PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, VS. JOVEN BAUSING AND MANUEL LOROSO, ACCUSED/APPELLANTS.

People versus Bausing

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Joven Bausing and Manuel Loroso for the killing of Alexander Mantilla, a barangay councilman and member of the local patrol who was stabbed to death in a billiard hall one evening in August 1978. The trial court convicted both men of murder qualified by treachery. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole cluster of defenses a student must master: defense of a relative, denial, alibi, treachery, conspiracy, and voluntary surrender. It also shows how the Supreme Court weighs eyewitness testimony against an accused's own admission of the killing.

Procedural History

Bausing and Loroso were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Branch Thirty-One, with murder with assault upon an agent of a person in authority. Both pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court rendered judgment finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified with treachery. Having found neither an aggravating nor a mitigating circumstance, it sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua, ordered them to indemnify the heirs of Alexander Mantilla, jointly and severally, in the amount of twelve thousand pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with the accessory penalties imposed by law, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning several errors.

Facts

On the evening of August 3, 1978, at about nine fifteen, Alexander Mantilla was at the billiard hall owned by Manuel Loroso in Barangay Consuelo, General Luna, Surigao del Norte, performing his duties as barangay councilman and patrol member. Several men were present, and two billiard tables were in play. The game was interrupted once when Domingo Teraytay and Manuel Loroso grappled for a knife protruding from Teraytay's back pocket; the knife was taken with the help of others, and Loroso confiscated it to prevent trouble.

Later, Valentin Bausing, sometimes called Rodolfo, clattered the billiard balls. Mantilla admonished him to stop, since he was not concerned with the game. Without a word, Manuel Loroso came from behind Mantilla and held the latter's hands while they were raised. Joven Bausing, Valentin's father, suddenly appeared with an unsheathed sharp pointed bolo hidden inside an umbrella and thrust it many times upon Mantilla. Loroso released the victim only when he was staggering unconsciously; Mantilla fell dead outside the billiard hall.

Four eyewitnesses testified for the prosecution and corroborated one another in all material points. They described how Bausing continued stabbing the fallen victim on the mouth, the armpit, and the arm. The autopsy showed seventeen incised wounds, including a through and through wound of the heart, which was the primary cause of death, aside from numerous abrasions and avulsions. Neither Valentin nor Joven Bausing suffered any injury. Joven Bausing admitted the killing but claimed defense of his son; Loroso denied participation, saying he was pumping air into the petromax lamp and ran away when he saw blood.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that Loroso held Mantilla from behind while Bausing stabbed him, that the two conspired, and that Loroso's defense was alibi, and in convicting Loroso of murder.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that Ederesa Tokong's testimony was unrebutted and fatal to the defense.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting Joven Bausing's claim of defense of his son.
• Whether or not the killing was qualified by treachery.
• Whether or not Bausing should be convicted only of homicide, and whether or not voluntary surrender should be appreciated in his favor.

Applicable Provisions

Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, on justifying circumstances, provides:

Are the following justifying circumstances exempt from criminal liability: 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

This is the provision Bausing invoked, and its first requisite, unlawful aggression, is the point on which his defense failed.

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, on aggravating circumstances, 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 under which the killing was qualified as murder, raising it above homicide.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Loroso's unsubstantiated disclaimer of participation could not prevail over the forthright and positive testimonies of the eyewitnesses, who uniformly pointed to him as having held both of Mantilla's hands from behind and raised them upward while Bausing stabbed the victim continuously. The Court applied the settled rule that greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses than to the accused's plain denial. On conspiracy, the Court inferred it from the concerted acts of both accused, who approached the victim almost simultaneously, one holding the hands and the other delivering the fatal stabs. The manner by which Loroso held the victim's hands, clearly preventing him from defending himself and without which act the crime would not have been accomplished, made him a conspirator and a principal by indispensable cooperation.

On the second issue, the Court found the argument devoid of merit. What the trial court meant by calling Tokong's testimony unrebutted was that Loroso failed to rebut her testimony that after the killing he slept in the spouses' Tokong house with bloodstains on his shirt and trousers and that the blanket and beddings he used were also stained with blood. It did not mean that no sur-rebuttal witness was presented.

On the third issue, the Court held that Bausing's claim of defense of a relative failed for want of unlawful aggression, the indispensable requisite. The victim merely admonished Valentin Bausing to stop meddling with the game. The nature, character, location, and number of the wounds belied any supposition that the deceased was the unlawful aggressor. Having admitted the killing, the accused bore the burden of proving the justifying circumstance by strong, clear, and convincing evidence, and could not rely on the weakness of the prosecution.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that treachery qualified the killing, because the victim was not only unarmed but was also deprived of every means to defend himself. Loroso held both hands of the deceased while Bausing suddenly appeared and started stabbing him. The Court quoted the statutory definition of treachery and ruled that the appellants executed the crime in a manner that tended directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to themselves arising from the defense the deceased might have made.

On the fifth issue, the Court rejected the plea of voluntary surrender. While Bausing claimed to have surrendered to a police officer on the night of the incident, the records showed that the appellants were in fact arrested on August 28, 1978, as reflected in the return of the warrant of arrest. The mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated where the return showed that the appellant was in fact arrested.

Doctrine

Defense of a relative, like self-defense, requires unlawful aggression as an indispensable requisite; if there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel. Unlawful aggression must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not a merely threatening or intimidating attitude, and must be such as to put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defended. Where the accused admits the killing, the burden shifts to him to prove the justifying circumstance by strong, clear, and convincing evidence, and he cannot depend on the infirmity of the prosecution.

Treachery, as defined in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, qualifies a killing as murder where the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. There is treachery where the victim was held tightly by one of the accused before his co-accused stabbed him.

Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when those acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests. One who holds the victim's hands, preventing him from defending himself and without which act the crime would not have been accomplished, is a conspirator and a principal by indispensable cooperation.

Positive identification by prosecution witnesses prevails over plain denial, which is self-serving and cannot overcome clear and positive testimony. Voluntary surrender is not appreciated where the records show that the accused was in fact arrested.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, modifying it only by increasing the indemnification to fifty thousand pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that unlawful aggression is indispensable to defense of a relative, and that holding the victim's hands while another stabs him is both treachery and conspiracy by indispensable cooperation. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of defense of a relative, the burden of proof once the killing is admitted, and the appreciation of treachery and conspiracy from concerted acts.