PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALEJANDRO BANAYO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Banayo

The Case

This is People versus Banayo, a criminal appeal decided by the Supreme Court in June 1984. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Alejandro Banayo, together with two others who remained at large, for the crime of murder — the stabbing of Armando Abel on the evening of September 13, 1980, in Barangay Bungoy, Dolores, Quezon. Only Banayo was arrested and tried. The case matters for the bar candidate because it gathers in one decision several doctrines tested again and again: the credibility of witnesses and the value of minor inconsistencies, the requisites of a dying declaration, the weakness of alibi against positive identification, the nature of treachery and conspiracy, and the correct terminology for penalties.

Procedural History

Banayo was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, at Lucena City, in an information alleging that the accused, armed with a knife, conspiring and helping one another, with intent to kill and with treachery, stabbed Armando Abel several times, causing his death. Only Banayo was arrested; his co-accused Rosendo Villanueva and Donato Alvero remained at large and were never tried. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Banayo of murder, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of twelve thousand pesos. Banayo appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning several errors against the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the finding of conspiracy, and the conviction for murder.

Facts

At about eight o'clock in the evening of September 13, 1980, Romualdo Cabrera and his cousin Isidoro Cartena were on their way home to Bungoy, Dolores, Quezon, when they encountered the group of Rosendo Villanueva, also known as Chito, Donato Alvero, and Alejandro Banayo, who were playing mahjong in front of the house of Hermilando Ventocilla. The two groups threw stones and bottles at each other. Cabrera and Cartena retreated; Villanueva chased Cabrera with a knife, but Cabrera took refuge in the house of his uncle.

While Cabrera was inside that house, the deceased, Armando Abel, passed by and went to the scene of the incident. Upon reaching the place, Armando Abel talked with Chito Villanueva. Suddenly, Villanueva stabbed Armando Abel from behind while Banayo and Donato Alvero held the victim by his two hands. Minutes later, Barangay Captain Godofredo Valle arrived, and the three ran away, leaving the victim bleeding at the side of the road. With the help of Alfredo Esguerra, the barangay captain loaded the victim into a jeep and brought him toward a hospital in San Pablo, but Armando Abel died before reaching it. The autopsy showed that he died of internal hemorrhage due to several fatal wounds inflicted on different parts of his body.

Banayo's defense was alibi. He claimed that a few minutes after the stone and bottle throwing, his uncle Rogelio Aurelio fetched him because his mother was sick, so that he was no longer at the scene when Villanueva stabbed the victim.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Romualdo Cabrera, Alfredo Esguerra, and Godofredo Valle.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not giving weight to the testimonies of the defense witnesses and the accused.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the accused.
• Whether or not the killing was qualified by treachery, and whether or not the crime is murder.
• Whether or not conspiracy existed among the accused.
• Whether or not the penalty was correctly imposed and correctly denominated.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, on treachery, provides:

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 provision the Court applies in holding that the holding of the victim's hands while another stabbed him from behind constituted treachery, qualifying the killing to murder.

Ruling

On the first three issues, the Court sustained the trial court. Romualdo Cabrera testified categorically that he saw Chito Villanueva stab Armando Abel while the latter was being held by Donato Alvero and the appellant, and Alfredo Esguerra, who was near the scene, fully corroborated him. The Court held that while there may have been inconsistencies in their testimonies, these were only on minor details, and such inconsistencies are badges of truth, for only the testimonies of rehearsed witnesses will tally on every point.

On the dying declaration, the Court held that the testimony of Barangay Captain Godofredo Valle fell within the exception to the hearsay rule. The victim, while being rushed to the hospital and conscious of his impending death, answered that the group of Chito Villanueva ganged up on him. The Court found all the requisites of a dying declaration present, and held that although the statement was vague, the barangay was a small community whose residents knew the members of a particular group, and the barangay captain named Donato Alvero and the appellant as members of that gang.

On alibi, the Court held it could not be taken seriously. The appellant was positively identified as one of the two persons who held the victim; the defense witnesses themselves admitted he was at the scene; and his house was only a few meters away, a distance traversed within minutes. The Court held that alibi is a weak defense against positive identification, and found the claim that he went home because his mother was sick puerile and incredible, since he had left his ailing mother alone to watch the mahjong game.

On treachery, the Court noted that the trial court's compressed decision made it difficult to see why it convicted the appellant of murder rather than homicide, and that the circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength, not having been alleged in the information, could not qualify the killing. But since the entire records are thrown wide open on appeal from a criminal conviction, the Court reviewed the evidence and found treachery amply established. The holding of the victim's hands by Alvero and the appellant insured the commission of the offense without risk to the accused; the victim was immobilized, prevented from parrying the knife thrusts, and in no position to retaliate.

On conspiracy, the Court held that conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting of the minds was proven, and that proof of publicly observable mutual agreement is not indispensable. There is conspiracy where two of the accused held the victim's hands and the third stabbed him from behind, each offender performing with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design.

Finally, on the penalty, the Court reminded lower courts to employ legal terminology. The correct term is reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment, because the various penalties have their corresponding legal accessories and effects.

Doctrine

Alibi is a weak defense against the positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses, especially where the accused's house is only a few meters from the scene and no impossibility of presence is shown. Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not destroy credibility; they are badges of truth, for only rehearsed witnesses tally on every point. A dying declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when it concerns the crime and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death, was made under a consciousness of impending death, the declarant was competent as a witness, and it is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide in which the declarant was the victim. Treachery, under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, requires the employment of means, methods, or forms that insure the execution of the offense without risk to the offender, and that such means were deliberately or consciously chosen; holding the victim's hands while another stabs him from behind constitutes treachery. Conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted and coordinated acts of the offenders, without proof of an actual meeting of minds. And the correct penalty is reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court modified the judgment appealed from, finding Alejandro Banayo guilty of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Armando Abel in the amount of thirty thousand pesos, and to pay the proportionate costs.

Remember This

Remember the line that two accused held the victim's hands while the third stabbed him from behind — that is treachery and conspiracy in one stroke. Examiners use this case for the requisites of a dying declaration, the weakness of alibi against positive identification, and the distinction between reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment.