GR L 64965; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-64965; July 18, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOVEN BAUSING and MANUEL LOROSO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On August 3, 1978, Barangay Councilman Alexander Mantilla was at a billiard hall in Surigao del Norte performing his ronda duties. A minor altercation occurred when Valentin Bausing clattered billiard balls, prompting Mantilla to admonish him. Appellant Manuel Loroso, the hall owner, then approached Mantilla from behind and held both of his hands, raising them upward. Simultaneously, appellant Joven Bausing, Valentin’s father, suddenly appeared and repeatedly stabbed the defenseless Mantilla with a bolo. The victim staggered and fell. Bausing then stabbed the already fallen victim again on the mouth. Multiple eyewitnesses consistently testified to this sequence of events.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the killing was attended by treachery; (2) whether conspiracy existed between Bausing and Loroso; and (3) whether the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative or the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender can be appreciated in favor of the appellants.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder qualified by treachery. The legal logic is clear. Treachery (alevosia) exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the victim might make. Here, the victim was unarmed and suddenly rendered completely helpless when Loroso held his hands from behind, immobilizing him just as Bausing launched the fatal attack. This method ensured the execution without any risk to the assailants from any defense Mantilla could offer.
Conspiracy was correctly inferred from the appellants’ concerted acts. Their simultaneous and coordinated actions—Loroso immobilizing the victim and Bausing immediately stabbing him—demonstrated a joint purpose, concerted action, and community of intent to kill. Loroso’s act of holding the victim was indispensable to the execution of the crime, making him a principal by indispensable cooperation. The Court rejected Bausing’s claim of defense of a relative, as the evidence showed the initial altercation had already been pacified and the attack was sudden and unprovoked. The claim of voluntary surrender was also rejected, as the records indicated the appellants were arrested pursuant to a warrant. The indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.