G.R. No. 61773. January 31, 1987
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, (PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE), ALEJANDRO PARAS ALIAS “ANNIE” EULOGIO PARAS ALIAS “LUCIO” GREGORIO PARAS ALIAS “GORIO” ALBERTO PARAS ALIAS “KIBIT” JUAN PARA…
PARAS, J.:
Accused Eulogio Paras, Gregorio Paras, Alberto
Paras, Juan Paras, Alejandro
Paras and Francisco Viray
were charged with the crime of Murder before the then Court of First Instance of
Pampanga. [1]
After trial, with the exception of Francisco Viray who
was at large up to the time of the trial, all the accused were
found guilty as charged and each of them sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided for by law and
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally a) the sum of
P12,000.00 for the death of Roseller Cayanan, b) P12,000.00 as actual damages, c) P5,000.00 as
moral damages and d) costs of suit.
The evidence for the prosecution is summarized in the appellee’s brief as follows:
“Between 4:00 and 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of October 12, 1980,
Roseller Cayanan, Consolacion Manansala and Charlie
Manansala were walking in that order along Ilang-Ilang Street, Barangay Sta.
Lucia, Masantol, Pampanga,
having come from the poblacion (pp. 6-8, t.s.n. Jan. 7, 1981). Suddenly, several
persons, namely: Alejandro Paras, Eulogio Paras, Gregorio Paras, Juan Paras, Alberto Paras and Francisco Viray
approached them from behind (pp. 20-21, t.s.n., Jan.
7, 1981; pp. 7-9, t.s.n. Jan. 30, 1981).
Alejandro Paras and Eulogio Paras then twisted both
arms of Roseller Cayanan
around the latter’s neck (p. 8, t.s.n. Jan. 7,
1981). As the latter was thus rendered helpless and unable to
defend himself, he was hit on the head by Eulogio Paras with a hollow block
(Exh. “B”) knocking him down (pp. 9-10,
id.). As Roseller Cayanan was lying prostrate on the ground, Alejandro Paras stabbed him several times on the stomach and breast
with a fan knife. Thereafter, Gregorio Paras who was armed with a stainless weapon similar to a
knife, likewise stabbed Cayanan in the stomach (pp. 11, 15-16, id.).
While Alejandro Paras, Gregorio Paras, and Eulogio Paras were stabbing Roseller Cayanan, Juan Paras hit Roseller Cayanan with a hollow
block on the head and afterwards kicked him (p. 22, id.).
Alberto Paras and Francisco Viray likewise hit Roseller Cayanan on the head also with a
hollow block (pp. 19-20, id.).
“Consolacion Manansala shouted for help as she tried to parry the stab
blows of Alejandro Paras upon Roseller Cayanan but Alejandro
Paras pushed her aside (pp. 27-29, t.s.n. Jan. 17, 11981). As a result, Consolacion Manansala sustained
wounds on her hands which were treated by Dr. Ladislao
Yuchengco at the Macabebe
Emergency
Hospital (pp. 5-6, t.s.n. Jan. 9,
1981).
“Appellants fled after Eulogio Paras told them “come on, let us go, anyway he is already
dead” (pp. 10-12, t.s.n. Jan. 9, 1981). Forthwith, Consolacion Manansala called on
her neighbors and requested assistance in placing Roseller Cayanan on board a
tricycle and in bringing him to the hospital for treatment (pp. 12-13, t.s.n. id.). In the meantime, Charlie
Manansala, who also witnessed the incident, ran
towards the Masantol police station (pp. 15-16, t.s.n. Jan. 30,
1981). On the way, he met two policemen and reported to
them the incident (pp. 15-16, t.s.n. Jan. 30, 1981).
“Police investigator Daniel Suñga who was
assigned to investigate the incident proceeded to the
Macabebe
Emergency
Hospital at Macabebe, Pampanga (p. 10, t.s.n. Dec. 29, 1981). A few minutes later,
the body of Roseller Cayanan
arrived at said hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival by the Director
thereof, Dr. Yuchengco. At the said
hospital, Police Investigator Daniel Suñga saw Eulogio and Gregorio Paras (pp.
