315 People v.

Verzola
No. L-35022 (1977)
J. Antonio / Tita K
Subject Matter: Rule 31: Burden of Proof; in criminal cases
Summary:
Verzola clubbed to death Molina in the presence of Josefina, the wife of Molina and paramour of Verzola. Verzola
executed a writted statement (extrajudicial conjession) admitting that he clubbed the victim several times.
Subsequently, he impugned the veracity of the facts stated in the said confession claiming that he acted in self-defense.
CFI found Verzola guilty of the crime murder. This was affirmed by the SC.

Doctrines:
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.

In this case, no such evidence was adduced by Verzola.

Parties:
Petitioner PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondent RICARDO VERZOLA & JOSEFINA MOLINA
Facts:
Bernardo Molina, husband of appellant Josefina Molina, was clubbed to death by Ricardo Verzola in the presence of
appellant Josefina inside Molina’s house. 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,
underwear and the piece of wood he used in clubbing the deceased, inside the toilet.

Afterwards, he reported to the police authorities that Bernardo had died in an accident.

Josefina, when questioned by the police, revealed that Verzola was the assailant of her husband. Upon her request, she
was brought to the Office of the Chief of Police where she gave a written statement narrating the circumstances
surrounding the incident.

In her extrajudicial statement, she said that Verzola went to their house, entered their room where she and her
deceased husband were sleeping, had carnal knowledge with her, and started hitting the deceased on the head
when the latter woke up.

Appellant Verzola also executed a written statement (extra-judicial confession) admitting that he clubbed the victim
several times.

He said that appellant Josefina had told him that her husband was planning to kill him; that he cannot withstand
this plan; hence, he clubbed him the moment he saw the husband lying down sleeping.

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 he used in clubbing the deceased.

Furthermore, the autopsy report revealed that the wounds were inflicted while the victim was lying in prone position,
facing downwards.

Verzola, however, impugned the veracity of the facts contained in his extra-judicial confession. He claimed that he did
so in self-defense. It was also alleged that 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.

CFI found both appellants guilty of the crime of Murder.

Issue/s: WON the lower court erred in finding Verzola GBRD of Murder. (NO)

Ratio: CFI is correct in finding Verzola guilty.

 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.
 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.
o In this case, it is evident that no such proof was adduced by appellant Verzola.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o More significant, however, are the undisputed physical facts of the case, such as nature, character and
location of the wounds sustained by the deceased and the presence of the bloodstains on the beddings of
the victim. They sufficiently indicate that 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.

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.

NOTES:
WON Josefina could be held criminally responsible as an accessory. (NO)

 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 the responsibility of the accessories is subsequent to the
consummation of the crime and subordinate to that of the principal.
o 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.
o 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 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.