Title
People vs. Colman
Case
G.R. No. L-6652-54
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1958
A ricemill owner's family was attacked at home, resulting in deaths. Diego and Rogelio Colman were convicted of murder, with conspiracy, treachery, and dwelling proven. Death penalties affirmed.
conspiracy
premeditation
arraignment
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 134802)

Factual Background: The Shooting and the Deaths

The prosecution narrated that Buenaventura’s relationship with Diego Colman deteriorated to the point that Diego was alleged to have been “back-biting” him and even to have wanted to rape one of Buenaventura’s daughters. Buenaventura also had misunderstandings with Alfredo Pilota, whom he knew to be part of Diego’s group. On the day Buenaventura hired Alfredo Cardinales (January 7, 1952), several movements signaled hostile intent directed at Cardinales and, ultimately, toward Buenaventura’s family.

In the early evening, Rogelio Colman knocked at Buenaventura’s house seeking to see Cardinales. Buenaventura advised Cardinales not to go out. After about thirty minutes, Cornelio Parreno arrived and informed Buenaventura that he acted on Diego Colman’s orders to tell Cardinales to go to Diego’s house. Buenaventura again counselled Cardinales not to go and instead instructed Cornelio to tell Diego to come to his house if he had important matters to discuss. At around eight o’clock, Buenaventura heard shouting in the dialect referring to Cardinales placing reliance on Buenaventura. When Buenaventura told his watchman to follow him and they went down, he saw Diego Colman and Domingo Mainar walking back and forth near his house. Rogelio Colman was also seen creeping along beside a sari-sari store armed with a long bolo. Buenaventura intended to ask Diego why he made the remark, but Diego went to the store, called for his sons Rogelio and Reynaldo, and then activity ceased.

At approximately ten fifteen in the evening, the shooting began. Buenaventura heard rapid gunfire first directed at the place where Cardinales stayed, and then toward the room where Buenaventura and his family lay. Buenaventura protected his baby boy on the floor while his wife shouted she was hit. Another burst of shots followed, and Buenaventura’s children cried that they had been hit. Buenaventura then carried his two daughters and rescued and treated his family members, later seeking medical attention and transport to St. Paul’s Hospital in Iloilo City, where the first of the victims died at about two-thirty the next afternoon: Elizabeth, aged five and one-half years. Thelma, aged seven and one-half years, died at about five o’clock the same afternoon.

A separate narrative involved the family of Domingo Mainar. On January 7, 1952, Domingo and his wife later discovered that Diego told Domingo’s wife that Diego would kill him for being “rebelde,” including Ganzon’s family. Domingo saw Diego conversing with Cornelio Parreno, and later Domingo saw signs that Diego’s group was moving with firearms and targeting the Ganzon house. Domingo heard conversations at the railway track identifying Diego and Reynaldo Colman, and his wife later saw Diego with Damaso Ferraris near their house when she got up to urinate. Domingo learned that Diego ordered Damaso Ferraris to open fire, but Damaso told Diego to do so. Reynaldo arrived and joined them; Reynaldo posted himself below the Ganzon house near the stairs, while Damaso went to the railway. Domingo then saw Diego fire at the Ganzon house; shots were also fired by Rogelio from his own position. Later, Diego returned toward the Mainar house and fired twice, one shot hitting Domingo’s son Antonio Mainar, who was brought to the Emergency Hospital of Pototan and then to the Provincial Hospital in Iloilo City, where he expired at four o’clock the following morning.

A third account concerned preparation and movement involving Francisco Pogon and Ireneo Lisondato at January 7, 1952 near the market. While watching a mahjong game, Pogon met Diego, who asked about Alfredo Pilota. Pogon told Diego he knew the house of Pilota. Pogon and Diego traveled by truck to the Pilota residence where Pilota came down carrying a revolver and with a carbine concealed in his jacket. They proceeded to the truck parking area and then toward the Ganzon house. Diego, after stopping near the railway track, instructed the group regarding their assigned positions to accomplish their purpose to “kill Ganzon including the watchman and also his cats and dogs.” After they took positions, shots were heard from the front of Ganzon’s house.

Charging, Joinder, and Trial Dispositions

Based on these established facts, the authorities filed four separate informations in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Case No. 3165 charged the murder of Antonio Mainar. Case No. 3166 charged the murder of Thelma Ganzon. Case No. 3167 charged the murder of Elizabeth Ganzon. Case No. 3168 charged the frustrated murder of the mother of the girls, Carolina L. Ganzon. The cases were tried jointly by agreement of the prosecution and defense.

