People V Blademir Devaras
People V Blademir Devaras
People V Blademir Devaras
SYLLABUS
DECISION
CRUZ , J : p
A pedicab driver and his passenger were attacked without provocation by two men
who hacked them to death and later threw their bodies over the bridge with the help of
another person. Investigation that same night disclosed the participation of the herein
appellants, who were subsequently accused of murder in two informations alleging that
they committed the offenses in conspiracy with each other and with treachery and abuse
of superior strength.
After the joint trial, Judge Pedro S. Espina of the Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte,
nding the presence of treachery but no conspiracy, 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. 1 All three have appealed on the grounds that the
trial court erred a) in convicting them of murder instead of homicide; and b) in not holding
that Ruel Animos should also have been charged and convicted as an accessory like
appellant Pablo Devaras. cdrep
The principal witness for the prosecution was Raul Animos, who claimed to have
witnessed the killing of the two victims. He said that on July 10, 1990, at about 7 o'clock in
the evening, the three appellants were drinking tuba with him in the house of Pablo Devaras
and that thereafter they joined him on his tour of duty as bantay-bayan. They had been
making the rounds in the town for about four hours when, while at the Daguitan bridge, they
saw a zigzagging pedicab approach. When the pedicab was halfway across the bridge,
Blademir Devaras, who was carrying a long bolo known as a "sansibar," suddenly attacked
Efren Verzosa, the pedicab driver. Efren fell from his seat but Blademir continued hacking
him with the bolo, hitting him in the head and neck. At about that same time, Ronilo Caisek,
who was also carrying a long bolo, attacked Felix Verzosa, the passenger, who tried to
parry the blows with his arms as he got out of the vehicle. He fell, staggered and ran but
was overtaken by Ronilo, who continued striking the helpless old man in the head, neck,
chest and shoulders. 2
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Ronilo said that he was barely 5 meters away from the assailants and was so
shocked at what had happened that he could barely move or say anything. Pablo Devaras
also did not participate in the brutal slaying but later helped his cousin Blademir throw
Efren's body over the bridge into the river below. 3 Ronilo himself was ordered to help
throw the body of Felix and, although he initially hesitated, had to comply in the end
because he was threatened with death if he refused to obey. 4 cdrep
The abandoned pedicab was found by Doring Leaño, who reported this, curiously
enough, to the three accused. Together, they went to see barangay captain Benigno
Tadeno, who immediately went to the bridge and thereafter, suspecting foul play, noti ed
the police. Pat. Romulo Perido went to investigate with several policemen. When he
noticed blood on the back of Ruel's shirt, he forthwith took Ruel into custody for
questioning, during which the suspect revealed what had happened earlier and implicated
the three appellants. 5
The body of Felix was found the following morning under the bridge. The body of
Efren was found about three hours later near the seashore. The autopsy revealed that Felix
had sustained twenty wounds and nine wounds had been inflicted on Efren.
All three accused denied participation in the killings. Blademir swore that he was
alone in his house at the time of the incident but on cross-examination admitted he was
with the two accused. 6 Ronilo con rmed that he was then in his house with Blademir and
Pablo. 7 Pablo maintained that he was with his mother that evening but changed his
testimony when confronted with Ronilo's statement, which he affirmed to be true. 8
After assessing the evidence of the parties, the trial court decided in favor of the
prosecution, rejecting the alibis and denials of the accused for being inconsistent and
incredible. llcd
Blademir Devaras and Caisek were both sentenced to reclusion perpetua and each
was ordered to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 to the heirs of their
respective victims. Pablo Devaras was convicted as an accessory in the murder of Efren
Verzosa and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 6 years, 1 month and 11 days to 8
years and 20 days.
We defer to the factual ndings of the trial court, there being no showing that they
were reached arbitrarily or without basis. The evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses
is better made by the judge presiding at the trial rather than by the appellate court because
of the former's opportunity to observe the deportment of the witnesses and to ascertain
therefrom whether they are narrating the truth or falsifying it.
Moreover, the assignment of errors is in effect an admission by the appellants of
their participation in the killings of the two victims. As we see it, their appeal is only an
attempt to reduce their penalties.
The rst error assigned by the appellants is untenable because the evidence of
record clearly shows that Blademir and Ronilo suddenly attacked their unarmed victims
with bolos, thereby insuring the commission of the offense without risk to themselves
arising from the defense the victims might make. 9 Alevosia quali ed the crime to murder.
The killing would have been homicide only without the attendance of treachery, which is
one of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The second assigned error must also be dismissed. The determination of the
persons to be prosecuted on the basis of the evidence against them rests primarily with
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
the prosecutor, who is vested with quasi-judicial discretion in the discharge of this
function. 1 0 We have held that, as an exception, the prosecutor can be compelled by
mandamus if he abuses this discretion and refuses to include a person as a co-accused
against whom there appears to be at least prima facie evidence. 1 1 However, this
extraordinary writ is available only if the petitioner shows that he has rst exhausted all
remedies in the ordinary course of law, such as a motion led with the trial court for the
indictment of the person or persons excluded by the prosecutor. 1 2 It does not appear that
such a motion was filed by the appellants in the case at bar.
We agree that there was no conspiracy between the appellants to justify their
common conviction for both murders. There is no evidence that Blademir and Ronilo had
earlier come to an agreement to kill the Verzosas; on the contrary, it would appear that
they had acted on impulse, independently of any common plan. The trial court was correct
in nding Blademir guilty of the murder only of Efren Verzosa and Ronilo guilty of the
murder only of Felix Verzosa instead of holding them equally liable for both murders. llcd
If both Bladimir Devaras and Pablo Devaras had been convicted as principals, they
would have been solidarily liable for the civil indemnity to the heirs of Efren Versoza. But
inasmuch as Pablo Devaras was convicted only as an accessory, he and Blademir Devaras
shall be directly liable only for their respective shares in the award of P50,000.00, and
subsidiarily liable for the other's share. The following articles of the Revised Penal Code
are applicable:
Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. — If there are two or more
persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for which
each must respond.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Decision penned by Regional Trial Court Judge Pedro S. Espina, Branch VII, Government
Center, Palo, Leyte.