10-11, t.s.n. id.). Upon being
informed by Charlie Manansala that the Paras brothers were two of the assailants, said police
investigator invited and brought them to the police station for investigation
(pp. 11-12, t.s.n. id.).
“Upon their arrival at the police station of Masantol, Pampanga, police
investigator Daniel Suñga saw the other suspects who
had already been arrested (p. 17, t.s.n. Dec. 29,
1981).
“A confrontation was had between eyewitness Charlie Manansala and the suspects who were present at the police
station namely: Alejandro Paras, Alberto
Paras, Gregorio Paras and
Juan Paras (pp. 18, 19, t.s.n. id.). Then, accompanied by
Charlie Manansala, Police Investigator Daniel Suñga proceeded to the scene of the incident at Ilang-Ilang Street, Sta. Lucia, Masantol, Pampanga where he picked
up a piece of hollow block pointed to by Charlie Manansala as one of the hollow blocks used by the suspects
in hitting Roseller Cayanan
(p. 24, t.s.n. id.). He also
caused pictures to be taken at the scene of the incident (Exh. “F”) showing the alley (Exh. “F”-1), the spot (Exh. “F-2”) where the hollow block
and bloodstains were found (Exh. “F-3”).
“After taking the sworn statements of Consolacion Manansala and Charlie
Manansala, police investigator Suñga filed a criminal complaint (Exh. “G”) against Alejandro Paras,
Eulogio Paras, Alberto Paras, Juan Paras, and Francisco
Viray with the Municipal Court of Masantol, Pampanga (p. 23, t.s.n. id.).[2]
“Dr. Eriberto Suñga, Municipal Health Officer of Masantol, Pampanga who performed
the autopsy on the body of the deceased Roseller Cayanan testified that he found six (6) stab wounds on the
abdominal portion of the body and lacerated wounds on the head, forehead and
nasal bone fracture (pp. 25-27, t.s.n. Dec. 17, 1980);
that after opening the head of the deceased, he found hemorrhage of the cerebral
vessel of the posterior pole (p. 26, id.); that the cause of bleeding
was due to the blow or smash on the head, right eye-brow and nose (pp. 25-26,
t.s.n. id.); that with respect to the
abdominal wounds, he also opened the abdominal cavity and traced the direction
of the wounds; that one of the wounds ended at mesentery or the fold of the
peritorium which covered the abdominal organ; that one
of the stab wounds penetrated the heart (pp. 27-30, t.s.n. id.); that the six (6) stab wounds on the
stomach, and which were of the same depth were all fatal (p. 28,
t.s.n. id.); that the wounds on
the chest and stomach were caused by different instruments as shown by the
nature of the wounds (pp. 31-32, t.s.n. id.);
that, thereafter, he issued a Certificate of Death attributing the victim’s
death to shock (cardiac temporade) due to hemorrhage
caused by multiple stab and lacerated wounds (Exh.
“A”).”
On the other hand, evidence for the defense shows that all the
accused Eulogio, Gregorio, Alberto, Juan, Alejandro
all surnamed Paras and Francisco Viray attended on October 12, 1980 the funeral rites at Masantol, Pampanga of their
relative, Flaviano Suñga. After the interment, accused Juan Paras went home to Macabebe, Pampanga, about 3 kilometers away or 2 hours ride in a motor
banca from Sta. Lucia, Masantol, Pampanga. The rest of the accused
returned to the house of their deceased relative at about noon of the same day. Accused Alberto and
Gregorio Paras helped in the chores at the house of
their late uncle while the other two accused Alejandro and Eulogio Paras left to attend to
their respective personal necessities. Eulogio Paras, upon his return at
about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, met on his way the deceased Roseller Cayanan in the company of
his aunt, Consolacion Manansala, and Charlie Manansala
at Ilang-Ilang Street, Sta. Lucia, Masantol, Pampanga.
