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

People versus Viray

The Case

This is People versus Francisco Viray, known in the record by the alias Borokio. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Viray, together with several members of the Paras family, for the killing of Roseller Cayanan in Masantol, Pampanga, on the afternoon of October 12, 1980. The charge was murder, qualified by treachery. Viray alone brings this appeal, and the case matters for two reasons a reviewee should hold on to: first, it shows how conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof, and second, it shows how treachery is appreciated where the attackers continue to strike a victim already unconscious, to make sure that he dies.

Procedural History

An Information for murder was filed against Viray and his co-accused. Viray was then at large, and so he was tried only after his arrest by the Integrated National Police on December 13, 1984. His co-accused were tried and convicted of murder qualified by treachery, and the record notes that they are now serving their sentence of reclusion perpetua.

After trial, the trial court, in a decision dated September 9, 1985, found Viray guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law, ordered him to pay the heirs of Roseller Cayanan 30,000 pesos as indemnity for the victim's death, and to pay the costs of suit.

Viray appealed to the Supreme Court, raising a single assignment of error: that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him of murder qualified by treachery despite the insufficiency of the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

In the late afternoon of October 12, 1980, Consolacion Manansala was walking home along the narrow street of Ilang-Ilang in Santa Lucia, Masantol, Pampanga. With her were the deceased, Roseller Cayanan, who was the nephew of her husband, and her eleven year old son, Charlie Manansala. Consolacion walked behind the deceased, and her son followed her. Suddenly the brothers Alejandro and Eulogio Paras rushed them from behind. Alejandro pulled the deceased by the shoulder, while Eulogio held his hands behind his back to prevent him from defending himself. Eulogio then picked up a piece of hollow block from the road and hit Roseller on the head with it. Alejandro drew out a hunting knife and stabbed the victim in the stomach.

At this point, Francisco Viray, the uncle of the Paras brothers, together with their father Juan Paras and the latter's two other sons, Alberto and Gregorio, took turns in boxing, kicking, and throwing hollow blocks at the victim. Consolacion tried to pacify the attackers by shouting, do not kill him, do not kill him, and by embracing the victim from behind, injuring her hands in the process, for which she had to be treated at the Macabebe Emergency Hospital. The assailants fled, leaving the deceased lying on his back, unconscious. He was brought to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. The medical findings showed several injuries, the fatal ones being that which damaged the brain and a stab wound which penetrated the heart.

The day after the incident, Consolacion informed the police investigator that a person by the name of Borokyo, the appellant Viray, also participated in the killing. For his part, Viray testified that he was then residing in Makati and working as an inspector with a transportation company. He claimed that on that afternoon he saw his nephew Lucio Paras lying wounded on the road, that he ran to the house of a relative to report the matter, and that he stayed there and did not leave the place. He denied joining the assault. A police officer presented the police blotter of October 12, 1980, in which Viray was not among those reported as suspects. Another witness, Prudencio Viray, testified that he did not see Francisco Viray at the place of the incident.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, despite his denial and alibi.
• Whether or not a criminal conspiracy existed among the appellant and the Paras brothers, even without direct proof of a pre-conceived plan.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery, so as to qualify the crime as murder.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote the penal provisions in full, but it applies the law on conspiracy and on treachery as qualifying circumstance. The governing rule on conspiracy is stated in Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code:

There is a conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

This bears on the case because the Court found that the appellant and the Paras brothers acted in concert pursuant to the same objective, even without direct proof of their agreement.

The qualifying circumstance of treachery is defined in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code:

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 bears on the case because the victim was held from behind and struck without warning, and the attackers continued to hit and kick him even when he was already unconscious, to make sure that he would die.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution evidence was credible and sufficient. The Court did not believe Viray's assertion that he did not participate at all in the attack and was not present when the crime took 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. The Court gave greater credibility to the prosecution.

On the second issue, the Court held that conspiracy was established by the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy. The mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated indubitably showed that the malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. While the 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 Gregorio and Alberto Paras and their father Juan, joined in assaulting the victim by kicking and hitting him with hollow blocks, could lead to no other logical conclusion than that he was part of the conspiracy to kill the deceased. The Court added that no one would believe that the appellant just happened to be around at the time and acted independently of the others, and that his flight after the incident leaned heavily against his innocence.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing. Among other things, the appellant and the rest continued to hit and kick the victim even when he was already unconscious, to make sure that he would die. The crime was therefore murder qualified by treachery.

Doctrine

Three rules should be carried into the examination room. First, conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence. The same degree of proof necessary to establish the crime is required to support a finding of conspiracy, but direct proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be established by the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Second, one who joins an ongoing attack pursuant to a common objective becomes a co-conspirator, and the act of one is the act of all. Third, treachery qualifies the killing as murder where the means employed tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender, as where the victim is held from behind and struck without warning, and the attackers continue to strike him even when he is already unconscious to make sure that he dies. Flight after the incident is a circumstance that leans heavily against the innocence of the accused.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision in full, holding Francisco Viray guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the heirs of Roseller Cayanan 30,000 pesos as indemnity, plus the costs of suit.

Remember This

Memorize this line: direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy, which may be established by the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Examiners like to use this case to test conspiracy proved by circumstantial evidence and treachery shown by continued assault on an unconscious victim.