600

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Verzola
No. L-35022. December 21, 1977.*
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO VERZOLA &
JOSEFINA MOLINA, accused-appellants.
Criminal law; Evidence; Murder; Once an accused admits the killing of the offended
party, the burden shifts on him to establish his exculpation or justification for the
acts by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.There can be no question that
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.
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
601

VOL. 80, DECEMBER 21, 1977

601
People vs. Verzola
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. It is evident that no such proof was
adduced by appellant Verzola.
Same; Same; Circumstances which belie claim of self-defense.More significant,
however, are the undisputed physical facts of the case, such as the nature,
character and location of the wounds sustained by the deceased and the presence
of the blood-stains on the beddings of the victim. These facts and circumstances
belie the claim of the appellant that he clubbed the victim in self-defense. On the
contrary, they sufficiently indicate that the fatal injuries were he inflicted upon the
victim when latter was lying defenseless on the floor as he was either sleeping or
was just beginning to wake up.

Same; Same; Accessory; The overt acts that will make one an accessory to murder
defined.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 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.
Same; Same; Same; Simply assisting the principal in bringing down from the house
to the foot of the stairs the body of the victim cannot be classified as an attempt to
conceal or destroy the body of the crime.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 concealing or destroying of
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.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Abra.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Alberto Benesa for appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General for appellee.
602

602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Verzola
ANTONIO, J.:

Appeal by Ricardo Verzola and Josefina Molina from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Abra, finding them guilty of the crime of Murder and sentencing them,
respectively, viz.: Verzola, as principal, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to
indemnify the offended party in the amount of P12,000.00 without subsidiary

imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay 3/4 of the costs; and Molina, as an
accessory after the fact, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision
correccional as maximum, and to pay 1/4 of the indemnity and costs.
At about 10:00 oclock on the night of September 28, 1969, Bernardo Molina was
clubbed to death by Ricardo Verzola in the presence of appellant Josefina Molina
inside Molinas house at Barrio Lipcan, Bangued, Abra. 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 and underwear, including the piece of wood he
used in clubbing the deceased, inside their toilet. Afterwards, he went to the
municipal building and reported to the police authorities that Bernardo had died in
an accident. The police authorities, together with the Municipal Health Officer, the
Municipal Judge and a photographer went to Lipcan to conduct the investigation.
They found the body of the deceased Bernardo Molina sprawled at the foot of the
bamboo ladder (Exhibit I). Blood had oozed from the mouth, nose and ears. There
were bloodstains on the floor of the bedroom of the house, on the mat, as well as on
the beddings of the deceased. The bloodstains led to the bamboo ladder where
some of the stains could be found on the steps of the ladder. When questioned by
the police, Josefina revealed that the assailant of her husband was Ricardo Verzola.
Upon her request, she was brought to the Office of the Chief of Police of Bangued,
where at about 2:00 oclock in the morning of September 29, 1969 she gave a
written statement narrating the circumstances surrounding the incident in question
and pointing to appellant Verzola as the assailant of her husband (Exhibits K and
9). In that extra-judicial statement, she stated that immediately after 10:00
oclock in the evening of September 28, 1969, appellant Ricardo Verzola went to
their house in Barrio Lipcan, Bangued, Abra, entered the room where she was
sleeping
603

VOL. 80, DECEMBER 21, 1977

603
People vs. Verzola
with her husband, Bernardo Molina, woke her up and had carnal knowledge of her;
that when Bernardo Molina woke up and attempted to rise from the floor, that was
the moment when Verzola clubbed Bernardo, hitting him on the head several times;
that afterwards, she heard the sound of a body being dragged downstairs and the
voice of Verzola saying that he was leaving and warning her not to say anything
about the incident. She looked out of the door and saw her husband already lying