Upon seeing him, deceased Roseller Cayanan confronted him thus — “What is it that
you’re looking at”, to which query, accused Eulogio Paras answered in a
loud voice, “Vulva of your Mother, What is it that you like?” Then Roseller Cayanan retorted back by
saying, “Vulva of your Mother, are you going to fight?” (TSN,
Sept. 2, 1981, pp. 10-11). To this challenge, accused Eulogio Paras answered “No”, but
all of a sudden Roseller Cayanan pulled out his fan knife, and rushing, stabbed
accused Eulogio Paras twice,
hitting him in his left hand, and on his left knee cap. (TSN, Sept. 2, 1981, p. 13). Thereafter, Consolacion Manansala tried to
pacify Roseller Cayanan in
further attacking accused Eulogio Paras by putting her arms around the body of Roseller Cayanan. In
the meanwhile, accused Eulogio Paras spotted a hollow block nearby, picked it up and threw
it towards Roseller Cayanan
while he was being pacified hitting him on his face which caused the
latter to fall to the ground. Seizing
the opportunity, accused Eulogio Paras jumped at the fallen Roseller Cayanan so as to wrest
from him his fan knife, and in the scuffle accused Eulogio Paras injured his
hands. (TSN, September 2, 1981, pp.
16-17). Successful in taking away the knife of Roseller Cayanan, accused Eulogio Paras retreated, but Roseller Cayanan took hold of a
stone and immediately hit accused Eulogio Paras on his head making him groggy, and while Roseller Cayanan was again about
to hit him with the same stone, accused Eulogio Paras to repel the aggression, stabbed Roseller Cayanan at his navel, and
above his nipple. When Roseller Cayanan fell to the ground because of the said wounds,
accused Eulogio Paras left
the scene of the incident and proceeded towards the direction of his late
uncle’s house. However, because of the injury he sustained in his
knee, accused Eulogio Paras
was immobilized and was forced to crawl on his feet after walking some distance
away from the place of the incident. It was at this juncture that
the other accused Alejandro Paras saw and lifted
him. Before they could reach the house of their late uncle Flaviano Suñga, however, another
brother, accused Gregorio Paras, after calling
still another brother, accused Alberto Paras
(who was at the river near the house with his two cousins cleaning and
washing the tables, chairs and benches used in the wake), met and assisted
accused Alejandro Paras in carrying their brother
accused Eulogio Paras. Moments later, accused Alberto Eulogio Paras who was then
summoned by accused Gregorio Paras arrived and he
substituted accused Alejandro Paras in carrying
accused Eulogio Paras to the
banca to be brought to the hospital.
Meanwhile, the other accused Alejandro Paras
left and proceeded inside the house of their late uncle to change his
clothes which were sputtered with blood when he lifted his wounded brother Eulogio Paras. (TSN, September 21, 1981, pp. 37-38).
Arriving at the Poblacion of Masantol, Pampanga, accused Gregorio Paras placed his
brother accused Eulogio Paras on a tricycle and brought him to
Masantol
Emergency
Hospital,
leaving behind at the wharf his other brother accused
Alberto Paras to tend to the banca. It was here when Patrolman Viray arrested and brought to jail accused Alberto Paras. An hour later, accused Gregorio Paras was also arrested at the hospital and likewise, put to
jail at Masantol, Pampanga. (TSN, September 2,
1981, pp. 23-26). Three (3) days later, accused Juan Paras was also arrested and detained in the same jail as
that of the other accused Eulogio Paras, and Gregorio Paras.
Meanwhile, accused Eulogio Paras was being guarded at the
Masantol
Emergency
Hospital.
When he was ready to be released after about a month’s
confinement, he too was arrested and jailed. Sometime in
September, 1981, the other accused Alejandro Paras was
arrested somewhere in Camarines Sur, and likewise, put to jail. Accused
Francisco Viray however, remained at large.
Preliminary investigation having been conducted by
the Honorable Judge of the Municipal Court of Masantol, Pampanga, and finding a
prima facie case, all the aforesaid
accused stood trial under the following information filed by the
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga, to wit:
“The undersigned Provincial Fiscal and Ist
Assistant Provincial Fiscal accused Alejandro Paras
alias “Annie”, Eulogio Paras alias “Lucio“,
Gregorio Paras alias “Gorio“, Alberto Paras
alias “Kibit“, Juan Paras alias “Ador” and
John Doe alias “Borockio” of the crime of
Murder, committed as follows:
“That on or about the 12th day of
October, 1980, between the hours of 4:00 and 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, in Brgy. Sta.
