THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO VIRAY ALIAS BOROKIO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Francisco Viray (together with
Alejandro, Eulogio, Gregorio, Alberto, and Juan all
surnamed Paras) was charged with the crime of murder
in an Information reading as follows:

“That on or about the 12^th day of October 1980, between
the hours of 4:00 and 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, in Barangay 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 thereafter.

ALL CONTRARY TO LAW”.

After trial, all the accused (with
the exception of appellant Viray, who was then at
large) were convicted of murder (qualified by treachery). ^[1] On December 13, 1984, appellant was
arrested by the Integrated National Police.  After trial he was
found guilty in the decision of September 9, 1985, the
decretal part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
the accused Francisco Viray alias “Borokio” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder qualified by treachery and hereby sentences said accused Francisco Viray alias “Borokio” to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
with the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the heirs of
Roseller Cayanan the sum of
THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00).  Philippine Currency, by way of indemnity for the death of said Roseller Cayanan and to pay the
costs of this suit.

SO
ORDERED”.

Hence, the present appeal raising the following as the sole
assignment of error:

ASSIGNMENT OF
ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
MURDER QUALIFIED BY TREACHERY DESPITE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.

The prosecution evidence as synthesized by the People’s
Brief tends to show the following facts:

In the late afternoon of October 12, 1980, Consolacion
Manansala was on her way home walking along the narrow
street of Ilang-Ilang in Sta. Lucia, Masantol, Pampanga.  Her companions were the
deceased Roseller Cayanan,
nephew of her husband, Librado Manansala, and her eleven year old son Charlie Manansala.  Consolacion was walking behind the deceased, followed by her
son, when suddenly the brothers Alejandro and Eulogio
Paras rushed them from behind.  Alejandro
pulled the deceased by the shoulder, while Eulogio
held his hands behind to prevent him from defending himself. 
(tsn., pp. 5-9, Feb.
6, 1985).  Eulogio then picked up a piece of hollow block from the road
and hit Roseller on the head with it. 
Whereupon, Alejandro drew out a hunting knife
and stabbed the victim in the stomach.  At this instance,
accused-appellant Francisco Viray, alias
“Borokio“, uncle of the Paras brothers, assisted by their father, Juan Paras, and the latter’s two other
sons, Alberto and Gregorio Paras, took turns in
boxing, kicking and throwing hollow blocks at the victim.  Consolacion Manansala tried to
pacify the attackers by shouting, “Do not kill him, do not kill him”, and by
embracing the victim from behind to the extent of injuring her hands in the
process and had to be treated at the Macabebe
Emergency
Hospital.  (tsn.,
pp. 9-12, February 6,
1985).

The assailants then fled leaving the deceased lying on his back
unconscious.  Consolacion started
shouting for help and some persons responded and brought the victim to the
Macabebe
Emergency
Hospital in a tricycle (tsn.,
pp. 13-16, Feb. 6,
1985).  Upon arrival at the
hospital, the victim was pronounced dead by Dr, Ladislao H. Yuchongco, Jr., Chief of the Hospital.  His findings were
contained in a medical report.  Said findings revealed that the
victim sustained several injuries, the fatal ones being that which damaged the
brain and a stab wound which penetrated the heart.  (Exh. “B”, tsn., pp. 7-11, Feb. 18,
1985).

The day following the incident, October 13, 1980, Consolacion Manansala informed the
police investigator that a person by the name of alias “Borokyo” (appellant Francisco Viray) also participated in the killing of the
deceased.  (tsn., pp. 17-18, 21-22,
February 13,
1985).

Upon the other hand, the following appears in the Appellant’s
Brief:

The defense presented Francisco Viray,
Pat. Rogelio Alfonso and Prudencio
Viray.

Francisco Viray testified that he was
residing at 7024 Jasmin
Street, Makati, Metro Manila and worked as
an inspector with Jonel Transportation Company plying
the Quiapo-Guadalupe route (tsn, pp. 8-9, Feb. 20, 1985).  Eulogio, Gregorio, Alberto and Alejandro, all surnamed Paras, were his nephews, while Juan Paras was the latter’s father.  On October 12, 1980, he went to Sta.
Lucia, Masantol, Pampanga and arrived thereat in the afternoon. 
While he was walking along sitio Ilang-Ilang, Sta. Lucia, he saw his nephew, Lucio Paras, wounded lying on the
road, Lucio Paras requested
him to carry him but because he was afraid he ran to the house of his Kakang Ising and reported the same
to her.  He stayed in that house, slept there and did not leave the
place.

