Title
People vs. Manzanilla y De Asis
Case
G.R. No. 235787
Decision Date
Jun 8, 2020
Accused-appellant convicted of parricide as principal by inducement, conspiring to kill her husband; sentenced to reclusion perpetua with modified damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235787)

Proceedings Below

Roberto died during trial. The RTC dismissed the Information against him but proceeded against the accused-appellant alone. After presentation of prosecution and defense evidence, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant as a principal by inducement of parricide, sentencing her to reclusion perpetua and ordering civil indemnity of ₱50,000 and exemplary damages of ₱25,000. On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction but increased civil indemnity to ₱100,000, moral damages to ₱100,000, and exemplary damages to ₱100,000.

Trial Court Findings

• Credited testimony of eyewitnesses Mac-Mac and Ajie that accused-appellant ordered the killing (“yariin na”).
• Found accused-appellant’s alibi uncorroborated; failure to present her son as a witness undermined her claim.
• Held accused-appellant guilty as principal by inducement under Article 246, RPC.

Court of Appeals Findings

• Upheld the RTC’s assessment of witness credibility despite minor inconsistencies, recognizing the stress of the event.
• Affirmed that accused-appellant’s words constituted direct and efficacious inducement.
• Confirmed reclusion perpetua and modified damage awards.

Issue on Appeal

Whether the accused-appellant is criminally liable for parricide as a principal by inducement or as co-principal in conspiracy under the RPC.

Applicable Legal Principles

• Parricide (Article 246, RPC): Killing of one’s spouse, among others, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
• Principal by inducement (Article 17, RPC): One who directly induces another by words of command to commit a crime. Inducement must be the determining cause, with intent and persistent effort.
• Conspiracy: Implied when co-actors aim at a common unlawful object, each performing overt acts; all conspirators are equally liable.
• Penalty application (Article 63[2], RPC): When two indivisible penalties apply without aggravating or mitigating circumstances, impose the lesser.

Analysis on Inducement and Conspiracy

The Supreme Court agreed with lower courts that:
• The accused-appellant’s Tagalog phrase “yariin na” unmistakably means “finish off” or kill. Uttered in a prearranged setting, it evinced her intent and exerted powerful moral coercion over Roberto.
• Her role as lookout alongside an unidentified companion and the sequence of events (waiting, identifying the victim, the shooting, and joint flight) establish an implied conspiracy to kill. Under conspiracy doctrine, each conspirator is a co-principal regardless of who fired the fatal shot.

Evaluation of Evidence

• The eyewitnesses were disinterested parties with no motive to falsely implicate the accused-appellant. Their accounts were consistent on critical points: presence, uttered words of command, actions of co-accused, and flight.
• Dr. Marquez’s autopsy established a close-range gunshot wound to the head, corroborating eyewitness accounts.
• The accused-appellant failed to substantiate her alibi, offering only her uncorroborated testimony while neglecting to present her son.

Penalty and Damages

• Parricide carries reclusion perpetua to deat






...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.