G.R. No. 67170-72 - People vs. Maghanoy

The incident occurred on the evening of July 11, 1978, in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur.
Accused-appellant Herson Maghanoy, then a constable second class, went on a drinking spree at a public market, accompanied by PC trainee Dominador Bartolome.
By 7 o’clock in the afternoon, Maghanoy was totally inebriated and began causing disturbances, including throwing benches in the market.

Peace Officer (PC Sgt. Carlos Martinez) attempted to subdue Maghanoy, but the inebriated constable instead lashed out by lunging at him.
Following the altercation, Maghanoy, together with Bartolome, proceeded to the PC barracks in Prosperidad where they obtained armalite rifles.
On the way back to the market, they discharged rounds from the vehicle, signaling hostile intent before arriving at the scene.

Bartolome went inside a store and later emerged with Gavino Montante.
Meanwhile, security guards (including Pat. Raul Montante, Pat. Modesto Gumimba, ICHDF George Gortifacion, and ICHDF Pablo Arones) who had been alerted by the shots, approached the store.

Maghanoy brandished his rifle, ordering the approaching peace officers to “Do not move!”
In the ensuing confrontation, Maghanoy fired his weapon:

This resulted in the death of Gavino Montante (who sustained five bullet wounds) and the wounding of Bartolome (three bullet wounds), with Bartolome succumbing the following day.

After the events at the market, Maghanoy headed towards the national road to Barobo, Surigao del Sur.
Along the road, he encountered three unsuspecting individuals: Reynante Sabelino, Daniel Baguio, and Benito Pacanot.
Maghanoy reloaded and opened fire without warning:

Daniel Baguio and Benito Pacanot were killed, with post-mortem examinations revealing six and four bullet wounds respectively.
Reynante Sabelino was hit in the left thigh, managing to crawl to a nearby ricefield and survive, albeit wounded.

Maghanoy went into hiding for three days after the incident and was eventually apprehended on July 14, 1978, on board a passenger jeep after identifying himself as “Sgt. Fernandez.”
He was subsequently charged in three separate informations:

The murders of Raul Montante and Dominador Bartolome (Criminal Case No. 1113).
The murders of Daniel Baguio and Benito Pacanot (as part of combined charges under Criminal Cases No. 965 and No. 1112).
The frustrated murder of Reynante Sabelino.

The trial court, presided by Judge Eutropio Migrino, convicted Maghanoy on all counts, basing its findings on an array of consistent prosecution witnesses and rejecting the defense’s conjectural evidence.

Prosecution witnesses, including peace officers and security guards, provided consistent and credible accounts of the events.
Autopsy reports confirmed the number and nature of bullet wounds on the deceased and wounded, supporting the prosecution’s version.
The defense’s version—that Maghanoy was framed and that alternative parties were responsible—was found to be palpably false, especially when weighed against Maghanoy’s actions before and after the incident.

Despite an initial physical altercation with Sgt. Martinez, Maghanoy’s decision to retrieve his rifle from the barracks and return to the market demonstrated premeditation and a motive of revenge.
The trial court’s observations noted his deliberate actions during and after the altercation, including firing shots to signal hostility and subsequently committing further violent acts.

Whether the trial court’s favorable treatment of the prosecution witnesses—who testified under oath and were observed in court—was justified in light of the accused-appellant’s conflicting account.
Whether the circumstantial evidence, notably the sequence of events and physical evidence (bullet wounds from autopsy reports), was enough to establish Maghanoy’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The validity of the accused-appellant’s claim that he was framed by the police and that he did not personally commit the shootings.
The failure to produce or secure the alleged exculpatory evidence, such as the armalite rifle allegedly carried by Bartolome or testimony from the pedicab driver, Tito Cena.

Whether Maghanoy’s state of inebriation and subsequent actions demonstrate mere homicide or elevate the crimes to murder, given the element of premeditation and treachery.
The implications of his escape under an assumed name and the inconsistency of his testimony regarding his movements post-incident.

The issue of whether the lack of a preliminary investigation—and the accused’s failure to file counter-affidavits—had any bearing on the admissibility or strength of evidence against him.
The proper interpretation of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code regarding complex crimes, particularly in combining the multiple killings into a single act for penalty purposes.