G.R. No. L-32733 - People vs. Magan

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-32733)

Factual Background

The prosecution evidence established that at about one o’clock in the morning of November 13, 1968, the couple was awakened by a noise coming from the corral where their carabao was tethered. Cayago stood up, went to the porch elevated above the ground, and felt an urge to urinate. While he was answering that call, he was successively shot five times and died instantly. Cayago had been a former barrio captain for twelve years. The porch was described as an open structure without walls except on the eastern side, with bamboo slats spaced three-fourths of an inch apart and positioned adjacent to the bedroom.

Rosalina heard Cayago urinating and then heard gunshots that appeared to have emanated from a point west of the porch or from the ground below it. It was a moonlit night. She took a three-battery flashlight kept in the house and went to the porch. She testified that she saw Cayago lying prostrate in a pool of his blood, with his head toward the north and face toward the south. When she shone her light at a person running toward the fence, she identified Alfonso Manangan from his face, noting he wore a fur-like black hat with a rounded brim and a front part folded upward. She stated that he was about four meters away and that when the flashlight was focused on him, he turned around, faced her, and shot her three times. Two shots grazed her left leg and left knee.

Rosalina took refuge inside the house and called for help. Manangan and four companions near the corral ran away. Rosalina had known Manangan for a long time. She described him as her compadre, having served as Carlos’s baptismal sponsor, and stated she had met him many times. She also testified that he resided in Barrio Vedania for about ten years and had been a former barrio councilman. His house was about sixty meters from Cayago’s.

Police Investigation and Physical Findings

After Rosalina shouted for assistance, Felipe Cristobal, the barrio captain, arrived. Cayago was already dead when Cristobal arrived. Rosalina informed Cristobal that Manangan had shot her husband. Cristobal reported the killing to the police on the same morning of November 13, and he relayed that Rosalina could identify Manangan as the gunwielder.

The chief of police, together with Doctor Raymundo Velasquez, the municipal health officer, and another policeman, investigated. They arrived at Cayago’s house at about eight o’clock in the morning. Doctor Velasquez found five entrance bullet wounds located below the left nipple and knee and five exit wounds. He concluded that since the trajectory was upward, the assailant was below the victim. Based on his estimation, he surmised the gun barrel was about two meters away from Cayago. He calculated the victim died at about one o’clock in the morning of November 13, that death was instantaneous, and that it was attributable to severe shock due to gunshot wounds. He also examined Rosalina, finding abrasions in her right leg and knee that were expected to heal within three to five days, probably caused by bullet grazing.

The chief of police prepared a sketch and found eight empty shells, five under the house and three near the porch (as shown in exhibits). Based on the locations of the shells, the chief of police surmised that the assailant’s position was at a point marked in the sketch, about three to four meters from the place where blood was found, which the trial court considered to corroborate Rosalina’s testimony.

On the same morning, the chief of police, Cristobal, and rural policemen searched for Manangan at his house in Barrio Vedania, but they learned he was not there. The police were informed of the next events leading to his eventual arrest after the filing of the case in the prosecutor’s office.

Motive and Prior Encounter

The prosecution explained that the motive was Manangan’s suspicion that Cayago had reported him to the barrio captain for allegedly stealing a fishing net. Manangan resented this and claimed Cayago had a predilection for making reports. About twelve days before the killing, on All Saints’ Day, Cayago and Manangan allegedly had a rencontre at Barrio Nancalasan during a funeral. Manangan attempted to assault Cayago. Persons present, including Lydia de Guzman, pacified them. Manangan, while being pulled away, reviled Cayago by saying: “Pare, torpe ca, traidor ca.” Cayago had reportedly told his wife that Manangan was furious and that he might harm him.

After the killing, Rosalina executed an affidavit in the office of the chief of police on November 15, two days after the incident, pointing to Manangan as the killer. The chief of police filed a complaint for murder against Manangan on that same date. Lydia de Guzman later executed an affidavit dated November 18, 1968, indicating that Cayago and Manangan were enemies.

Procedural History and Conviction

In March 1969, while Manangan was in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, attending a town fiesta, he was detained in the municipal jail. The Guimba chief of police wrote to the chief of police of Mangatarem to inquire about a criminal case. Mangatarem’s chief of police went to Guimba, learned that Manangan had been transferred to the Constabulary stockade in Cabanatuan City, and had him arrested there.

On April 22, 1969, the fiscal filed an information for murder against Manangan. After trial, the lower court convicted him of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Alejo Cayago in the amount of twelve thousand pesos (Criminal Case No. 23265). Manangan appealed.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Manangan assigned several errors. First, he claimed the trial court erred in basing the conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of Cayago’s wife. Second, he argued the court gave credence to an alleged threatening note purportedly found in the middle of the Ladiawan River and not properly presented in evidence. Third, he challenged the court’s finding of premeditation.

In addition, he presented a defense of alibi, asserting that on November 13, 1968, he was in San Clemente, Tarlac, where he had been residing since he sold his house in Barrio Vedania to Edoy Carino. He said he was a tenant of Maximino Dumlao in Barrio Casipoc, and that on the night of November 12 he gathered palay from Dumlao’s land and piled the palay in the poblacion of San Clemente. He claimed that he was seen there past midnight by Acting Chief of Police Rizalino Galicia and Patrolman Simplicio Laragan during night patrol.

The Parties’ Contentions on Alibi and Identification

The trial court rejected alibi. It relied on the declarations of the chief of police of Mangatarem and the barrio captain that Manangan was a resident of Barrio Vedania. When investigators went to Manangan’s house in the morning of November 13, they allegedly met a child of Manangan who informed them the father was not at home. The trial court treated the testimonies of these public officials as more credible than Manangan’s denial and his witnesses’ version on residence. It also noted that the distance between San Clemente and Barrio Vedania, estimated at seven to eight kilometers, could be traversed on foot in about one and a half hours, making it possible for Manangan to have been in Barrio Vedania at the time of the crime and to have escaped afterward to San Clemente.

