G.R. No. L-33643 - People vs. Manzano

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33643)

Factual Background and the Prosecution Narrative

At noontime on January 11, 1970, Jose Quintos, his wife Flora Lacuesta, their small children, and a daughter-in-law were eating lunch inside their house in Barrio Cabaluyan 2nd. While they were eating, someone called from outside, prompting Flora to “peep” and observe Venerando Manzano, Bernardo Manzano, and Delfin Manzano carrying firearms. Flora identified them because Venerando was her neighbor living about one hundred meters away, and because she knew Delfin as Bernardo’s son. Flora testified that Delfin discharged his carbine twice at the ground before the trio entered the house through the kitchen.

Inside, Jose Quintos was assaulted. Venerando boxed Jose Quintos on the right side of the head. Delfin struck him on the buttocks with the carbine, and Bernardo pummelled his back. The assailants then demanded Jose Quintos surrender his carbine, but Jose Quintos insisted he had no carbine and would not yield even if killed. After continued maltreatment, Flora and the children hid behind a wall. Despite the wall, Flora saw what was done to her husband. She cried out for help but no one came.

From a volleyball court about twenty meters away, Alfredo Quintos witnessed Delfin discharging a gun and then saw Venerando, Bernardo, and Delfin enter the house. Alfredo then saw his father being mauled by the trio. Alfredo pleaded with the attackers not to maltreat his father, but Venerando pushed Alfredo outside and shot him with a pistol at a distance of about one meter. Alfredo was struck on the right upper lip, covered his wound, and ran toward the road where he waited for his mother.

Flora, seeing Alfredo shot, ran toward the road as well. According to her testimony, the attackers then moved Jose Quintos toward Venerando’s house. Venerando passed by dragging Jose Quintos, while Delfin and Bernardo pointed their firearms at Jose Quintos’s back. Bernardo kicked Jose Quintos from time to time. During the transfer, Flora continued to shout for help. She attempted to follow but the attackers pointed their guns at her, forcing her to desist out of fear. After seeing Jose Quintos taken to Venerando’s house, Flora returned home and stayed there, having a premonition that Jose would be killed.

Police Investigation and Medical Findings

Patrolman Geronimo (Gavino) Toledo of the Mangatarem police investigated the report. With Sergeant Daniel Cacapit, he proceeded to Barrio Cabaluyan 2nd and arrived around five-thirty in the afternoon, where he found Jose Quintos dead in the yard of Venerando’s house, with pools of blood around the body. An unserviceable, bloodstained rifle was found beside the cadaver. Bernardo was inside the house, and Venerando, fully dressed, was walking around the body.

Toledo asked what had been done. Venerando did not answer. Bernardo instead replied that he had shot Jose Quintos. When asked why, Bernardo said Jose Quintos was only paying for what he had done to Bernardo’s father. A picture was taken showing Jose Quintos half-naked in a pool of blood with a rifle beside him. Flora accompanied Toledo after learning that the victim was already dead, and she saw Jose Quintos’s body in the yard. Bernardo was taken to the municipal building, and the investigation results were recorded in the police blotter. Toledo also gave a written statement to Sergeant De Vera of the Constabulary concerning his investigation.

Doctor Raymundo Velasquez conducted the postmortem examination on January 12, 1970, at eight-thirty in the morning. He enumerated multiple injuries. The Court noted that the gunshot wound in the abdomen was fatal. The doctor testified that it was inflicted by an assailant less than two meters from the victim. Wounds caused by a blunt instrument and those caused by a sharp instrument were also found, and the cause of death was “Shock, severe, instantaneous due to the gunshot wound described above.” The doctor opined that the gunshot wound was the cause of death. He also examined Alfredo Quintos and found a gunshot wound on the right upper lip with an exit wound in the mandible. He stated that, absent complications, the wounds would heal in ten to fifteen days. The Court further found that the wounds healed in about five days and that even without proper medical attention, the wounds would not have been fatal absent complications.

Motive as Characterized by the Record

The Court treated motive as emerging from admissions and inferences. Bernardo’s statement to Toledo that the killing occurred because Jose Quintos was made to “pay” for what he had done to Bernardo’s father was treated as supporting vengeance. Although Bernardo said his father was killed by the Huks in 1950, he did not suspect Jose Quintos to be a Huk. Venerando’s testimony, by inference, suggested another motive: the Manzanos wanted to confiscate Jose Quintos’s carbine. The Manzanos believed Jose Quintos fired his gun at night and wanted to stop that nuisance.

Procedural History

On January 19, 1970, Antero Teodoro, Flora Lacuesta, Avelino Cacayorin, Alfredo Quintos, and Patrolman Toledo gave their statements implicating the Manzanos and pointing to Venerando as the assailant of Alfredo. Those statements were sworn before the Municipal Judge. On January 29, 1970, Sergeant De Vera filed in the Municipal Court a complaint for kidnapping with murder against the Manzanos and a complaint for frustrated homicide against Venerando. At the preliminary examination, Flora, Alfredo, and Avelino testified. The accused waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation.