Lucia, Municipality of Masantol, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused conspiring together and mutually helping
one another, taking advantage of their superior strength, with treachery and
evident premeditation, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, stab with bladed weapons and struck with
hollow blocks, the person of Roseller Cayanan, inflicting upon the victim fatal and mortal wounds,
which caused his death shortly thereafter.
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW.
San
Fernando, Pampanga, December 1, 1980.
Fiscal
Provincial
Fiscal.”
Accused Eulogio Paras interposed self-defense in admitting the wounding of
the victim Roseller Cayanan. The rest of the accused,
namely: Alejandro, Gregorio, Alberto and Juan all surnamed Paras, all put up alibi as
defense. On these points the trial court ruled
—
“Under the facts and circumstances of the case as related by the
accused and guided by the well rooted principles on the subject of self-defense,
as adverted to above, and considering that, prior to the incident at bar, there
had been bad blood between the Paras family on one
hand, and Roseller Cayanan,
and the Manansala family, upon the other, it is
apparent that there was a tacit concert of design between Eulogio Paras and the deceased
Roseller Cayanan to settle
their differences by force as may be gathered from the fact that when the
deceased asked Eulogio Paras
what the latter was looking at him for, the former, or Eulogio Paras answered whatever
Roseller Cayanan liked to
happen even to the extent of make something out of it which, in effect, was a
defiance and a challenge to fight in which case it is immaterial who began the
aggression, it being a mere incident of the struggle which cannot be the basis
of self-defense as claimed by the accused. In other words, when
the accused agreed to fight Roseller Cayanan, aggression is a mere incident
because the accused voluntarily exposed himself to the consequences of a fight
with his opponent and because the intention of the contending parties can not be
other than to mutually injure each other. The first attack
which may come from either is but an incident of the same fight and it cannot in
any manner be considered an unlawful aggression or unexpected aggression.
It is already a well-settled rule, firmly established in many decisions
interpretative of Article II of the Revised Penal Code that, after the accused
accepts a challenge, thereby placing himself in an unlawful status and one of
force, the prior aggression of his opponent, which as it was not unexpected,
could not catch him off his guard, excludes the condition of lawful defense, for
the challenge by itself excludes the classification of self-defense that,
totally or partially exempts from liability (U.S. vs. Cortez, 36 Phil.
337). There being no unlawful aggression, there can be no self-
defense, either complete or incomplete.
“The second element of self-defense — reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression —
has not been proved. The intimation of the accused that after the
deceased fell down when hit by a hollow block he threw at him, the
deceased picked up a hollow block and tried to throw it at him, and it was at
that instance that he (Eulogio) stabbed the deceased
twice at the stomach and below the left nipple. It is unbelievable
and strange that, after falling on the ground when hit with hollow block at the
head thrown by the accused, that the deceased was still able to pick up a hollow
block and tried to hit with it against the accused. But even
conceding, without admitting, that the deceased was able to pick up a hollow
block, it is still clear that when the deceased fell on the ground when
hit with hollow block thrown at him by the accused, it
was no longer necessary to stab twice the deceased as the accused’s life was in no real and imminent danger from the
deceased who was already so weak and had no more sufficient strength to confront
and assault the accused, as the latter presented the court to believe.
The theory of self-defense is based on the necessity on the part of the
accused to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression, and when the danger or risk
on his part has disappeared the stabbing should have stopped.
Considering that the deceased was stabbed after the latter was prostrate
on the ground to the extent of killing him without the necessity of doing it for
self-defense, the accused is responsible for the death of the
deceased.