Manangan’s evidence on his transfer from Barrio Vedania to San Clemente contained discrepancies. He testified that he had been Dumlao’s tenant in San Clemente for almost four years, or since 1966. Dumlao testified he had been Manangan’s tenant since May 1968. Other witnesses placed his move differently. On the other hand, Manangan’s young son claimed that during the school year 1967–1968, he was studying in Barrio Vedania because he was living there with his parents. These inconsistencies, in the Court’s appraisal, impaired the plausibility of the alibi.

On the merits of identity, Manangan attacked Rosalina’s credibility, arguing that her account that she saw him “coming from under the house” after the gunshots “under the house” was not true since he was “never under the house.” The Court found that Rosalina’s testimony, as shown in the stenographic notes, did not categorically assert that Manangan emerged from the silong or ground below the porch. She testified that he was about four meters away from the porch. She was extensively cross-examined but did not waver in her identification. She also described Manangan’s hat. Given that Rosalina had known him for a long time, and in the absence of any explanation for a false imputation, her testimony remained credible. The Court further held that Manangan’s alibi did not destroy this identification.

Legal Characterization of the Killing

The Court held that the killing was attended by treachery (alevosia). It was treacherous to shoot Cayago at night while he urinated on the porch and while he did not expect that his enemy was nearby and already aiming a carbine at him. The Court treated it as an ambuscade and found that the mode of execution insured the consummation of the killing without risk from any defense the victim could have made, since Cayago was unarmed and absolutely defenseless (citing Art. 14[16], Revised Penal Code).

As to the information’s allegation of evident premeditation, the Court considered the prosecution’s evidence against the standards governing proof of that aggravating circumstance. The prosecution’s evidence included that, about twelve days before the killing, Manangan tried to injure Cayago and then desisted when restrained by others. Yet the Court observed that the prosecution did not show the steps taken thereafter that would demonstrate premeditation in the fateful early morning episode. While the Court acknowledged it was possible that the killing had been premeditated, it held that the prosecution’s evidence was not conclusive on that aggravating circumstance.

Evident Premeditation: The Court’s Reasoning

The Court reiterated that premeditation m

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-32733)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Alfonso Manangan, alias Onsong for murder.
The trial court convicted Manangan of murder, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Alejo Cayago in the amount of twelve thousand pesos.
Manangan appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court.
The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction with costs against the appellant.
Antonio, J., took no part in the decision.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecution evidence showed that at about one o’clock in the morning of November 13, 1968, Alejo Cayago and his wife Rosalina Garlitos were awakened by noises near the corral where their carabao was tethered.
Suspecting an impending carabao theft, Cayago went to the batalan, an open porch adjacent to the bedroom, where he was urinating.
While Cayago was answering the call of nature, he was successively shot five times and died instantly.
Rosalina testified that the shots seemed to have emanated from a point west of the silong or ground below the batalan.
Rosalina heard her husband urinating, then the shots, and later investigated under moonlit conditions using a three-battery flashlight.
She testified that she shone the flashlight at a person running toward the fence and saw the face of Alfonso Manangan (Onsong) at a distance of about four meters.
Rosalina further testified that when the light was focused on Manangan, he turned and faced her, then shot her three times.
Two of the shots grazed Rosalina’s left leg and left knee.
Rosalina identified Manangan as her long-time acquaintance and neighbor, including as her compadre, and stated that he had resided in the area for about ten years.
After Rosalina shouted for help, Felipe Cristobal, the barrio captain, arrived, found Cayago dead, and reported the killing to the police the same morning.
The chief of police, together with Doctor Raymundo Velasquez and a policeman, investigated at Cayago’s house at around eight o’clock in the morning.
Doctor Velasquez found five entrance and five exit bullet wounds and concluded that the shooter was below the victim because of the upward trajectory of the bullets.
The doctor estimated the barrel was about two meters away from the victim and assessed that Cayago died at around one o’clock in the morning, attributing death to severe shock secondary to the gunshot wounds.
Doctor Velasquez examined Rosalina and found abrasions on the right leg and knee that would heal within three to five days, caused probably by bullet grazing.
The chief of police prepared a sketch and found eight empty shells, five under the house and three near the batalan.
The location of the shells led the chief of police to surmise the shooter’s position at the point marked in the sketch, and he estimated the distance between that point and the blood location at about three to four meters, which the Court treated as confirming Rosalina’s testimony.
The motive for the killing was that Manangan suspected Cayago of reporting that Manangan had stolen a fishing net.
About twelve days before the killing, Manangan tried to assault Cayago at the funeral in Barrio Nancalasan, but the confrontation was pacified.
Manangan allegedly reviled Cayago during that earlier altercation, which Cayago believed indicated a danger to his life.
On November 15, 1968, Rosalina executed an affidavit identifying Manangan as the killer.
On November 18, 1968, Lydia de Guzman executed an affidavit stating that Cayago and Manangan were enemies.
The defense raised alibi, claiming that on November 13, 1968 Manangan was in San Clemente, Tarlac where he had allegedly been residing since 1966.

Evidence and Identification

Rosalina’s identification of Manangan occurred shortly after the shootings when the flashlight illuminated him at about four meters away.
Rosalina described Manangan’s attire, including a fur-like black hat with a rounded brim whose front portion was folded upward.
The Court treated the identification as reliable because Rosalina had known Manangan for a long t