prostrate at the foot of the stairs. This statement was sworn to by her before
Municipal Judge Francisco T. Valera.
At about 4:00 oclock that same morning, appellant Verzola was picked up by the
police and brought to the municipal building, and there he also executed a written
statement (Exhibit L) admitting that he clubbed the victim several times. Thus, in
his extra-judicial confession of September 29, 1969, the following statements
appear:
6. Q:You stated that you killed Bernardo Molina inside his house, will (you) relate
the true events or what happened when you killed him?
A:Yes, sir.
Last night at the stated hour in Barrio Lipcan, Bangued, Abra, inside the house of
Bernardo Molina I went and when I was under their house that was the time when I
pricked with a bamboo twig just under the place where Josephina Molina, wife of
Bernardo Molina was laying down, and I noticed that she was awake, and not long
afterwards she came down and came to my place, and that was the time when we
did everything that wanted both of us to do, but before that in the night, Josephina
Molina told me THAT HER HUSBAND WAS PLANNING TO KILL ME and just after we
were through what both of us did, Josephina went upstairs inside (the) house, and
because I cannot withstand anymore the plan of her husband to kill me that was
why I went upstairs and I went direct inside their room and I saw Bernardo Molina
lying down sleeping, and that was the time when I clubbed him three times at the
nape, and when he did not move anymore that was the time when we both with
Josephina Molina throw him downstairs of their house. After that I went home.
7. Q:What is the weapon that you used in clubbing Bernardo Molina?
A:A wooden club which is rounded and about two palms in length, Sir.
8. Q:You stated that while you were under the house of Bernardo Molina and you
pricked with bamboo twig in awakening Josephina Molina and not long afterwards
she came down and went to you, what is your relationship with Josephina Molina the
wife of
604

604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Verzola
Bernardo Molina?

A:Josephina Molina is my paramour.

9. Q:How long have you been in that relationship with Josephina Molina?
A:What I know is that it is already about 10 years, Sir. Because her daughter who
is already 12 years old was still small.
10. Q:With this relationship that you have with Josephina Molina did not her
husband Bernardo Molina notice, so that Josephina told you that her husband was
planning to kill you?
A:Probably he had already, Sir. Because that is what his wife told me.
11. Q:Who witnessed when you killed Bernardo Molina that you know?
A:It was only Josephina the wife of Bernardo Molina, Sir.
12. Q:What did Josephina say when you delivered club blows at her husband?
A:That is enough he is dead, let us bring him down, that is what she said, Sir.
13. Q:Therefore, you want to say that you and Josephina Molina the wife of
Bernardo helped each other in this killing?
A:I told her when she was going up, TLL GO AHEAD OF HIM and what she
answered to me IT IS UP TO YOU, Sir.
14. Q:And where was Josephina while you were clubbing Bernardo, if you
remember?
A:She was there lying down, and when Bernardo did not move she said that is
enough.
15. Q:What was your clothing when you went to club Bernardo Molina and also
your trousers that you used?
A:Sweater with long sleeves colored light gray and white shorts, Sir.
16. Q:Where are these sweater and shorts?
A:I dropped it inside our toilet, Sir.
17. Q:And where is that club that you said you used in clubbing Bernardo Molina?
A:I also dropped it inside our toilet, Sir.
18. Q:Is it not correct that you kill Bernardo Molina because he suprised you while
you were beside his wife inside their room that night?
A:No, Sir.

19. Q:So that in this where you clubbed to death Bernardo Molina you admit as
your guilt?
A:Yes, Sir.
20. Q:Do you have something more to add to this statement of yours?
605

VOL. 80, DECEMBER 21, 1977

605
People vs. Verzola
A:No more, Sir. Unless there are more questions to me.
21. Q:Were you forced, intimated, instructed or you were mauled in this where
you made your statement?
A:No, Sir.
22. Q:Do you want to sign this statement of yours?
A:Yes. Sir. (Exhibit L-Translation)
After executing his aforesaid written statement, he was brought to the residence of
Judge Francisco T. Valera. Judge Valera sent the policemen out of his house,
apprised Verzola of his constitutional rights, then read to him the contents of his
aforementioned extra-judicial confession. After satisfying himself that the statement
was given voluntarily, he administered the oath to said appellant. 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 which
he used in clubbing the deceased.
Dr. Luis P. Brigas, Municipal Health Officer of Bangued, Abra, who conducted the
autopsy, testified that the deceased died instantaneously as a result of cardiorespiratory failure caused by cerebral compressions and hemorrhages. The
deceased sustained the following wounds:
LACERATED WOUND NO. I:7 Cm. in length with irregular borders or edges
extremities, the deeper tissues unevenly divided with tags of tissues showing in the
wound. The edges and surrounding parts bruised and some hairs were found in the
wound. Situated 6 Cm. in level of the posterior outer upper part of left Helix of the
left ear, extending slantingly downwards below to middle portion of Occipital region.

