People v. Buensuceso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 21, 1967, at Dinalupihan, Bataan, Patrolman Rodolfo Aguilar was conversing with Pariseo Tayag, attempting to take Tayag's fan knife. Tayag agreed to go to the chief of police's office. Inside the office, a heated argument ensued over the knife. Tayag then left the office, followed by Aguilar, Patrolman Eduardo Mallari, and Patrolman Fidel de la Cruz. Outside, Aguilar fired his gun upward. Tayag turned and retreated, but Aguilar fired at him, hitting him above the right knee. Tayag continued to run towards his house, followed by de la Cruz. Mallari went to intercept Tayag. Aguilar joined Mallari, and several successive gunshots, more than nine, were heard. Tayag was found dead near a parked jeep. Patrolman Jose Buensuceso was seen with his revolver tucked in its holster, while Patrolmen Conrado Izon and Ernesto Joson were also in the vicinity, with their guns in their holsters. Ballistic examinations later confirmed that bullets and shells recovered were fired from the service revolvers of Aguilar and Buensuceso. Paraffin tests were positive for Izon and Joson on their left hands. Procedural History: The accused, Jose Buensuceso, Rodolfo Aguilar, Conrado Izon, and Ernesto Joson, along with Eduardo Mallari and Fidel de la Cruz, were charged with Murder. The Court of First Instance of Bataan convicted Buensuceso, Aguilar, Izon, and Joson of Murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. Mallari and de la Cruz were acquitted on reasonable doubt. The Petition: The convicted accused appealed the decision, assigning various errors concerning the appreciation of evidence, the finding of conspiracy, the qualification of the crime as murder, and the denial of self-defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in holding appellants Conrado Izon and Ernesto Joson guilty of Murder. Whether the lower court erred in finding appellants Izon and Joson as co-principals. Whether the lower court erred in giving undue credence to the necropsy and ballistics reports regarding the slug recovered from the victim and the fatal wounds; and whether the trial court erred in ruling that the fatal wounds were inflicted by bullets fired from the guns of the appellants. Whether the court erred in convicting Jose Buensuceso for murder despite the alleged lack of established conspiracy and direct participation. Whether there was treachery qualifying the crime to murder on the part of Rodolfo Aguilar; and whether Rodolfo Aguilar should be held liable for the death of the victim despite acting independently. Whether Rodolfo Aguilar was acting in legitimate self-defense. Whether the liability of multiple assailants can be established even if the specific wound inflicted by each accused could not be determined. Whether the crime was correctly classified as Murder, qualified by treachery, and whether abuse of superior strength was properly considered.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED, with the indemnity to the victim's heirs increased to P30,000.00. The conviction of Jose Buensuceso, Rodolfo Aguilar, Conrado Izon, and Ernesto Joson for Murder is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of Conrado Izon and Ernesto Joson: The lower court did not err in holding Izon and Joson guilty of Murder. While their guns were in their holsters when seen by witness Apolonio Salvador, paraffin tests on their left hands yielded positive results for nitrates. This finding, coupled with their presence at the crime scene, corroborated the prosecution's evidence that they were in the vicinity during the incident. The Court reiterated that positive paraffin test results, while not conclusive proof of firing a gun, are strong indicators when considered with other evidence. Their presence and the positive paraffin tests, in conjunction with the other evidence pointing to multiple assailants, were sufficient to establish their participation. On the role of co-principals: The lower court did not err in finding Izon and Joson as co-principals. The evidence presented, including their presence at the scene and the positive paraffin tests, supported their involvement as co-principals in the crime. On the credibility of the necropsy and ballistics reports and the source of fatal wounds: The lower court did not err in giving credence to the necropsy and ballistics reports. The autopsy revealed that the victim died of four gunshot wounds, two of which were fatal, inflicted by .38 caliber revolvers. A deformed .38 caliber bullet was recovered from the victim's knee. Ballistic examinations conclusively showed that the recovered bullet was fired from Jose Buensuceso's service revolver (Serial No. K-617092), and that empty shells found at the scene were fired from the revolvers of both Buensuceso and Rodolfo Aguilar. The Court found no serious doubt that the body autopsied was that of the victim, and that the fatal wounds were indeed inflicted by bullets fired from the guns of the accused-appellants. On the conviction of Jose Buensuceso for murder and the existence of conspiracy: The conviction of Jose Buensuceso for murder was proper. The evidence established that his service revolver had been fired and that empty shells from his gun were found at the scene, linked by ballistics to the victim's wounds. The Court held that even if direct participation in inflicting the fatal wounds by each accused was not precisely determined, all assailants are liable for the death of the victim when they act independently but their actions collectively cause the death. The presence of multiple assailants firing their weapons at the victim, as evidenced by the recovered bullets and shells, supports the conclusion that they were acting in concert or with a common purpose, even without a formal conspiracy being proven. On the presence of treachery and the denial of independent action for Rodolfo Aguilar: The lower court correctly found treachery in the commission of the crime. Rodolfo Aguilar followed the victim after the latter had left the police office. Aguilar fired his gun upward, and when the victim turned and retreated, Aguilar fired at him, hitting him above the knee. Despite being wounded, the victim was subjected to successive shots. This sequence of events demonstrates that the means employed by the accused-appellants tended directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from any defense the victim might have made. The principle that where a victim dies as a result of wounds received from several persons acting independently of each other, but it has not been shown which specific wound was inflicted by each assailant, all of the assailants are liable for the death of the victim applies. On the denial of self-defense for Rodolfo Aguilar: Aguilar's plea of self-defense was unmeritorious; if the victim had been the aggressor inside the building, the incident would have concluded there, not at a distance of 60 meters. The Court discredited Aguilar's testimony that the victim pursued him. On the liability of multiple assailants: The Court reiterated the principle that where a victim dies as a result of wounds received from several persons acting independently of each other, but it has not been shown which specific wound was inflicted by each assailant, all of the assailants are liable for the death of the victim. In this case, ample evidence established that Aguilar, Buensuceso, Izon, and Joson had fired their guns at the victim, hitting him on different parts of his body. The fact that the specific wound inflicted by each accused could not be determined did not absolve them; rather, it led to their collective liability for the crime of murder. On the qualification of the crime and aggravating circumstances: The crime was correctly classified as Murder, qualified by treachery. The victim was retreating and wounded when subjected to further shots, indicating that the assailants took advantage of the situation to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to themselves. Abuse of superior strength was also present, evidenced by the number of assailants, but this circumstance was absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. No other circumstances were found to modify the commission of the crime.
Main Doctrine
Where the victim dies as a result of wounds received from several persons acting independently of each other, but it has not been shown which wound was inflicted by each assailant, all of the assailants are liable for the death of the victim. Murder is qualified by treachery when the means employed tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the offenders arising from any defense which the victim might have made.