Title
People vs. Manalang y Taguinod
Case
G.R. No. 67662
Decision Date
Feb 9, 1989
A 20-year-old cousin, supported by his relatives, brutally murdered four family members and their househelp, stole valuables, and surrendered; convicted of separate murders and theft, not robbery with homicide.
robbery with multiple homicide
killing
obstacles to relationship
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 67662)

Factual Background

The evidence established that the Lorenzos—Engineer Maximino Lorenzo and Edith Bolivar-Lorenzo—were supported in their household by Maximino’s 69-year old mother, Felisa, and their househelp Zenaida, while the appellant, Marcos Manalang, lived with them as a cousin of Maximino. Marcos had been treated by the Lorenzos “like their own son.” After Maximino gave him a job as a timekeeper connected with Maximino’s work in Pantabangan, Marcos subsequently stayed with the family and was even sent to college. He initially took forestry, later shifting to mechanical engineering.

Marcos later became acquainted with a neighbor in the subdivision, Maggie Chavez, and after persistent courtship, they became steady lovers. The relationship disrupted his schooling; he spent time with Maggie using money intended for tuition and daily allowance. When Marcos finally realized he had been cheating his benefactor Maximino—who continued to give money despite Marcos having dropped out of school—he became desperate. He feared that if he lost Maximino’s favor he would also lose Maggie.

In the evening of January 2, 1984, while ruminating in bed, Marcos decided to “eliminate all the members of the Lorenzo family,” whom he perceived as roadblocks to his love affair. He armed himself with a hammer, a kitchen knife, and a butcher’s knife.

On January 3, 1984, Marcos waited for the Lorenzo spouses to leave for work around 7:30 a.m. Using Zenaida, he sent her out by giving her P20.00 so she would leave the home. When Zenaida had left, Marcos entered the room of Felisa, who was sewing clothes, and stabbed her repeatedly with a kitchen knife despite her begging for her life and asking forgiveness. Felisa died.

Marcos then proceeded to the master’s bedroom and killed Carlomax, who was asleep and suffering from measles, by covering the boy’s mouth with a pillow and stabbing him several times. He moved to the children’s bedroom and killed Lawrence in a similar manner. During the stabbing of Lawrence, the kitchen knife broke, and Marcos injured his own hands.

After killing the children, Marcos took a hammer, waited for Zenaida to return from the market, and attacked her when she noticed his wounded hands. He initially told her his wounds came from slicing meat. When Zenaida turned away, Marcos struck her with the hammer, causing her to fall and groan; he then hit her repeatedly and eventually stabbed her with a butcher’s knife in the neck.

After the deaths, Marcos dragged and piled the bodies in the room of Felisa. He attempted to remove traces by wiping blood stains in the portion of the living room where Zenaida had fallen. He also washed himself in the bathroom and applied first aid to his injuries. He packed his clothes and searched Felisa’s bag and Zenaida’s purse, taking P200.00 and P50.00, respectively, for travel expenses. Finding these insufficient, he opened lockers, took P50.00 from Maximino’s table drawer, and removed a caliber .22 magnum Arminius revolver. He also took jewelry from the lockers of Edith and the children.

With money and jewelry, Marcos used Maximino’s bicycle to seek treatment at the Lagro Health Center, where he went to midwife Cresencia P. Somera and then to Dra. Irene Panes. He did not comply with the instruction to write his name in the register and left without saying anything. He continued seeking treatment elsewhere, moving between hospitals and clinics and changing plans due to apprehension about search protocols that might lead to discovery of Maximino’s gun. He avoided going to a hospital after reading a notice that all bags would be searched.

Marcos ultimately hid, planned to surrender with the help of Maggie, but abandoned that plan after he read a news item stating that Maggie was hiding from the “road killer.” He went to Baguio City and stayed at the Emerald Lodge under the name “Rey dela Cruz.” While in Baguio, he tried to “put things right” by confessing, writing letters that admitted planning the killings and carrying them out, including his plan to kill the entire Lorenzo family, while also stating he had changed his mind about killing Maximino because the couple had been good to him. He addressed letters to Capt. Jil Fabian and to Mrs. Chavez and Maggie, professing love and admitting the killing. He also later wrote letters while detained in Manila, acknowledging the grievous sin against the Lorenzo spouses and admitting his acts.