LACERATED WOUND NO. II:6 Cm. in length situated 3 Cm. lateral to Lacerated
Wound No. I, placed horizontally form mid point of the Lacerated Wound. The
characteristics of the wound is the same as the above wounds.
LACERATED WOUND NO. III:Same characteristics as of the above wounds. 5 Cm.
in length situated 2 Cm. below Lacerated Wound No. II, extending slightly to the
right side.
LACERATED WOUND NO. IV:4.5 Cm. in length same as the characteristics of the
other wounds above, but extending opposite Lacerated Wound No. I only from the
right side. (Exhibit A).
He also declared that on the basis of the location and direction of the wounds, the
assailant must have been behind the victim and said wounds were inflicted while
the victim was lying in prone
606

606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Verzola
position, face downwards.
Both appellants admit that it was appellant Verzola who inflicted the fatal blows on
the victim. Verzola, however, after impugning the veracity of the facts contained in
his extra-judicial confession (Exhibit L), claims that he did so in self-defense. Thus,
Verzola testified that while he was feeding his two cows in front of his house at
about 10:00 oclock on the night of September 28, 1969, he heard cries for help
coming from the direction of the house of Bernardo Molina. Upon recognizing it to
be the voice of the wife of Bernardo, he proceeded to the couples house. Upon
reaching the yard of said house he heard the loud voice of a man. Thus thinking that
some intruder had entered the Molinas residence, he deckled to aim himself. At the
threshold of the ladder, he picked up a part of a plow (Exhibit B). At the door of
the room, he heard the man say: Vulva of your mother, I will kill you. As he
entered the small room, he saw his co-appellant Josefina Molina crouching in a
corner, being maltreated by Bernardo Molina. After Bernardo noticed his presence,
he said: Vulva of your mother, I will kill all of you. At that juncture, Bernardo
stooped to pick up a bolo from the floor. As Bernardo was still bending towards the
floor, Verzola struck him twice with the piece of wood, hitting the head of the victim,
causing him to fall. After he had fallen, he tried to revive the victim by placing the
head of the latter on his lap and shaking its saying: Hoy, Hoy, Hoy. He explained
that this was the reason why there were bloodstains on his clothes. When Josefina

asked him what happened, he replied that Bernardo met an accident. At his
suggestion, they both carried the body of the victim down the stairs because
according to him they wanted to bring the body to the hospital. As the hospital was
too far and it was too dark, they left the body on the ground. After instructing
Josefina to go and summon persons to help the victim, he went home. After
changing his clothes and throwing his bloodstained clothing inside their toilet, he
went to the municipal building in Bangued, Abras and reported to the guard that
there was a person who mat an accident in Barrio Lipcan.
His co-appellant, Josefina Molina, also testified that during the first week of
September, 1969 she had a quarrel with her husband because of Bernardos
jealousy of three men, namely, Ambrocio Bocarile, Santos Beloy and appellant
Ricardo Verzola; that on the night in question, she and her husband had another
quarrel and in
607

VOL. 80, DECEMBER 21, 1977

607
People vs. Verzola
the course thereof, she was boxed and strangled by her husband, causing her to
shout for help; that after a while, as she was crouching in a corner of the house,
with her face covered, she heard a thud. As she looked up, she noticed that Verzola
was already inside their room, squatting on the floor and holding on his lap the head
of her husband; that while Verzola was shaking the head of the deceased, he was
saying: Hoy, Hoy, Hoy. She claimed that out of fear, she assisted Verzola in
carrying the body of Bernardo at the foot of the stairs where Verzola left her. After
looking at the wounds of her husband, she became afraid and went up the house
where her children were sleeping.
Both appellants claimed that they were not aware of the contents of their extrajudicial confessions as they were made to sign them by the police authorities
without being able to read their contents.
There can be no question that 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.1 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.2 It is evident that no such proof was adduced by appellant
Verzola.
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 selfdefense. 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. 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
_______________