Before trial, the Provincial Fiscal moved for the discharge of accused Francisco Pogon so he could be utilized as a government witness, and the motion was granted. After the prosecution rested, Alfredo Pilota changed his plea from not guilty to guilty, and he was sentenced separately in a judgment rendered apart from the remaining accused. The trial continued against Diego Colman, his sons Rogelio and Reynaldo Colman, and Irineo Lisondato.

The trial court rendered judgment as follows. In Criminal Case No. 3165 (G.R. No. L-6652), Diego, Rogelio, and Reynaldo were found guilty as principals of the murder of Antonio Mainar, with qualifying and aggravating circumstances including treachery (as qualifying), with treachery “merged” with nocturnity, and with dwelling as aggravating; Diego received the supreme penalty of death, while Rogelio and Reynaldo were sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and all were ordered to indemnify the heirs of Antonio Mainar jointly and severally in P5,000. In Criminal Case No. 3166 (G.R. No. L-6653), the same accused were convicted as principals for the murder of Thelma Ganzon, again with treachery and dwelling; Diego and Rogelio received death, while Reynaldo received reclusion perpetua, with the same P5,000 indemnity to the heirs. In Criminal Case No. 3167 (G.R. No. L-6654), the same accused were convicted for the murder of Elizabeth Ganzon with treachery and dwelling; Diego and Rogelio received death, while Reynaldo received reclusion perpetua, with P5,000 indemnity. In Criminal Case No. 3168, the accused were convicted of frustrated murder of Carolina L. Ganzon with the same treachery and dwelling pattern reflected in the penalty computation, and the punishment imposed was an indeterminate sentence from ten years of prision mayor to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, plus costs.

Irineo Lisondato was acquitted in all four cases for lack of evidence, with costs de oficio. The record showed no notice of appeal filed by the convicted defendants.

Scope of Review and Issues Raised

Because the defendants sentenced to capital punishment did not appeal, the records of Cases Nos. 3165, 3166, and 3167 were forwarded to the Court for automatic review under Rule 118, Section 9. The Court therefore limited its review to whether the convictions of Diego Colman and Rogelio Colman and the imposition of the death penalty were warranted by law and evidence.

Counsel de oficio raised three assignments of error. First, counsel contended that the trial court erred in treating the “appellants” as co-conspirators and therefore erred in holding them as principals. Second, counsel argued that the trial court’s decision was contrary to law and jurisprudence because it allegedly found treachery, evident premeditation, and dwelling based only on the prosecution’s evidence, without giving weight to the defense evidence. Third, counsel invoked due process violations, asserting that Diego and Rogelio were arraigned in the Justice of the Peace Court without their attorney, and that in the Court of First Instance there was no valid arraignment and that new informations were filed after they pleaded not guilty before the Justice of the Peace Court.

The Court’s Assessment of Defenses and Credibility

The Court declared that, based on the prosecution evidence, the facts narrated at the outset were duly established. Diego Colman denied participation in the indiscriminate shootings and in any conspiracy for the slaughter of the victims. Rogelio Colman claimed that he remained in his house throughout the night due to headache.

The Court held that these defenses could not be taken seriously in light of the prosecution testimony and circumstances. It stressed that mere denial by an accused does not prevail over testimony of witnesses who are not shown to have reason to distort. The Court emphasized the controlling principle that credibility findings of the trial judge—who personally observed witness demeanor—should not be disturbed absent overlooked material facts, misinterpreted significance, inconsistent conclusions, or inherent weaknesses in the evidence. The Court cited jurisprudence to that effect, including Baltazar vs. Alberto and People vs. Borbano, and related appellate deference rules.

On alibi, the Court reiterated doctrine that it is the weakest defense and cannot prosper when identification is positive and proper by the offended party. It required alibi to be proved by probable evidence and stressed its easy fabrication and unreliability. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s factual findings.

Conspiracy and Principal Liability

As to the first assignment of error, the Court addressed the contention that the trial court improperly treated the appellants as co-conspirators. The Court restated the doctrine that conspiracy does not require direct evidence of agreement. It may be inferred from a number of acts, conditions, and circumstances showing a common unlawful purpose. The Court further reiterated that the acts of a co-conspirator are attributable to each other co-conspirator once conspiracy is established, and that it is unnecessary to prove a formal meeting or express agreement if coordinated acts demonstrate concurrence of sentiment.

Applying these p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms