People v. Devaras
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two men, a pedicab driver (Efren Verzosa) and his passenger (Felix Verzosa), were attacked and killed by Blademir Devaras and Ronilo Caisek, with Pablo Devaras assisting in disposing of one of the bodies. The victims were hacked to death and their bodies were thrown over a bridge. The investigation that same night led to the apprehension of the appellants. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte, convicted Blademir Devaras as principal and Pablo Devaras as accessory in the murder of Efren Verzosa, and Ronilo Caisek for the murder of Felix Verzosa. The trial court found treachery present but no conspiracy. All three appealed. The Petition: The accused-appellants argued that the trial court erred in convicting them of murder instead of homicide and in not charging Ruel Animos as an accessory.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of murder instead of homicide. Whether the trial court erred in not holding Ruel Animos as an accessory.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification regarding the civil indemnity. The conviction of Blademir Devaras and Ronilo Caisek for murder was upheld, as was Pablo Devaras' conviction as an accessory. The penalty for Pablo Devaras was modified, and the civil indemnity was apportioned between Blademir and Pablo Devaras.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conviction for murder instead of homicide: The evidence clearly showed that Blademir Devaras and Ronilo Caisek suddenly attacked their unarmed victims with bolos, thereby ensuring the commission of the offense without risk to themselves arising from the defense the victims might make. This suddenness and lack of provocation constitute treachery (alevosia), which is a qualifying circumstance under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, thus elevating the crime from homicide to murder. The trial court correctly appreciated the presence of treachery based on the witness testimony describing the swift and unexpected nature of the attacks on defenseless individuals. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's factual findings regarding the presence of treachery, as the judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor. On the issue of not holding Ruel Animos as an accessory: The determination of who to prosecute rests primarily with the prosecutor, who is vested with quasi-judicial discretion. While this discretion can be compelled by mandamus in cases of grave abuse, such a remedy is extraordinary and requires the exhaustion of ordinary remedies, such as filing a motion with the trial court for the indictment of the excluded person. Since the appellants did not file such a motion, their argument that Ruel Animos should have been charged as an accessory is untenable. The witness, Ruel Animos, was the one who revealed what happened and implicated the appellants, and his testimony was crucial in their conviction.
Main Doctrine
Treachery qualifies a killing to murder if the attack is sudden and without provocation, ensuring the commission of the offense without risk to the offender. The determination of who to prosecute rests with the prosecutor's discretion, and a writ of mandamus will not compel inclusion without prior motion before the trial court.