GR L 10121; (December, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10121, December 29, 1960
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO BERGANIO and ERNESTO BERGANIO, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On the night of May 12, 1955, in Iloilo City, the victim Arsenio Sante, his wife Beatriz Villareal, his brother Desiderio Sante, and Honorato Nacor passed by the Serantes gasoline station. Appellants Ernesto and Bienvenido Berganio were there arguing. Desiderio stopped, and when asked by Ernesto who he was, he replied “Nothing.” Ernesto boxed Desiderio. When Arsenio intervened, Ernesto also boxed him, leading to a fight. Bienvenido approached and unsheathed his bolo, causing the Sante brothers to flee. Arsenio later returned and was suddenly grabbed from behind by Ernesto, who held him tightly in an embrace, rendering him immobile. Ernesto shouted to Bienvenido, “Here he is now. Come and liquidate him,” to which Bienvenido replied, “Do not release him, as I am coming.” Bienvenido then rushed and stabbed Arsenio in the back with his bolo. The force caused both to fall. Ernesto then pulled the bolo from Arsenio’s back and stabbed him in the right ear. Beatriz Villareal witnessed the entire event. Appellants fled and hid but later surrendered to the police, with Bienvenido surrendering the bolo used. The defense claimed the Sante brothers were the aggressors, returning armed, and that Bienvenido stabbed Arsenio to save Ernesto from being stabbed.
ISSUE
The issue involves the credibility of witnesses and whether the killing was attended by treachery and conspiracy, qualifying it as murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding appellants guilty of murder. The Court found the prosecution’s version credible and the defense’s version inherently improbable. The manner of attack—where Ernesto held the victim immobile while Bienvenido stabbed him from behind—constituted treachery, as it ensured the commission of the offense without risk to the appellants from any defense the victim might make. The concerted actions demonstrated conspiracy. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and an indemnity of P6,000.00 were upheld.