Francisco Viray likewise declared that he
was not with Gregorio Paras, Alberto Paras, Eulogio Paras and Juan Paras in assaulting
Roseller Cayanan. 
He stayed in the house of Feliciana Usi for
three days and returned to Manila
thereafter.  He went home to Masantol,
Pampanga many times and all the while he did not know
that he was being implicated in the case.  When he was arrested on
December 19, 1984 by the
INP of Masantol, Pampanga,
he was not informed of the reason why he was being apprehended (Ibid.,
pp. 11-27).

Pat. Rogelio Alfonso testified that he is a member of the Masantol, Pampanga Police
Station.  On March 11,
1985 he presented to the court the police blotter of their station
dated October 12, 1980 and
read the entries made therein regarding the death of Roseller Cayanan wherein accused
Francisco Viray was not among those reported as
suspect in the death of said Roseller Cayanan (tsn, pp. 3-6, March 11, 1985).

Prudencio Viray
averred that Francisco Viray is his cousin and that
Alejandro, Eulogio, Alberto and Gregorio all surnamed
Paras, were his nephews while Juan Paras is his brother-in-law.  On October 12, 1980 between 4:00 and 5:00
o’clock in the afternoon he was in Sta. Lucia, Masantol, Pampanga due to the death of his brother-in-law, Flaviano Sunga. While they were
making an accounting of the expenses on the death and burial of Flaviano Sunga he heard about the
stabbing incident.  He along with his brothers and his
brother-in-law went to the road and saw Eulogio Paras laying down and being stabbed
by Roseller Cayanan.
Thereafter he heard Consolation Manansala saying “do
not kill him” at the same time embracing Roseller
Cayanan.  Later on he saw Roseller Cayanan lying dead and
Eulogio Paras
crawling.  His brother brought Eulogio
Paras to Batasan
Emergency
Hospital.  He did not
see Francisco Viray at the place of the
incident.  (tsn,
pp. 7-11, March 11,
1985).

After a study of the case, We have
come to the conclusion that, there is greater credibility on the
part of the prosecution.

There is of course no question
about the participation and liability of the Paras‘ family.  We
are concerned here merely with the actuations of appellant Viray.

We do not believe Viray’s
assertion that he did not participate at all in the attack and that he was not
present when the crime was taking place.  Witness Consolacion Manansala saw him
leading the second attack on the fallen Roseller Cayanan.  And on this matter she was
corroborated by her young son Charlie Manansala.  Both saw Viray pick up a piece of hollow block with which he hit
Roseller Cayanan.

We quote from the transcript (quoted in the Appellant’s
Brief). re the testimony of Consolacion Manansala:

Q   Then what happened with Roseller Cayanan when he was hit
with a hollow block and stabbed on the stomach by the two parases?

A    He fell on the ground.

Q   When Roseller Cayanan was already lying
on the ground, what else happened?

A    Thereafter, his father and brothers
came led by Francisco Viray then Alberto Paras, then Gregorio Paras and
Juan Paras, sir.

Q   When these persons you
have just mentioned arrived at the place where Roseller Cayanan was lying, what did they do?

A    They got pieces of hollow block and
hit him on the head, they kicked him and boxed him,
sir.” (pp. 9-11, Feb. 6,
1985).

With respect to the existence of a conspiracy, We quote with approval the following apt observations of the
Solicitor General:

However, he contends that the prosecution failed to establish by
clear and convincing evidence that his participation was by virtue
of a pre-conceived plan or conspiracy between him and the other accused. 
In suport thereof, he points out, that,
according to Manansala’s testimony, when appellant,
along with Alberto, Gregorio and Juan, all surnamed Paras, arrived at the scene of the incident, the deceased
was already lying on the ground seriously wounded, if not already
dead.

This pretence is devoid of merit.  True, that the same
degree of proof necessary to establish the crime is required to support a
finding of the presence of a criminal conspiracy.  But it is
equally true that direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy which may be
established by the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. 
And in the instant case, the existence of conspiracy is amply shown by
the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime.  The
mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated indubitably show that the
malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.  While
appellant was not in sight when the brothers Alejandro and Eulogio Paras commenced mauling
and stabbing the deceased, the fact that he appeared immediately thereafter and,
together with the other two Paras brothers, Gregorio
and Alberto, and their father, Juan, joined in assaulting the victim by kicking
and hitting him with hollow blocks, can lead to no other logical conclusion that
that appellant was part of the conspiracy to kill the deceased. 
Surely, no one will believe that appellant just happened to be around at
the time and that he acted independently of the four Paras brothers and their father.  Moreover, his
flight after the incident leans heavily against his innocense.

Anent treachery or alevosia be
it noted among other things that appellant (and the rest) continued to hit and
kick the victim, even when he was already unconscious, to make sure
he would die.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Feria, (Chairman),
Fernan, Alampay, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.