THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DELFIN VEGAYAN, JOSE BESORIO & MANUEL BUENA, DEFENDANTS, JOSE BESORIO AND MANUEL BUENA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Besorio

The Case

This is People versus Besorio, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Delfin Vegayan, Jose Besorio, and Manuel Buena for the stabbing death of Nicanor Sulleza, Junior on the night of a provincial Christmas party in Iloilo. Vegayan was never caught; Besorio and Buena were tried and convicted, and only Besorio's appeal survives, because Buena died while the appeal was pending. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of eyewitnesses who are related to the victim, and it states the rule on treachery where the victim is rendered defenseless so that the attack may be carried out without risk to the offenders.

Procedural History

On January 6, 1972, the City Fiscal of Iloilo City filed an Information charging the three men with murder. Delfin Vegayan remained at large, so only Jose Besorio and Manuel Buena were arraigned and tried. On September 4, 1973, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch Four, rendered judgment convicting both Besorio and Buena of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua with all accessory penalties, and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victim, jointly and severally, in the amounts stated in the judgment, plus costs. Besorio and Buena appealed directly to the Supreme Court. On February 2, 1979, during the pendency of the appeal, the case against Manuel Buena was dismissed insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, in view of his death on October 3, 1978. The decision therefore resolves only the appeal of Jose Besorio.

Facts

In the evening of December 22, 1971, provincial officials and employees of Iloilo were holding a Christmas party in the quadrangle of the Provincial Capitol. Esperanza Sulleza kept a cigarette stand in front of the Capitol, about seven meters from a repair shop for refrigerators and other appliances owned by Manuel Buena and Jose Besorio. In that shop, Delfin Vegayan, a nephew of Jose Besorio, worked as a helper. Early that evening, Buena, Besorio, and Vegayan were seen drinking beer in the repair shop. Esperanza was selling cigarettes with her children, among them Lorna, aged twelve.

At about eight o'clock that evening, Nicanor Sulleza, Junior arrived and asked for cigarettes. As he was stooping to light his cigarette from a kerosene lamp on the stand, Delfin Vegayan suddenly stabbed him in the abdomen with a butcher's knife. Esperanza grabbed Vegayan and held him while she shouted at her husband to run. The victim ran toward a store in front of the fountain, pursued by Besorio and Buena. Besorio overtook him and stabbed him in the back and then in the abdomen, while Buena held both his hands from behind; Besorio then stabbed him again. After the victim fell, Besorio and Buena ran away, and Vegayan also broke free and fled. Nicanor was brought to the hospital but died upon arrival. An autopsy found multiple stab wounds, and the cause of death was shock, cardiac tamponade, and hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds.

Besorio and Buena set up alibi and a story of rescue. They claimed that at about eight o'clock they were drinking beer in Besorio's house with a PC staff sergeant and another companion; that they followed the sergeant to a commotion; and that upon seeing the victim staggering, they tried to support him, Besorio even peering at his abdomen and saying that Junior was wounded. They were arrested at about two o'clock the following morning, and at the police headquarters Esperanza and Lorna pointed to them as the persons responsible. The trial court rejected their testimony, relying on their demeanor on the witness stand and on the positive identification by the two prosecution witnesses.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimonies of Esperanza Sulleza and her daughter Lorna Sulleza are credible, despite the absence of motive on the part of the appellants and the alleged contradictions between Lorna's affidavit and her testimony in court.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi and the claim that the appellants merely tried to help the victim can prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the killing is murder qualified by treachery.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory text; it applies the settled concepts of treachery as a qualifying circumstance and of alibi as a defense, and it fixes the penalty for murder. The governing provisions, as the Court applies them, are these:

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes murder:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

This is the provision under which the killing was qualified as murder, and under which reclusion perpetua was imposed in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code lists the aggravating circumstances, and its sixteenth paragraph defines treachery:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

This is the exact test the Court applies when it holds that rendering the victim defenseless insures the execution of the crime without risk to the offenders.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code defines conspiracy:

There is a conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

This bears on the case because the Information charged conspiracy, and the concerted acts of Besorio and Buena, one holding the victim's hands while the other stabbed, are what made the victim defenseless.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the prosecution witnesses credible. The variance between Lorna's affidavit before the Fiscal and her testimony at trial is more apparent than real: her testimony in court was simply more detailed, and in both statements she positively declared that she saw her father being stabbed. The Court ruled that the omission in a pre-trial affidavit of some facts later testified to in court does not necessarily impair the affiant's credibility. It also held that where no improper motive has been shown, the relationship of a witness to the victim does not render the clear and positive testimony of that witness less worthy of credence. The scene was well lighted, the appellants were well known to the witnesses, and both witnesses pointed to the appellants immediately after the incident, which the Court took as indicative of sincerity.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the alibi and the rescue story. Both appellants admitted they were in the vicinity of the crime, and their claim that they went there to help the victim was not corroborated by competent evidence. The testimony of the sergeant who claimed they were drinking beer with him was unpersuasive: although he claimed to be a peace officer present at the scene and interested in arresting the assailant, he never informed the police of what he knew, and he never came forward after learning of the appellants' arrest and detention. The Court held that such unpersuasive testimony cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the two prosecution witnesses.

On the third issue, the Court held that the crime is murder qualified by treachery. The victim was already running away when he was pursued; he was already wounded from the first stabbing; and upon being overtaken, he was stabbed by Besorio while Buena held both his hands from behind, enabling Besorio to stab him a third time. The Court applied the settled rule:

It is settled that treachery is present where the victim is rendered defenseless in order to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the offenders.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance accompanying the commission of the crime, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed.

Doctrine

First, the credibility of a witness is not destroyed by the omission, in a pre-trial affidavit, of details later supplied in open court; the affidavit is ordinarily incomplete, and the testimony in court may be more detailed without being false.

Second, where no improper motive is shown, the relationship of a witness to the victim does not render that witness's clear and positive testimony less worthy of credence.

Third, alibi cannot prevail over positive identification where the accused himself admits presence in the vicinity of the crime, and the demeanor of a witness on the stand is often better evidence of veracity than the answers he gives.

Fourth, treachery, as defined in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, is present where the victim is rendered defenseless in order to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the offenders; holding the victim's hands from behind while another stabs him is the classic form of this qualifying circumstance under Article 248.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court insofar as appellant Jose Besorio is concerned, the case against Manuel Buena having been dismissed by reason of his death.

Remember This

Memorize the line: treachery is present where the victim is rendered defenseless in order to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the offenders. Examiners use this case for the credibility of related eyewitnesses and for treachery by concerted action, where one accused holds the victim while the other stabs him.