G.R. No. L-12901 - People vs Virrey

During the San Pablo fiesta on January 15, 1910, a quarrel broke out between Emilio Briones and Carlos Violan.
Emilio Briones quickly returned home to awaken his brother Crispino Briones, and together they went back to where Carlos was last seen.
Upon arrival, they discovered that Carlos was absent but found Gelasio Violan instead.
An altercation ensued in which Crispino attacked Gelasio with a bolo, and Gelasio defended himself with a wire whip, resulting in Crispino sustaining a serious eye injury.

The injury to Crispino ignited a desire for revenge; he, along with his brother and friends, began to plot an attack on Gelasio Violan.
During a gaming session at Crispino’s house, the testimony of Antonio Ticson revealed that:

Crispino and others, including Lucas Virrey, discussed the possibility of waiting for Gelasio when encountered later in another game.
Lucas Virrey remarked that although they might see Gelasio, an attack at that moment would be unwise due to potential suspicion falling on Crispino for having injured Gelasio earlier.

On January 22, 1910, after the San Pablo fiesta, Gelasio Violan, accompanied by his sister, brother-in-law (Vicente Luistro), and Luis Castillo, traveled to Lipa to attend another fiesta.
In Lipa, Gelasio was hosted by Crispulo Laygo. Later, along with Luis Castillo, he was preparing to go to the cockpit for a leisure stroll.
While passing near their lodging on a street crossing, Lucas Virrey appeared and, wielding a dagger or knife, thrust it into the left epigastric region of Gelasio.
Gelasio, realizing the severity of his wound, urged Luis Castillo to seek vengeance as he began to succumb to internal hemorrhage.
Luis assisted Gelasio to the house, but despite these efforts, Gelasio died the next morning from injuries that had severed vital intestinal parts.

Shortly after the attack, a justice of the peace arrived at Crispulo Laygo’s house and took an initial statement from Gelasio, which was interrupted due to his failing strength.
Gelasio managed, before dying, to indicate that Lucas Virrey was the assailant, naming him alongside others who had been present.
Luis Castillo’s testimony confirmed the physical appearance of the assailant as a man of low stature, similar to Lucas Virrey, although he could not identify him with absolute certainty.
The accused, Lucas Virrey, fled immediately after the crime, later resurfacing in Tabaco, Albay under the alias "Canuto Virrey" over six years later when apprehended by Constabulary authorities.
The circumstantial evidence—including his flight and the use of an alias—was considered indicative of a consciousness of guilt.

The crime presented features suggesting a deliberate and premeditated design, as evidenced by the planned nature of the attack and discussion prior to the assault.
The execution of the attack was carried out in a treacherous manner, as highlighted by:

The use of a surprise element in the dimming light of the afternoon, which prevented the victim from mounting an effective defense.
The method used guaranteed that the attacker could escape immediately after striking without facing imminent retaliation.

Ultimately, the evidence pointed to the presence of a qualifying circumstance—alevosia—due to the treacherous nature of the execution.

Whether the evidence conclusively identified Lucas Virrey as the assailant responsible for wounding Gelasio Violan.
How to reconcile the differing levels of certainty between Luis Castillo’s identification and Gelasio’s dying declaration.

Whether Gelasio Violan’s ante mortem statements, given his precarious condition at the time, established a valid exception to the hearsay rule.
The extent to which his declarations, not made strictly under oath or in the presence of law enforcement, could be deemed reliable.

Whether the act committed by Lucas Virrey should be classified as homicide or upgraded to murder.
Whether the circumstances surrounding the attack—specifically the element of alevosia—were sufficiently established by the evidence.

How Lucas Virrey’s immediate flight and subsequent use of an assumed name affect the inference of guilt.
Whether such actions serve as an admission or indicate a consciousness of guilt despite the absence of direct physical evidence linking him conclusively at the time of the crime.