1 People v. Quintab, 16 SCRA 146; People vs. Bauden, 77 Phil. 105; People v. Berio,
59 Phil. 533; People v. Libed, 14 SCRA 410, 413; People v. Ordiales, 42 SCRA 238,
247.
2 People v. Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772; People v. Silang Cruz, 53 Phil. 635; People v.
Espenilla, 62 Phil. 265; People v. Navarra, 25 SCRA 491; People v. Talaboc, Jr., 30
SCRA 87; People v. Llamera, 51 SCRA 48.
608

608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Verzola
the deceased. 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. 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.
These actuations of appellant Verzola reveal a behaviour which is incompatible with
the reaction of one who acted in legitimate self-defense.3 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. These facts and circumstances belie the claim of the
appellant that he clubbed the victim in self-defense. On the contrary, they
sufficiently indicate that the 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.

Although appellant Josefina Molina admitted in her extra-judicial statement (Exhibits

K, K-1 to K-9) that she was the paramour of her co-appellant for over a year,
there is no proof that she had knowledge of the criminal design of her co-appellant.
Neither has she cooperated with him by previous or simultaneous acts, much less is
there any showing that she supplied the principal with material or moral aid. Her
only participation was in assisting her co-appellant in bringing the body of the
deceased to the ground. The question, therefore, is whether or not by said overt act
she could be held criminally responsible as an accessory.
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.
_______________

3 People v. Pelago, 24 SCRA 1027, 1033.

609

VOL. 80, DECEMBER 21, 1977

609
People vs. Verzola
According to the trial court, the bringing down of the body of the victim * * * was to
destroy the body of the crime, or its effect, that is, to make it appear that the death
of the victim was caused by an accident. We disagree. 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. 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. Under such
circumstances, there could not have been any attempt on the part of Josefina to
conceal or destroy the body of the crime.
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, with proportionate costs de oficio.
Barredo (Actg. Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion Jr. and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Fernando (Chairman) and Santos, JJ., are on official leave.
Guerrero, J., was designated to sit in the Second Division.
Judgment, insofar as appellant Verzola is concerned, AFFIRMED. Judgment against
Josefina Molina, reversed and said appellant is ACQUITTED.
Notes.One who merely accompanied the other accused in an act of cooperation,
but short of direct participation is guilty as an accomplice. (People vs. Ong, 62 SCRA
174).
The wife, who induced the killing of the mistress of her husband by giving money to
the killer, is a principal by induction. (People vs. Lao,1 SCRA 42).
Where the homicide is the natural and foreseeable consequence of the acts illegally
incited, the inducer cannot, and should not, escape
610

610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mulingtapang vs. Workmens Compensation Commission
liability therefore, unless he proves that he has adopted adequate measures against
excess. (People vs. Lacson, 1 SCRA 414).
The sole principal in the commission of the offense of homicide or murder is
primarily liable for his own part of the indemnity and subsidiarily for the portion
adjudged against his accomplices who are solidarity liable for the portion of their
principal, in case of insolvency. (Lumiguis vs. People, 19 SCRA 842).
Where the conspiracy was not to attack the victim, the appellants who attacked the
victim nonetheless are solely responsible as principal, the others may be held liable
as accomplices. (People vs. Dueas, 2 SCRA 221).

A person who, with knowledge of the robbery with homicide, accepted part of the
loot, is guilty as an accessory. (People vs. Amajul, 1 SCRA 682).
Where there is lack of complete evidence of conspiracy which creates a doubt
whether the appellants acted as principals or accomplices in the perpetration of the
offense, the Court will resolve the question in their favor and hold them guilty of the
milder form of criminal responsibility, i.e., guilty as mere accomplices. (People vs.
Torejas, 43 SCRA 158).
o0o People vs. Verzola, 80 SCRA 600, No. L-35022 December 21, 1977