G.R. No. L-72892, January 7, 1987
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Francisco Viray alias Borokio, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Francisco Viray, together with several members of the Paras family, was charged with the murder of Roseller Cayanan. The prosecution evidence, primarily from eyewitness Consolacion Manansala, established that on October 12, 1980, in Masantol, Pampanga, Alejandro and Eulogio Paras initially attacked the victim. Alejandro stabbed Cayanan, while Eulogio held him and struck him with a hollow block. After the victim fell to the ground, appellant Francisco Viray, along with Juan, Alberto, and Gregorio Paras, arrived and joined the assault by further kicking, boxing, and hitting the unconscious victim with hollow blocks. The victim died from his injuries, which included fatal damage to the brain and a stab wound penetrating the heart.
The defense presented an alibi. Appellant Viray testified he was in the area visiting but was not present during the assault. He claimed he saw a wounded nephew, Lucio Paras, and ran to report it, staying in a relative’s house thereafter. He asserted he was unaware of any implication in the crime until his arrest in December 1984. The defense also presented a police blotter entry from the incident date that did not initially list Viray as a suspect.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Francisco Viray of murder qualified by treachery despite alleged insufficiency of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Consolacion Manansala to be clear, credible, and sufficient to establish appellant’s participation. Her account detailed how Viray and other relatives arrived immediately after the initial attack and proceeded to collectively assault the prostrate victim. This concerted action demonstrated conspiracy, which need not be proven by direct evidence but can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime. The simultaneous and coordinated attack by the group indicated a common purpose to kill.
The Court rejected the defense of alibi as weak and unsubstantiated, especially when weighed against the positive identification by a credible witness. The initial omission of Viray’s name from the police blotter did not negate his culpability, as the witness informed the police of his involvement the very next day. Treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and employed means that ensured the victim, who was restrained and outnumbered, had no opportunity to defend himself. The continuation of the assault even after the victim was unconscious and helpless underscored the deliberate execution. Thus, the evidence proved Viray’s guilt as a co-conspirator in the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.