“And, if it is true that accused Eulogio Paras held the knife of
the deceased in self-defense, it is strange that he lost the knife in his
flight with the evident intention of hiding vital evidence involved in the
incident.”
x x x
x
“As earlier stated, since alibi can be easily fabricated, the
same must be established by clear and positive evidence, free from doubt
and bias and that purely oral evidence presented to prove it cannot prevail over
positive evidence showing the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime
and his participation in the commission thereof. In the instant
case the identification of accused Alberto Paras and
Juan Paras who hit Roseller
Cayanan at the head with hollow block in the afternoon
of October 12, 1980 at Ilang-Ilang Street, Sta. Lucia,
Masantol, Pampanga, had been
established by worthy and credible witnesses. As announced by the
Supreme Court in a long line of unbroken decisions (People vs. Mansueto
Jamero, et al., G.R. L-19852, July
29, 1968, 24 SCRA 206 and related cases) for alibi to prosper, it is not enough
to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but
must, likewise, demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the commission of the crime complained of.
Considering that there is no evidence of record that it was physically
impossible for accused Alberto Paras and Juan Paras, – who was only about few meters, in the case of
Alberto Paras, and more than three kilometers, in the
case of Juan Paras, away from the scene of the
crime to be at the scene of the commission of the crime at Ilang-Ilang Street, Sta. Lucia, Masantol, Pampanga, — the alibi of
both accused did not meet this standard.
“The information alleges conspiracy and the qualifying
circumstance of treachery, taking advantage of superior strength and with
evident premeditation.
“Upon the evidence as a whole proven by the prosecution, the
circumstance of treachery appears to be sufficiently proven. The
suddenness of the attack as shown by the fact that the arms of Roseller Cayanan were twisted by
accused Alejandro Paras and Eulogio Paras around the neck of
the victim which left the victim no opportunity whatsoever to defend himself
when accused Eulogio Paras
hit the victim with a hollow block at the head, causing the latter to fall down
slowly and, once the victim was on the ground, Eulogio
Paras, Alejandro Paras and
Gregorio Paras stabbed Roseller Cayanan several times at
the stomach and breast with bladed weapons, and at the same time Juan Paras, Alberto Paras and Francisco
Viray hit Roseller Cayanan with hollow block which landed at the head of the
victim, all these show treachery.
“The qualifying circumstance of superior strength cannot be taken
into account in this case for the reason that the circumstance of taking
advantage of superior strength is inherent in, and comprehended by the
circumstance of treachery. When treachery is taken into account as
a qualifying circumstance in murder, it is improper again to consider, in
addition to that circumstance, the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength since the latter is necessarily included in the
former.
“The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation has not been
proven and cannot be considered in this case. There is nothing in
the record to suggest the idea that the accused had conceived of the thought to
kill the deceased and had sufficient time thereafter to reflect upon the
consequences of their act as to allow their conscience to overcome the
resolution of their will if they desire to harken to
their warnings.
“Conspiracy alleged in the Information has been proven.
This means that the acts of the conspirators are the acts of all.
For conspiracy to exist it is not necessary that two or more persons met
together and entered into an explicit or formal agreement for an unlawful
scheme; or that they directly, verbally or in writing, stated what the unlawful
scheme was to be, and of the plans or means by which the unlawful combination
was to be made effective. It can be inferred and proven by the
acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and
design, concerted action, and united in its execution. Thus,
when the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part
and another performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the
attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent
were in fact concerted and cooperative indicating closeness of
personal association, concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments, as in the instant case, — the court is justified in concluding that
all the accused were engaged in a conspiracy. It appearing that
all the accused took part in inflicting injuries to the deceased which all prove
to be fatal, all the accused are guilty of murder as principal by direct
participation. Proceeding from the fact that the six (6) stab
wounds and head injuries inflicted upon the victim, were all mortal and fatal, —
according to Dr. Eriberto Suñga, Municipal Health Officer of Masantol, Pampanga, who performed
the autopsy upon the body of Roseller Cayanan, — the question as to who among the accused
inflicted which wounds and how many, is of no legal relevance since each is
responsible for the acts of the other as his co-principals and
co-conspirators.
