim was stabbed immediately after the Jeepney he was riding - the victim then was positioned at the rear, standing on the stepboard of the vehicle - was stopped by the accused. Prosecution eyewitness Eva Castano categorically and in simple terms described the manner in which the accused killed the victim: Efren Verona delivered the first stab blow on the victim. After Manuel Tingoy fell to the ground, Edwin Verona hacked the victim on the head and the body using his weapon; Edgar Verona also hacked the victim using his own 33 cms long bolo; Efren Verona utilized his own 33 cms. long bolo to stab the victim at the back of his body; and Efren first stabbed the victim, and followed by Edwin. At the time he was first stabbed, Manuel Tingoy was standing on the step board of the Jeepney and was holding on the bars.  In this case, the hacking acts of Efren and Edwin, when taken together with the stabbing act of Efren, reveal a commonality and unity of criminal design. The defense cannot aver that Dioscoro and Eddie's mere act of carrying a weapon is not an overt act reflective of conspiracy because clearly, such act is in line with the crime of murder. Regardless of the extent and character of Dioscoro and Eddie's respective active participation, once conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals. The act of one is the act of all. Wherefore, appeal is dismissed.