People v. Bausing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 3, 1978, at approximately 9:15 PM, Alexander Mantilla, a Barangay Councilman and Ronda Member, was at the billiard hall of accused Manuel Loroso. While performing his duties, Mantilla admonished Valentin Bausing for causing trouble. Without warning, Manuel Loroso approached Mantilla from behind, held his hands, and raised them. Simultaneously, Joven Bausing appeared and repeatedly stabbed Mantilla with a bolo. Mantilla was released by Loroso when he was already staggering and fell outside the billiard hall, later dying from his wounds. The victim sustained multiple stab wounds and abrasions. Procedural History: Appellants Joven Bausing and Manuel Loroso were charged with murder with assault upon an agent of a person in authority. They pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court of Dapa, Surigao Del Norte, Branch XXXI, convicted them of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The Petition: The appellants appealed the decision, raising several errors concerning the conviction of Manuel Loroso, the appreciation of testimony, the rejection of Joven Bausing's defense of acting in defense of his son, the qualification of the crime as murder with treachery, and the denial of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in holding that appellant Manuel Loroso conspired with Joven Bausing in killing Alexander Mantilla. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Manuel Loroso's defense and classifying it as alibi, and whether the trial court erred in holding that Ederesa Tokong's testimony was unrebutted. Whether the trial court erred in not believing Joven Bausing's defense of acting in defense of his son, Rodulfo Bausing. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the crime committed was murder qualified by treachery. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Joven Bausing of murder instead of homicide. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court, with a modification increasing the indemnity to P50,000.00. The Court found both appellants guilty of murder qualified by treachery.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction of Manuel Loroso and conspiracy: The Court found that the trial court did not err in holding Manuel Loroso liable. His defense of alibi was unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive testimonies of eyewitnesses who uniformly pointed to him as having held the victim's hands from behind, preventing him from defending himself. This act constituted indispensable cooperation in the commission of the crime, making him a conspirator. The concerted acts of both accused, aiming at the same object and demonstrating a joint purpose and design, supported the inference of conspiracy. The manner in which Loroso held the victim's hands, preventing any defense, was crucial to the accomplishment of the crime, thus making him a principal by indispensable cooperation. On the rejection of Manuel Loroso's defense and Ederesa Tokong's testimony: The Court dismissed Loroso's argument that his defense was not alibi but a simple denial of participation. His unsubstantiated disclaimer could not overcome the clear and positive testimonies of eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the trial court's statement that Tokong's testimony was unrebutted pertained to Loroso's failure to rebut the specific testimony about bloodstains on his clothing and the bedding, not a general failure to present any rebuttal witness. The nature and number of wounds inflicted on the deceased also belied any claim of self-defense or that the deceased was the unlawful aggressor. On Joven Bausing's defense of acting in defense of his son: The Court found that Joven Bausing's claim of defense of a relative was not sufficiently established. The essential requisite of unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased was not proven; the victim merely admonished Valentin Bausing for causing trouble. The eyewitness testimonies categorically stated that the deceased committed no unlawful aggression. Since Joven Bausing admitted the killing, the burden was on him to prove the justifying circumstance with strong, clear, and convincing evidence, which he failed to do. His claim could not prevail over the positive testimonies of eyewitnesses identifying him as the aggressor. On the qualification of the crime as murder with treachery: The Court held that the killing was murder qualified by treachery. The victim was unarmed and deprived of any means to defend himself because Loroso held his hands while Joven Bausing delivered the fatal stabs. This manner of execution, which tended to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to the assailants from any defense the victim might have made, constituted treachery. The Court cited People v. Mahusay where a similar situation of one accused holding the victim while the other stabbed him was considered treachery. On the conviction of Joven Bausing for murder instead of homicide: The Court affirmed the conviction for murder due to the presence of treachery. On the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender: The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was not appreciated because the records showed that the appellants were arrested, not that they voluntarily surrendered. The return of the warrant of arrest indicated their apprehension, negating the element of voluntary surrender.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder, holding that treachery was present as the victim was attacked while being restrained and unable to defend himself. The defense of a relative was rejected due to lack of unlawful aggression, and conspiracy was inferred from the concerted actions of the accused. Voluntary surrender was not appreciated as the accused were arrested.