“From the evidence presented by the prosecution
the Court finds all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder qualified by treachery under the provisions of Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code. Under the provisions of 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, murder is punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death. There being no aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, the applicable penalty should be
reclusion perpetua.“WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding all the
accused, namely: Alejandro Paras
alias “Annie”, Eulogio Paras alias “Lucio“,
Gregorio Paras alias “Gorio“, Alberto Paras
alias “Kibit“, and Juan Paras alias “Ador“,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals by direct
participation of the felony of murder qualified by treachery and the court
sentences all the said accused, namely: Alejandro Paras alias “Annie”, Eulogio Paras alias
“Lucio“, Gregorio Paras
alias “Gorio“, Alberto Paras alias “Kibit“, and
Juan Paras alias “Ador“, to suffer the penalty of “reclusion perpetua“, with the accessory penalties provided for by law;
and to pay, jointly and severally, to the heirs of Roseller Cayanan:(a) The sum of P12,000.00 by
way of indemnity for the death of Roseller Cayanan;(b) The sum of P12,000.00 as actual damages
representing cost of casket, funeral expenses, church services and food served
and consumed by relatives and friends who joined the heirs of Roseller Cayanan in their hour of
bereavement and other incidental expenses;(c) The sum of P5,000.00 as moral damages for mental anguish; and
(d) To pay proportionately the costs.
SO ORDERED.”
Accused-appellants now come before Us
assigning the following errors of the trial court:
“I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES, CONSOLACION MANANSALA AND CHARLIE
MANANSALA INSTEAD OF FINDING THEM BIASED AND WITH SPECIAL INTEREST, AND THEIR
TESTIMONIES WERE CONCOCTED, REHEARSED, HIGHLY INCREDIBLE AND GRAVELY
CONTRADICTORY, HENCE, DESERVE SCANT CONSIDERATION.
“II
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED EULOGIO PARAS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN STABBING AND
EVENTUALLY KILLING ROSELLER CAYANAN IN A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHT TO
SELF-DEFENSE.
“III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED JUAN PARAS,
GREGORIO PARAS, ALBERTO PARAS, ALEJANDRO PARAS, AND FRANCISCO VIRAY WERE AT THE
SCENE OF THE INCIDENT ON OCTOBER 12, 1980, BETWEEN 4:00 AND 5:00 O’CLOCK IN THE
AFTERNOON, HELPING AND CONFEDERATING WITH THE OTHER ACCUSED EULOGIO PARAS WHILE
THE LATTER WAS HAVING A FIGHT WITH THE DECEASED ROSELLER CAYANAN.
“IV
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN OUTRIGHTLY REJECTING THE INDIVIDUAL CLAIM ALIBI PUT UP BY THE
ACCUSED JUAN PARAS, ALBERTO PARAS, ALEJANDRO PARAS, AND GREGORIO PARAS DESPITE
RELIABLE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. BY
RELYING HEAVILY ON THE ALLEGED POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF ALL THE ACCUSED BY THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES, CONSOLACION MANANSALA AND CHARLIE
MANANSALA.
“V
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEATH OF ROSELLER CAYANAN
WAS ATTENDED BY TREACHERY ON THE PART OF ALL THE ACCUSED, INSTEAD OF FINDING
SUCH DEATH AS A VERY SAD RESULT FROM THE LEGITIMATE FIGHT BETWEEN ACCUSED
EULOGIO PARAS AND THE DECEASED ROSELLER CAYANAN.
“IV
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED JUAN PARAS, ALBERTO PARAS, ALEJANDRO PARAS,
GREGORIO PARAS, AND FRANCISCO VIRAY CONSPIRED AND CONFEDERATED WITH THE OTHER
ACCUSED EULOGIO PARAS IN ASSAULTING AND EVENTUALLY KILLING THE DECEASED ROSELLER
CAYANAN.
“VII
THE LOWER COURT FINALLY ERRED IN CONVICTING ALL THE
ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF MURDER QUALIFIED BY TREACHERY, AND IN
SENTENCING THEM ALL WITH THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA PROVIDED IN
ARTICLE 248 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AS AMENDED, AND IN ORDERING THEM, JOINTLY
AND SEVERALLY, TO INDEMNIFY THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED THE SUM OF P12,000.00 FOR THE DEATH OF ROSELLER CAYANAN, P12,000.00 AS
ACTUAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, AND THE FURTHER SUM OF P5,000.00 AS MORAL
DAMAGES.”
