THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO BENARABA, CESAR BENARABA, AND VIRGILIO BENARABA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Benaraba versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Antonio Benaraba, Cesar Benaraba, and Virgilio Benaraba, a criminal prosecution for multiple murder arising from the killing of four young children of the de Leon family in Alabat, Quezon, whose bodies were found charred after their house burned on the evening of April 6, 1968. The case matters to the reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the defense of alibi and the credibility of witnesses when the trial court has already weighed the evidence. Second, it shows the Court correcting the penalty on its own, reducing a death sentence to reclusion perpetua for lack of the required votes, and fixing the civil indemnity accordingly.

Procedural History

The three Benaraba brothers were charged with multiple murder before the then Court of First Instance of Quezon. After trial, that court convicted all three and sentenced them to death by electrocution, ordering them to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Danilo, Ernesto, Gil, and Henry, all surnamed de Leon, in the total amount of forty eight thousand pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and with costs de oficio. The case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review because a death sentence had been imposed.

While the review was pending, two of the accused died. The Court dismissed the case against Cesar Benaraba in a resolution dated February 15, 1979, but only insofar as his criminal liability was concerned, without prejudice to his civil liability. The Court likewise dismissed the case against Antonio Benaraba in a resolution dated April 14, 1983. The appeal therefore concerned Virgilio Benaraba alone.

Facts

Marcialito de Leon of barrio Caglate, Alabat, Quezon, borrowed from the spouses Fidel Benaraba and wife the sum of one thousand one hundred sixty five pesos and thirty centavos. It was agreed that should de Leon fail to pay, he would sell his parcel of land to the Benaraba spouses, and the agreement was put in writing and signed in the presence of Fidel's sons, Antonio, Cesar, and Virgilio. De Leon failed to pay and did not sell the land, so Fidel filed a complaint for estafa, which was dismissed. Fidel then filed a tenancy case against de Leon before the then Court of Agrarian Relations. While that case was pending, Antonio met Marcialito in the poblacion of Alabat and, in a threatening manner, told him that he would not stop until all the de Leons were killed.

On April 6, 1968, Marcialito, his wife, and two daughters were in the poblacion for treatment of a dislocation. Their four children, Danilo, twelve years old, Ernesto, ten, Gil, seven, and Henry, five, were left at the house in Caglate. About six o'clock in the evening, Aniceto Cañazares passed near the de Leon house on his way home and saw the three Benaraba brothers in front of it, walking in single file in a crouched position toward the house, with Cesar in front, followed by Virgilio and Antonio, about twenty meters away. Shortly thereafter, Cesar Magsino passed by, heard children crying in agony from the de Leon residence, went closer to about thirty meters, and saw the three Benaraba brothers inside the house with the de Leon children crying. About seven o'clock in the evening the three left the house, and Magsino also left for home without going inside, because he feared the Benaraba brothers.

About eight o'clock in the evening the de Leon house was on fire. Neighbors tried and failed to put it out, and after the fire had run its course the people found the charred bodies of the four children. The examining physician reported severe traumatic shock due to severe head injury and severe generalized burns for Danilo and Ernesto, and severe generalized burns for Gil and Henry, with death occurring at eight in the evening of April 6, 1968. The necropsy reports on the exhumed bodies showed fractured skull bones and noted that the bodies were charred to such an extent that ante-mortem traumatic injuries were possible. The children were buried the next afternoon, and no member of the Benaraba family attended the funeral. The defense set up alibi, claiming the three were at the house of Eutiquio Morada in barrio Rizal, Perez, Quezon, attending the reading of the Passion of Christ from late afternoon of April 6 until the following day, and that thick underbrush and trees made it impossible for the two witnesses to see them.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of Virgilio Benaraba for multiple murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt, in light of the positive identification by Cesar Magsino and the circumstantial evidence of motive.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi may prosper where the accused was allegedly elsewhere at the time of the crime.
• Whether or not the penalty of death may be imposed, and what penalty and civil indemnity should be fixed.

Applicable Provisions

The information charged the crime under Article 248, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and punishes murder. The Court applied it in affirming the conviction for the killing of the four children:

Article 248. 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. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

The qualifying circumstance of fire, the burning of the victims inside their house, is what raised the killing to murder and carried the case within the third paragraph of Article 248.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no reason to disturb the finding of the trial court that Virgilio Benaraba was guilty. Cesar Magsino categorically and positively identified Virgilio and his two brothers as the persons inside the de Leon house when the children were crying, and the Court quoted his testimony at length, including his explanation that he did not go inside or report the matter at once because he was afraid of the three. The Court also found motive. Marcialito had offered his land to Fidel, who advanced the money, yet de Leon sold the property to another and did not return the money, prompting the estafa case and later the tenancy case. The Court held it unnatural that the Benarabas would harbor no grudge, and that there was reason for them to take vengeance against the de Leons.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the alibi. It laid down the rule in these words:

For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere when the crime was committed but that he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.

Here the de Leon residence was about four hundred meters from Morada's house, a distance easily reached by walking, and Virgilio's testimony was not corroborated by Morada himself. The Court added that no member of the Benaraba family attended the funeral of the four children, an attitude that militated against their denial of anger.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the appealed decision with modification. For lack of the necessary votes, Virgilio Benaraba was sentenced to suffer four reclusion perpetua, there being four victims, and to indemnify their heirs in the sum of thirty thousand pesos each, and to pay the costs.

Doctrine

First, alibi is unavailing unless the accused proves not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. Second, positive identification by a credible witness, corroborated by proof of motive, prevails over alibi and denial. Third, where the killing is attended by fire, the burning of the victims, the crime is murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and each victim supports a separate penalty. Fourth, the death penalty cannot be imposed without the necessary votes of the Court, and the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is then imposed, with civil indemnity fixed for each victim.

Disposition

The appealed decision was affirmed with modification: Virgilio Benaraba was sentenced to four reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the four de Leon children in the sum of thirty thousand pesos each, and to pay the costs.

Remember This

Memorize the alibi rule: it is not enough to be somewhere else, it must be physically impossible to be at the scene. Examiners use this case to test alibi, positive identification, and the rule that the death penalty requires the necessary votes, with reclusion perpetua imposed in its stead.