The records were remanded to the Court of First Instance in November 1970, where the fiscal filed informations for murder and frustrated homicide. After trial, the lower court convicted the accused as described. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed both the murder case and the wounding case arising from the same incident.

The Defenses Raised on Appeal

In G.R. No. L-33644, Venerando relied on alibi. He claimed that before noontime of January 11, 1970, Bernardo and Delfin arrived at his house. Venerando and Delfin allegedly went to a nearby house to ask for chickens, while Bernardo went to his sister’s house. Since they could not find chickens, Venerando and Delfin decided to return. While passing Jose Quintos’s house, Venerando remembered Jose Quintos’s alleged nocturnal gun firing and decided to ask Jose Quintos who had been discharging firearms. Jose Quintos allegedly denied knowledge of the gunwielder and questioned Venerando about Delfin’s involvement, asserting that Venerando purposely brought a police soldier to have him arrested. Venerando replied that Delfin was a Constabulary soldier, and Delfin asked Jose Quintos to produce his automatic firearm. Jose Quintos allegedly said his rifle was useless, and they allegedly retrieved the rifle from a hidden haystack.

Venerando claimed that after they failed to surrender Jose Quintos at the house of the barrio captain, they brought him to the fenced yard of Venerando’s house. Venerando then allegedly left for his ricefield, leaving Delfin to guard Jose. He claimed that two hours later, while he was opening a dike, he heard a gunshot, returned to find Jose Quintos dead, and learned Delfin reported Jose tried to escape. He then allegedly went to inform Bernardo. Venerando claimed that the police arrived around the time that later afternoon, and he asserted that Delfin admitted killing Jose in front of the police. He also presented the claim that he was with Delfin at the beginning but not present when the killing occurred.

Bernardo and Ludovina allegedly corroborated Venerando’s asserted alibi. Delfin, however, gave a confession-like account during the trial, admitting he beat Jose with the butt of a carbine and that, on the third rush, he pressed the trigger and shot Jose, asserting Jose tried to fight him and grab the rifle.

Conspiracy and Criminal Liability for Murder

The Court did not accept Venerando’s alibi as exculpation. It treated the record as showing a conspiracy. The Court emphasized the closeness of the accused, their common desire to avenge the wrong done to their father and grandfather, and their joint armed approach to Jose Quintos’s house at lunchtime. The Court stressed that the attackers proceeded together, were all armed, and then acted in concert in beating Jose Quintos, bringing him to Venerando’s yard while pointing firearms at Jose’s body, and keeping Jose under their control until the police discovered the aftermath.

The Court also relied on the physical circumstances of the victim’s injuries and the sequence of events observed by Alfredo and Flora. It found that numerous wounds reflected assault not only by Delfin but also by the others. It held that once conspiracy was established, “the act of one is the act of all.” Consequently, Venerando, as particeps criminis, was liable for the killing perpetrated by Delfin within the conspiratorial design.

Aggravating Circumstances: Abuse of Superiority, No Treachery, and No Evident Premeditation or Cruelty

The Court addressed qualifying and aggravating circumstances. It rejected the trial court’s denial of the aggravating factor on abuse of superiority and held that the proper qualifying circumstance was abuse of superiority. It found that the accused acted cooperatively and took advantage of their combined strength to overpower an unarmed victim, reducing him to an easy prey and facilitating the maltreatment and eventual killing. The Court treated the situation as analogous to earlier cases where multiple aggressors abused their advantage against an unarmed victim.

On treachery, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding that treachery was not present. It reasoned that the attack did not begin suddenly or unexpectedly. The assailants fired two gunshots at the ground, thus heralding their entrance. The initial assault involved a frontal encounter, and the record lacked evidence establishing that a method of attack ensu

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-33643)

The case involved two related criminal prosecutions arising from the same incident at Barrio Cabaluyan 2nd, Mangatarem, Pangasinan, namely murder for Jose Quintos and attempted homicide for Alfredo Quintos.
In G.R. No. L-33643, the appellants were Bernardo Manzano and Venerando Manzano from a Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Lingayen Branch conviction for murder.
In G.R. No. L-33644, Venerando Manzano appealed a separate Court of First Instance conviction for attempted homicide.
Delfin Manzano did not appeal in the murder case, and the Court noted that Bernardo Manzano later withdrew his appeal, resulting in denial of his “notice for review.”
The Supreme Court consolidated and resolved the appeals by addressing the murder liability of the co-accused and the attempted homicide liability of Venerando on the same occasion.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines acted as Plaintiff and Appellee in both cases.
The accused were prosecuted under the following trial designations: Bernardo Manzano, Delfin Manzano, and Venerando Manzano for murder, and Venerando Manzano for attempted homicide.
The trial court convicted each appellant in the murder case and imposed reclusion perpetua, with solidary indemnity and costs.
In the attempted homicide case, the trial court imposed an indeterminate sentence and required indemnity, subsidiary imprisonment, and costs.
The Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction as to Venerando Manzano and modified the penalty and accessory consequence in the attempted homicide case.

