Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38538)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Andres Manglallan y Ardan, G.R. No. L-38538, April 15, 1988, First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.On September 3, 1972, in Barrio Punti East, Sta. Ana, Cagayan, Ka Daniel, leader of a local cell of the New People’s Army (NPA), directed Andres Manglallan, Cesar Alvarez, Domingo Ramos, and Virgilio Ballesteros to kill Apolonio Ragual, whom Ka Daniel suspected of being a Philippine Constabulary (PC) informer. The four went to Ragual’s barrio armed (Manglallan with a Browning shotgun, Ramos a Thompson, Alvarez a carbine, Ballesteros a homemade Bulldog). They encountered Ragual at the riverbank; Ramos shot him, Manglallan also fired his shotgun, and Alvarez fired again, resulting in Ragual’s death. The group left a written warning and drawing on the body and later reported the killing to Ka Daniel. Dr. Leonides Flores conducted a post-mortem the same day, finding multiple gunshot wounds and death from severe hemorrhage and shock (Exhibits A, B, C; TSN Feb. 18 & 20, 1974).
The provincial fiscal filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan charging Andres Manglallan, Virgilio Ballesteros, and Cesar Alvarez with murder. At arraignment Manglallan and Ballesteros were present; Alvarez was at large. Ballesteros was discharged as a government witness at the fiscal’s motion. Trial proceeded against Manglallan, and on March 19, 1974 the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder (Article 248, Revised Penal Code) and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, indemnity to heirs, and costs; the trial court credited him with his preventive imprisonment under Article 29, RPC as amended by Republic Act No. 6127.
Manglallan appealed to this Court, assigning four errors: (1) the killing was a political offense (question whether it falls under the Anti-Subversion Act or Articles 134 and 135, Revised Penal Code); (2) he should be liable only for mere membership in the NPA (punishable by arresto mayor under the Anti-Subversion Act) and the two-witness requirement of that law was not met; (3) at most he was an accomplice if the applicable offense were rebellion; and (4) voluntary surrender should be a mitigating circumstance. After briefs were filed, Manglallan moved to withdraw his appeal on October 25, 1977, but the Solicitor General opposed withdrawal because the People argued conviction for the lesser offense of simple rebellion would be more favorable to appellant; Manglallan’s appointed counsel concurred with the Solicitor General and asked for decision. The motion to withdraw was later vacated and the appeal was allowed to proceed (motion granted January 25, 1982).
The Supreme Court (First Divisi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the killing of Apolonio Ragual by Andres Manglallan murder or a political offense falling under Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code (rebellion)?
- Could Manglallan be held only for membership in the NPA punishable under the Anti-Subversion Act (with the two-witness requirement), rather than for rebellion?
- Was Manglallan only an accomplice (and not a principal) if the proper offense were rebellion?
- Did Manglallan’s voluntary surre...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)