We find no reversible error committed by the trial court.
Appellants assail the trial court in giving weight to the testimonies of
witnesses Consolacion Manansala and her son Charlie on the ground that being the
victim’s relatives their testimonies are biased and devoid of merit.
Such contentions hold no water.
The testimonies of said witnesses are clear and persuasive and
corroborative of each other. The presence of these eyewitnesses
was acknowledged by accused Eulogio Paras himself. The stabbing incident happened
in broad daylight making the identification of the appellants easy and
certain. That they were relatives of the victim Roseller Cayanan does not perforce
impair their credibility on their positive identification of the assailants and
how the crime took place. These witnesses actually saw the
appellants stab and also hit the victim on the head with a hollow block.
The corroborative testimony of Dr. Eriberto
Sunga who made an autopsy on the victim is to the
effect that all the stab wounds were fatal. Failure on the part of
the witnesses to point specifically the parts of the body which were hit was due
to the series of sudden acts of stabbing and in no way affects their
credibility. Appellants argue that the testimony of Consolacion Manansala that she
tried to pacify appellant Alejandro Paras after the
latter had stabbed Roseller Cayanan is allegedly contrary to her later testimony that
she attempted to pacify appellant Alejandro Paras
before the latter hit the victim on the chest. We fail to see the
inconsistency in this. It is possible that this witness tried to
pacify appellant Alejandro Paras after the latter had
hit the victim on the stomach but before hitting again on the
chest.
The testimony of witness Charlie Manansala, who was only 11 years old at the time he
testified in court, that it was his mother who brought the victim to the
hospital is not inconsistent with his mother’s testimony that the neighbors who
responded to Consolacion’s shout for help were the
ones who took him to the hospital since these neighbors not only helped in
placing the victim on board a tricycle but also in bringing the victim to the
hospital along with Consolacion Manansala herself.
The fact that the prosecution presented
only one hollow block (Exh. “B”)
does not negate the fact that the appellants were each holding a hollow block to
hit the victim. Exhibit “B” was presented to show that indeed
there were such hollow blocks at the scene of the incident used in killing the
victim.
Witness Charlie Manansala then
only a young boy remained resolute on the material points of his testimony that
after appellant Alejandro Paras had stabbed the
victim, it was appellant Eulogio Paras who hit the victim on the head with a hollow
block.
Appellants deny conspiracy as found by the trial
court. Their denial of conspiracy is belied by the
following: appellants are members of one family; the attack was
done by them suddenly and simultaneously; all the appellants took part in
inflicting injuries on the deceased which all proved to be fatal; after the
attack and seeing the victim lying prostrate on the ground dying, they left the
scene of the crime at the same time in response to the command of Eulogio Paras to leave the victim
as he was already dead anyway.
In rejecting treachery, appellants maintain that the killing
of the deceased was frontal and therefore he was not deprived of the opportunity
to defend himself. Such contention is untenable. The
records reveal that before the victim was stabbed and hit several times with
hollow blocks on the head, his arms were twisted, rendering him helpless to
defend himself or repel the initial assault. This mode of attack
was deliberately and consciously resorted to by the appellants to insure the
commission of the crime without risk to the latter
arising from the defense that the victim might put up.
As to self-defense and alibi interposed by the appellants
the ruling laid down by the trial court as aforementioned is well-taken as it is
fully substantiated by the records of the case.
WHEREFORE, finding the appealed decision in
accordance with law and evidence, We hereby AFFIRM the same with
the modification that the indemnity for the death is increased to P30,000.00. Costs against
appellants.
SO
ORDERED.
Fernan, (Chairman), Alampay,
Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, and Bidin, JJ., concur.
[1] The Judge was Lorenzo Mosquita.
[2] Accused Gregorio Paras, name was omitted but he was also included in the
criminal complaint.