PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO BUBAN ALIAS “ESCO,” APPELLANT.

People versus Buban

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Francisco Buban, known also as Esco, a criminal prosecution for murder. The State charged that Buban, on the night of August 13, 1995, shot Arsenio Imperial through the bamboo wall of the victim's own hut in Dinalungan, Aurora, killing him instantly. The case matters for three reasons a reviewee should hold: it shows how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of eyewitnesses who are relatives of the victim and who waited before speaking; it fixes the elements of treachery as a qualifying circumstance under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and it applies Republic Act Number 9346, the law abolishing the death penalty, reducing a capital sentence to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Procedural History

Buban was charged by information in the Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora, Branch 66. He pleaded not guilty, trial followed, and on September 9, 2002 the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, attended by the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and dwelling, and sentenced him to death, with civil indemnity and moral damages of 50,000 pesos each. Following the ruling in People versus Mateo, the case was transferred from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On September 29, 2005 the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification: it discarded evident premeditation, but sustained the death penalty because treachery qualified the killing and dwelling aggravated it. The case then came before the Supreme Court on automatic review.

Facts

On the evening of August 13, 1995, Arsenio Imperial was in his hut at Sitio Balenti, Barangay Paleg, Dinalungan, Aurora, with his wife Perla and his son Ruel, preparing to sleep. Two kerosene lamps burned inside. Ruel noticed the clothes hanging on the wall move, then saw a rifle muzzle thrust through a torn portion atop the bamboo wall. Behind it stood Francisco Buban, flanked by Rey Castillo and Bombi Torres. The gun fired once; Arsenio fell, the bullet entering the nape and exiting through his left cheek. The three men ran off. Perla, beside her husband, saw Buban's face lit by the lamps, and later saw a white pick-up nearby carrying several men.

Policemen arrived and brought the body to the barangay hall. The following day the police returned to the scene and recovered an empty carbine shell and a slug. Perla and Ruel initially told the police they did not know who killed Arsenio; only more than a month later did they report that they had witnessed the shooting, explaining that they feared the police and the persons involved, and that their home was isolated.

Buban set up alibi, claiming he spent that night drinking at a neighbor's house about one kilometer away, and denied any motive. He admitted, however, that he was in the same area as the victim's house. He was arrested only in October 2001, after years at large.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged incredibility of the eyewitnesses and the weakness of his alibi.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was properly appreciated in increasing the penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, defines and penalizes murder:

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 perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 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. In consideration of a price, reward or promise. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 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. With evident premeditation. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

This provision supplies both the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation that the Court weighs in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Credibility is a matter properly lodged with the trial court, and its findings, affirmed by the appellate court, deserve the highest respect. The testimonies of Ruel and Perla were straightforward, clear, and consistent. The Court rejected the argument that their reactions were contrary to human experience, holding that different people react differently to a startling or frightful experience, and there is no standard form of behavioral response. Illumination from a kerosene lamp, or even a split-second flash of lightning, suffices for identification. Delay in coming forward did not impair credibility, because the witnesses feared for their lives, the perpetrators being policemen or members of the Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit, and their home was isolated. Family relationship to the victim does not by itself render an eyewitness biased; on the contrary, relatives would not indiscriminately impute the crime to anybody. As for alibi, it is the weakest of defenses; it prospers only if the accused proves it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene, and Buban himself admitted he was in the same area.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that evident premeditation was not proven, there being no direct evidence of planning and preparation. But the Court held that treachery qualified the killing, and defined it thus:

The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.

Arsenio was at home, unarmed, with his family, preparing to sleep, when Buban surreptitiously inserted a rifle through a hole in the wall. The crime was therefore murder under Article 248, aggravated by dwelling with no mitigating circumstance, which would have warranted death as the maximum penalty. However, Republic Act Number 9346, signed into law on June 24, 2006, prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, so the Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. On damages, the Court raised civil indemnity to 75,000 pesos, sustained moral damages of 50,000 pesos, and awarded exemplary damages of 25,000 pesos under Article 2230 of the Civil Code because the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance, all with interest at six percent per annum.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, credibility of witnesses is a function of the trial court, and its findings, affirmed on appeal, are accorded the highest respect. Second, there is no standard behavioral response to a frightful experience, so unusual reactions do not destroy credibility. Third, delay in reporting a crime is excused where grounded on fear for one's life. Fourth, relationship of an eyewitness to the victim does not render the testimony biased or less credible. Fifth, alibi is the weakest of defenses and succeeds only upon proof of physical impossibility. Sixth, treachery qualifies a killing when the attack is deliberate, without warning, swift, and unexpected, leaving the victim no chance to resist, as when the assailant shoots through the wall of the victim's home. Seventh, under Republic Act Number 9346, the death penalty is abolished and the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of Francisco Buban for murder with modification: it sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole and ordered him to pay the heirs of Arsenio Imperial 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages, with interest.

Remember This

Memorize this line: treachery is present when the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Examiners use this case to test credibility of relatives and delayed reporting, the weakness of alibi, the elements of treachery, and the effect of Republic Act Number 9346 on a death sentence.