Key Factual Allegations

At around noontime on January 11, 1970, Jose Quintos, a fifty-year-old farmer, was eating lunch at home with family members at Barrio Cabaluyan 2nd.
The prosecution evidence described the attackers as three men armed with firearms: Venerando with a pistol, Bernardo with a long rifle, and Delfin with a carbine.
Flora Lacuesta, Jose Quintos’s wife, identified the trio and testified that Delfin discharged his carbine at the ground as the group entered the house through the kitchen.
Inside the house, Venerando boxed Jose Quintos’s right side of the head, Delfin struck the buttocks with the carbine, and Bernardo pummelled the back.
The trio demanded surrender of a carbine, but Jose Quintos denied having one and refused to yield even if killed.
The maltreatment continued as Flora hid with her children and watched from behind a wall out of fear, while shouting for succor went unanswered.
Alfredo Quintos, about twenty meters away at a volleyball court, saw Delfin discharge a gun and saw the trio enter the house and assault his father.
Alfredo testified that after pleading with the assailants, Venerando pushed him outside and shot him with a pistol at a distance of about one meter.
Alfredo ran toward the road, and Flora followed; while at the road, Flora witnessed Venerando dragging Jose Quintos behind while Delfin and Bernardo pointed firearms and kicked and otherwise maltreated the victim.
The group brought Jose Quintos toward Venerando’s house, and Flora continued shouting for help but was stopped by the assailants’ guns.
Patrolman Geronimo (Gavino) Toledo investigated upon being informed of a killing and found Jose Quintos’s lifeless body with pools of blood in the yard of Venerando’s house.
Toledo and Sergeant Daniel Cacapit observed Venerando walking around the cadaver and found an unserviceable bloodstained rifle beside the body.

Medical Findings and Lethal Wounds

A postmortem examination by Doctor Raymundo Velasquez on January 12, 1970 identified multiple contusions, lacerated and incised wounds, abrasions, and a fatal gunshot wound to the abdomen.
The Court noted the postmortem conclusion that the cause of death was shock, severe, instantaneous due to the gunshot wound.
The doctor opined that the gunshot wound was inflicted by an assailant who was less than two meters away.
The doctor attributed wounds numbered one to five and seven to nine to a blunt instrument such as a gun butt or a closed fist, and wound number six to a sharp instrument.
The Court recorded that the gunshot wound was fatal and that other wounds could have caused death absent medical attendance.
For Alfredo Quintos, the medical certificate recorded a gunshot wound of the upper lip and mandible with an expected healing time of ten to fifteen days, while also indicating that absent complications the wounds were not fatal.

Motive Theory Presented

The Court recognized two motive inferences presented by the evidence.
From Bernardo’s admission to Patrolman Toledo, the Court inferred vengeance because Jose Quintos was allegedly made to “pay” for what was done to Bernardo’s father.
From Venerando’s testimonies, the Court inferred a motive to confiscate the carbine and stop an alleged nuisance of nighttime gunfire.
The Supreme Court treated motive as supportive rather than controlling in light of the evidence of conspiracy and participation.

Statements and Filing of Charges

Statements implicating the Manzanos were taken by Sergeant Gonzalo de Vera on January 19, 1970, and were sworn before the Municipal Judge.
On January 29, 1970, the prosecutor filed in the Municipal Court a complaint for kidnapping with murder against the Manzanos and a complaint for frustrated homicide against Venerando.
At the preliminary examination, Flora Lacuesta, Alfredo Quintos, and Avelino Cacayorin testified, and the accused waived the second stage of preliminary investigation.
The case records were remanded in November 1970 to the Court of First Instance, and the Fiscal filed informations for murder and frustrated homicide.
After trial, the lower court returned convictions for murder and attempted homicide corresponding to the respective charges.

Defense of Alibi

Venerando Manzano relied on alibi, claiming that before noon he, Bernardo, and Delfin went to secure chickens for transport to Tarlac.
Venerando testified that Josefina Agsao was not home, which led him and Delfin to return to Venerando’s house while Bernardo proceeded to his sister’s house.
Venerando claimed that he later passed by Jose Quintos’s house and decided to inquire about the identity of the nocturnal gunwielder.
Venerando alleged that Jose Quintos accused him of purposely bringing a PC soldier to arrest him, and that Delfin interjected during the exchange.
The defense narrated that they retrieved a hidden rifle from a nipa hut and decided to bring Quintos for surrender to the barrio captain, who was allegedly not available.
Venerando stated that instead of immediate surrender, he left Delfin guarding Quintos in his fenced yard while Venerando went to his ricefield for about two hours.
Venerando maintained that during his absence he heard a gunshot, returned to find Quintos dead, and learned that Delfin admitted killing Quintos.
Delfin corroborated the defense story, admitting he was armed with a carbine, that Quintos rushed repeatedly, that he beat Quintos with the butt, and that on the third rush he fired by “suddenly pressing the trigger.”
The defense furth