Title
People vs. Manalo y Rebollos
Case
G.R. No. L-45088
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1985
Victor Saavedra was shot dead while evacuating; wife and son identified Eustaquio Manalo as the killer. Court upheld conviction, citing credible eyewitnesses and rejecting alibi defense. Indemnity increased to P30,000.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-45088)

Charges and Initial Court Findings

Eustaquio Manalo was charged with the murder of Victor Saavedra, alleged to have occurred on September 15, 1973. The prosecution claimed that Manalo, armed with a shotgun, committed the act with treachery, evident premeditation, and intent to kill. Following the trial, the court found Manalo guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, imposed accessory penalties, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim an amount of P12,000. Manalo appealed the verdict.

Factual Background

The prosecution's narrative recounts that on the day of the shooting, Victor Saavedra was traveling with his family from Buug Mundo to Sibulao due to rising tensions in their area. At around 4:00 PM, Victor was shot while riding a carabao, with the family members witnessing the incident from a distance. Following the shots, Victor fell, and they observed Manalo approach the victim and take his belongings before fleeing the scene.

Medical Examination and Evidence

A medico-legal examination conducted by Dr. Rogelio Silapan confirmed multiple gunshot wounds on Victor, establishing the cause of death as shock and hemothorax due to gunshot wounds. Witnesses corroborated the timeline and details surrounding the shooting, with the widow Julia Saavedra eventually reporting the incident to authorities the following day.

Defense and Testimonies

Manalo did not testify in his defense; instead, Jose Ventura, a local barangay captain, claimed that Manalo was with him during the shooting and thus could not have committed the crime. Despite his alibi, the trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses—particularly that of Julia and her son—more credible. They identified Manalo as the assailant, and his alibi was not supported with evidence proving his whereabouts at the precise time of the incident.

Appeal and Judicial Considerations

In his appeal, Manalo's counsel criticized the trial court’s reliance on eyewitness accounts, asserting inconsistencies in their testimonies. However, the Supreme Court maintained that minor inconsistencies do not undermine the overall credibility when witnesses have definitively identified the accu

...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.