Marcos then returned to his hometown in Solana, Cagayan, and, with his brother Juan Manalang and uncle Pat. Taguinod, surrendered to Mayor Alexander Balauitan in the early morning of January 13, 1984. He confessed to killing Felisa, the two children, and the househelp. After the confession, Mayor Balauitan turned Marcos over to then Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, who happened to be in Solana. Marcos also surrendered the jewelry and the caliber .22 magnum Arminius revolver taken from the Lorenzos.

From there, Marcos was brought to the Cagayan police headquarters in Tuguegarao, where he was informed of his constitutional rights in custodial investigation with the assistance of counsel. He then made an extrajudicial confession admitting the killing of Felisa, Carlomax, Lawrence, and Zenaida, and admitting he took money—stated as P300.00—and jewelry. He was subsequently brought to Camp Crame and to the Quezon City Police. On January 16, 1984, Police Corporal Rogelio R. Castillo again informed Marcos of his constitutional rights, and with counsel, Marcos confessed again to the killing and to taking money and jewelry.

Trial Court Proceedings and the Charge

On January 17, 1984, an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXXIX, Quezon City, charging Marcos with Robbery with Multiple Homicide, alleging that he unlawfully took property from the spouses Maximino Lorenzo and Edith Bolivar-Lorenzo and, on the occasion of the robbery and for the purpose of enabling him to take the articles, attacked and killed Felisa Capalungan Vda. de Lorenzo, Zenaida Nicobeza, Lawrence Lorenzo, and Carlomax Lorenzo through stabbing and hammering.

At arraignment, the appellant admitted that he had killed the four named victims. He pleaded that, although he had taken some of the properties mentioned in the Information, he denied having taken all. Because the crime charged was the special complex crime of robbery with multiple homicide, the trial court directed that a plea of not guilty be entered.

In appreciating the evidence, the trial court held that the killings were not done for the purpose of robbery. It relied on the appellant’s testimony, which was not disputed by the prosecution, that prior to the January 3 incident he planned and intended to kill all the Lorenzos but not to rob them. It found that the taking of personal properties was merely an afterthought made only because Marcos did not have money for travel expenses.

Consequently, the trial court convicted Marcos not of robbery with multiple homicide but of four separate crimes of Murder and a distinct crime of Theft, imposing the supreme penalty of death for each murder and an indeterminate sentence for theft, while finding only one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and concluding that numerous aggravating circumstances were not offset.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

On automatic review, the appellant argued that the trial court erred in convicting him of four separate murders and theft, contending in substance that he could not be held liable for offenses not included in the crime charged, which was Robbery with Multiple Homicide.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court recognized that the Information charged a special complex crime under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes robbery committed with violence against or intimidation of persons, and when, by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide is committed. For a conviction of the special complex crime, the Court reiterated that the original criminal design must be robbery, and the homicide must be committed with a view to the consummation of that robbery.

The Court then held that the evidence showed the opposite. It stressed that the intention of the appellant was to kill, while the unlawful taking of the personal properties was merely an afterthought made later due to his lack of money for travel expenses. Thus, the Court treated the acts as constituting distinct offenses rather than a single special complex crime.

The Court further rejected the appellant’s attempt to invoke the principle that uncharged offenses could not be the basis of conviction. It relied on settled doctrine that if the original design was not to commit robbery and the idea of taking with intent to gain arose only after the homicide, the criminal acts must be viewed as separate offenses—murder (or homicide as applicable) and theft. Under that doctrine, the appellant could be convicted of each murder as alleged and proved.

In resolving the issue of whether the Information sufficiently alleged murder despite the charge’s designation, the Court examined a portion of the Information that alleged the appellant’s use of violence, evident premeditation, and treachery, and the nature of the assaults causing serious and mortal wounds. It held that these allegations included the essential elements of murd

...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