PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALBERT BETAY AND MANSUETO BETAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Betay

The Case

People versus Betay is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Albert Betay and Mansueto Betay for the ambush of a barangay captain, his wife, and their ten year old grandson on a barangay road in Cabagan, Isabela. The accused were charged with Multiple Murder and Frustrated Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and both were convicted by the trial court. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the rules on the credibility of a lone eyewitness who is herself a victim, the strict requirements of alibi, the burden of proof in self-defense, and the effect of flight on that defense.

Procedural History

Albert Betay and Mansueto Betay, together with two persons designated as John Doe and Peter Doe, were charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22 of Cabagan, Isabela, under an amended information for Multiple Murder and Frustrated Murder. Both accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision on April 24, 2012, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, with orders to pay moral and actual damages to the heirs of Adriano Tacang and to the heirs of Ryan Layugan. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the sufficiency of the evidence, the appreciation of treachery, and the failure to recognize self-defense on the part of Albert Betay.

Facts

Adriano Tacang was the incumbent barangay captain of Pilig Alto, Cabagan, Isabela. He and his wife Carmen Tacang ran a small store about two hundred meters from their house. On the evening of July 5, 2007, the spouses closed the store and rode home on a motorcycle, with their ten year old grandson Juanito Layugan, called Ryan, seated between them.

About thirty meters from the store, someone fired at them and hit Carmen on the left arm. As Adriano turned the motorcycle, its headlight illuminated Albert Betay and Mansueto Betay, both armed with long firearms. Carmen recognized them at once, because they were her barangay mates and her relatives: Mansueto is her cousin and Albert is her nephew. A second shot from Mansueto hit Adriano on the chest and killed him instantly. Ryan was killed by the first shot. Carmen was brought to a hospital in Tuguegarao City, where she was confined for four days.

The defense gave a different account. Mansueto claimed he was watching television at the house of his brother Leon, about two hundred meters from the scene, when he heard of the shooting, and that he went to the scene as a barangay tanod and helped guard and carry the bodies. Albert claimed self-defense: that Adriano poked a firearm at him, and that he shot Adriano twice before the latter could fire. Albert went home and hid, and surrendered to the police only on July 17, 2007.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the testimony of Carmen Tacang identifying the appellants as the assailants.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not finding the justifying circumstance of self-defense in favor of Albert Betay.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi of Mansueto Betay can prevail over his positive identification by the eyewitness.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

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 perpetua, 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 killings were qualified as murder and penalized, and its enumerated circumstances supply the qualifying element of the crime.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and respect, because that court had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor under grilling examination, and such findings bind the appellate court absent facts or circumstances of weight and substance that were overlooked or misinterpreted. The Court found no such circumstance. Carmen had known the appellants for a long time as barangay mates and relatives, and no ill motive was ascribed to her. On the argument that her failure to seek cover was contrary to human experience, the Court answered that different people react differently to a given situation, and that there is no standard form of human behavioral response where one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the conviction for murder, holding that all the elements of the crime were duly proved: that a person was killed, that the accused killed that person, that the killing was attended by a qualifying circumstance under Article 248, and that the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide. The Court found that the killing was attended by treachery, as alleged in the information.

On the third issue, the Court held that a person who invokes self-defense bears the burden of proving all its elements, and that the most important element is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, which must be proved first whether the defense is complete or incomplete. The Court defined unlawful aggression as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, and held that it was absent here. Albert's claim that Adriano drew a pistol and aimed it at him was uncorroborated, and no such firearm was recovered at the scene. His flight after the shooting negated self-defense, for, as the Court put it, persons who act in legitimate defense of their persons or rights invariably surrender themselves to the authorities and describe fully and in all candor all that has happened with a view to justify their acts.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the assailant by an eyewitness. For alibi to prevail, it must be established by positive, clear, and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that he was somewhere else. The house where Mansueto claimed to be was only two hundred meters from the scene, reachable on foot in about five minutes. The corroboration of his sister-in-law and his cousin was given less probative weight because it did not come from disinterested witnesses.

Doctrine

First, the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are binding on the appellate court absent facts or circumstances of weight and substance that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. Second, there is no standard form of human behavioral response to a frightful experience, so a witness's failure to seek cover does not destroy credibility. Third, alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, and to succeed it must be proved by positive, clear, and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene, corroborated preferably by disinterested witnesses. Fourth, self-defense must be proved by the accused, and unlawful aggression must be proved first, whether the defense is complete or incomplete. Fifth, flight negates self-defense and indicates guilt. These rules tie back to Article 248, whose qualifying circumstances, here treachery, raise a killing to murder.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting Albert Betay and Mansueto Betay of Multiple Murder and Frustrated Murder and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, with the damages awarded, was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that flight negates self-defense and indicates guilt, for an innocent person who merely defended himself would surrender and disclose all that happened. Examiners use this case for the burden of proving unlawful aggression in self-defense, the strict requirements of alibi, and the deference owed to the trial court's assessment of a lone eyewitness who is herself a victim.