People v. Bangsal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 3, 1969, at approximately 3:00 PM, Rizalino Victorino was heard calling for help from the yard of his residence. Adelina Zarate, while resting inside, looked out and saw Arnulfo Bangsal and Saturnino de los Reyes stabbing Rizalino. Rizalino was in a kneeling and bending position with hands raised. Bangsal, armed with a kitchen knife, was at Rizalino's back, while De los Reyes, armed with a bolo, was partly in front. Adelina witnessed the stabbing from five to six meters away and fainted upon seeing blood. Eugenio Victoria, about eighty meters away, heard a cry and found his brother, Rizalino, mortally wounded on the ground. Rizalino identified Bangsal and De los Reyes as his assailants before he died. Eugenio stated the motive was Bangsal's failed attempt to extort money from Rizalino for wine. An autopsy revealed Rizalino sustained eleven wounds, including four stab wounds on the back and a fatal stab wound on the chest that penetrated the heart. Later that afternoon, Bangsal surrendered to the police with the kitchen knife used in the killing. De los Reyes denied complicity, claiming he tried to stop Bangsal and suggesting Adelina testified against him due to a prior dispute over a cock. De los Reyes's statement to the police contradicted his testimony, as he initially claimed he never left his residence despite hearing shouts. Procedural History: The trial court convicted both Bangsal and De los Reyes of murder. Bangsal was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years of prision mayor to twenty years of reclusion temporal, with appreciation for voluntary surrender. De los Reyes was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Both were ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim. Both appealed. The Petition: Bangsal withdrew his appeal, which was granted. De los Reyes pursued his appeal, contending the trial court erred in crediting prosecution witnesses, in finding treachery as a qualifying circumstance, and in convicting him of murder, arguing only Bangsal perpetrated the killing.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Whether the killing was qualified by treachery. Whether Saturnino de los Reyes is guilty of murder.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision with respect to appellant De los Reyes, holding him liable for murder. His guilt was proven to a moral certainty. The Court found abuse of superior strength to be the proper qualifying circumstance, not treachery, and affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the guilt of De los Reyes: The Court found Adelina Zarate's testimony credible, stating it was substantially the same as her prior declarations and confirmed by the victim's antemortem declaration to his brother, Eugenio. The presence of stab wounds in the back and incised wounds in the frontal part of the victim's body, a case of res ipsa loquitur, indicated the use of two weapons and the presence of two assailants. The manner of assault, with Bangsal at the victim's back and De los Reyes in front, demonstrated a community of design and cooperation to encompass the victim's death, leaving him no chance to evade the blows. The Court concluded that De los Reyes's guilt was proven to a moral certainty. On treachery as a qualifying circumstance: The Court held that abuse of superior strength was the proper qualifying circumstance, as the two assailants took advantage of their superiority to overpower the victim and consummate the killing, pursuant to Article 14(15) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court noted that if treachery were appreciated, it would be absorbed by the abuse of superiority. Evident premeditation and cruelty were not proven in this case. On the conviction for murder: Based on the proven facts and the appreciation of abuse of superior strength as the qualifying circumstance, the Court affirmed the conviction of De los Reyes for murder. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was deemed in accordance with Articles 64(1) and 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
Abuse of superior strength is the proper qualifying circumstance when two assailants take advantage of their superiority to overpower the victim and consummate the killing. Treachery, if present, would be absorbed by abuse of superiority.