People v. Veloso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 20, 1970, at approximately 8:00 PM, Jesus Diez was walking home with his brother Andres and Federico Agotilla when they encountered three men. Jesus Diez asked the men where they were from and if they understood Bicol. One of the men responded aggressively and stabbed Jesus Diez with a dagger, while the other two fired at him. Andres and Federico hid and later observed the three men commandeering a jeep at gunpoint. The following day, May 21, 1970, the house of former Vice-Governor Felimon Odiamar was robbed, and his son, Henry Odiamar, was killed. Investigators learned that Darwin Veloso y Militante participated in this robbery and homicide. Upon being shown a picture of Veloso, Andres Diez identified him as the person who stabbed his brother. Catalina Asico also identified Veloso. Veloso was apprehended and confessed to the robbery and homicide of Henry Odiamar, as well as the shooting of Jesus Diez, naming two companions. Procedural History: An information for murder was filed against Darwin Veloso y Militante. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder with five aggravating circumstances and sentenced him to death, to indemnify the heirs of Jesus Diez, and to pay costs. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review of the death sentence.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in identifying Darwin Veloso as the perpetrator based on the testimony of related witnesses. Whether the killing was committed with conspiracy. Whether motive is a necessary element for conviction when identification is positive. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, unlicensed firearm, recidivism, habitual delinquency, and aid of armed men were properly appreciated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength and aggravated by treachery. The penalty of death was imposed, with indemnification to the heirs of Jesus Diez. However, due to lack of the necessary ten affirmative votes for the death penalty, the sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the relationship of a witness to the victim does not inherently impair credibility, especially when no improper motive is established. Andres Diez, despite his youth, provided straightforward and sincere testimony that indicated a high capacity for perception and memory. The Court emphasized that when witnesses testify clearly and positively, and there is no showing that they were coached or motivated by malice, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. The identification was further corroborated by Catalina Asico, who witnessed the verbal exchange preceding the gunfire. Additionally, the extrajudicial confession of the accused, which remained uncontested, served as powerful evidence of his identity as the assailant. On Issue 2: Conspiracy was sufficiently proven by the unity of purpose and concert of design shown during the attack. The evidence demonstrated that the companions of Veloso fired at the victim almost simultaneously after Veloso delivered the initial stab wound. This collective action shows they shared a single criminal intent to terminate the life of the victim. Under the doctrine of conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, making Veloso responsible for the fatal gunshot wounds even if he only personally delivered a non-fatal stab wound. Their joint flight and subsequent participation in another crime together the following night further solidified the existence of a conspiratorial bond. On Issue 3: The Court clarified that motive is not an essential element of a crime and need not be proven for conviction. Applying the ruling in People v. Verzo, motive becomes essential only when there is significant doubt as to the identity of the culprit. In this case, there was no such doubt because the accused was positively identified by two eyewitnesses and had issued an extrajudicial confession. Criminal intent, which is an element of the crime, was sufficiently established by the nature of the weapons used and the coordinated nature of the attack on the victim. On Issue 4: The Court found several errors in the trial court's appreciation of aggravating circumstances. Nighttime was excluded because the encounter was accidental; the accused did not purposely seek darkness to commit the crime. The use of an unlicensed firearm is not a recognized aggravating circumstance under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), per People v. Zapartero. Recidivism and habitual delinquency were rejected because they were not alleged in the Information, a procedural requirement established in U.S. v. Tieng Pay. Finally, the aid of armed men was deemed absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. However, treachery was appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance because the attack was so sudden that the victim had no chance to defend himself.
Main Doctrine
The crime committed is murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength, and with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, not offset by any mitigating circumstance. The accused is sentenced to DEATH, with indemnification to the heirs of the victim.