THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BERNARDO MANZANO, DELFIN MANZANO AND VENERANDO MANZANO, ACCUSED. BERNARDO MANZANO AND VENERANDO MANZANO, ACCUSED AND A…

People versus Manzano

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in two related cases that arose from a single violent episode in a Pangasinan barrio. The People of the Philippines prosecuted the Manzano brothers — Bernardo, a Constabulary sergeant, and Venerando, a barrio councilman — together with Bernardo's son Delfin, a Constabulary soldier, for the mauling and killing of a fifty-year-old farmer, Jose Quintos, and for the shooting and wounding of Jose's son Alfredo. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact laboratory for the doctrines of conspiracy, abuse of superiority, and the fine grading of attempted homicide, showing how the Court reasons from circumstantial proof of a common design and how it calibrates penalties under the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Lingayen Branch, after trial, convicted the three Manzanos of murder in the killing of Jose Quintos, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the heirs solidarily, and separately convicted Venerando of attempted homicide for the shooting of Alfredo Quintos, imposing an indeterminate penalty and an indemnity. Delfin did not appeal. Bernardo appealed but later withdrew his appeal, and his later notice for review was denied. Venerando alone pursued his appeals in both cases, and the two appeals reached the Supreme Court because the attempted homicide case arose on the same occasion as the murder case in which reclusion perpetua was imposed, which placed it within the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

Facts

At noontime on January 11, 1970, Jose Quintos was having lunch with his family in their house at Barrio Cabaluyan 2nd, Mangatarem, Pangasinan. Someone outside called out to him. His wife Flora peeped out and saw Venerando, Bernardo, and Delfin Manzano outside, all carrying firearms — a pistol, a long rifle, and a carbine. She invited them up. Delfin fired his carbine twice at the ground, and the three entered through the kitchen.

Inside, Venerando boxed Jose on the head, Delfin struck his buttocks with the carbine's butt, and Bernardo pummelled his back. They demanded that he surrender his carbine; he insisted he had none. Flora hid her children behind a wall and cried for help that never came. Alfredo, Jose's son, who had seen the men from a nearby volleyball court, rushed to the house and pleaded with them to stop. Venerando pushed Alfredo outside and shot him with a pistol at close range, hitting him on the upper lip. Alfredo fled to the road, where his mother joined him. The Manzanos then dragged Jose toward Venerando's house, with Bernardo kicking him and the others pointing their firearms at his back, and warned Flora off with their guns.

That afternoon, Patrolman Toledo and Sergeant Cacapit, alerted to a killing, arrived at Venerando's yard and found Jose's lifeless body in a pool of blood with an unserviceable, bloodstained rifle beside it. Bernardo told the patrolman that he had shot Quintos, saying Quintos was only paying for what he had done to Bernardo's father. The postmortem showed a fatal abdominal gunshot wound inflicted from less than two meters away, plus ten other wounds from blunt and sharp instruments. Venerando's defense was alibi — that he was in his ricefield when Delfin shot Quintos — and he contended that at most he was an accomplice.

Issues

• Whether or not conspiracy was established among the three Manzanos such that the act of one is the act of all.
• Whether or not Venerando may be regarded only as an accomplice rather than a principal by conspiracy.
• Whether or not abuse of superiority qualifies the killing as murder.
• Whether or not treachery, evident premeditation, and cruelty attended the killing as aggravating circumstances.
• Whether or not the wounding of Alfredo Quintos constitutes attempted homicide rather than lesiones leves, and what penalty is imposable.

Applicable Provisions

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines the stages of execution, and it bears on whether the shooting of Alfredo was attempted homicide:

Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. There is a consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present. There is a frustrated felony when the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by virtue of the felony itself, but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

This provision supplies the test for the attempted homicide charge against Venerando for shooting Alfredo.

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code lists aggravating circumstances, and the Court cites it on treachery and cruelty:

That the act be committed with treachery, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The Court uses this to explain why treachery must exist at the commencement of the assault.

Article 14 also defines cruelty, which the Court quotes in discussing whether it aggravated the killing:

That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

This is the standard the Court applies in rejecting cruelty as an aggravating circumstance.

Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code allows a reduction of penalty in certain cases, and it bears on the attempted homicide:

In the case of a frustrated or attempted felony, the court may impose the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, after considering the facts of the case.

The Court invokes this to justify a three-degree reduction of the penalty for the attempted homicide.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that conspiracy was proved beyond doubt by the testimonies of Alfredo and his mother. The close relationship among the three Manzanos, their common desire to avenge a wrong to their father, their going together to the victim's house at lunchtime all armed, their concerted beating of Jose, their dragging him to Venerando's yard with rifles thrust at his body, and their presence there when the police arrived were telltale indicia of a community of design. Conspiracy having been established, the act of one is the act of all.

On the second issue, the Court rejected Venerando's claim that he was a mere accomplice. Once conspiracy is postulated, the accomplice theory is untenable; the killing was perpetrated in his own yard, and he was the one dragging the victim there, so his felonious intent was evident.

On the third issue, the Court held that the proper qualifying circumstance is abuse of superiority. The Manzanos cooperated and took advantage of their combined strength to overpower an unarmed victim and render him an easy prey, and the Court noted that abuse of superiority had been appreciated where two policemen maltreated an unarmed victim who later died.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that there was no treachery, because the initial assault was not sudden and unexpected — the malefactors gave an ominous warning and fired two gunshots at the ground before entering. Evident premeditation was not proved, because the required elements — the time of determination, an act manifestly indicating persistence in that determination, and a sufficient interval for reflection — were lacking. Cruelty was likewise not aggravating, because no eyewitness testified to what was done during the three-hour detention and the number of wounds is not the criterion for cruelty. With no generic aggravating or mitigating circumstance, reclusion perpetua was properly imposed.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the wounding of Alfredo was attempted homicide, not lesiones leves. The intent to kill was inferable from Venerando's use of a deadly weapon fired at Alfredo's face, and he did not perform all the acts of execution necessary to consummate the homicide. Considering that only one shot was fired, the wounds healed in five days, and Alfredo was incapacitated for only three days, the Court allowed a three-degree reduction under Article 250, making the imposable penalty arresto mayor. Dwelling was not aggravating because Alfredo was shot outside the family dwelling.

Doctrine

Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence — the concerted acts, the common purpose, and the presence of the accused at the scene — and once established, the act of one is the act of all, so that a co-conspirator is liable as a principal for the killing done by another. Abuse of superiority qualifies a killing as murder when the aggressors cooperate and take advantage of their combined strength to overpower an unarmed victim. Treachery must exist at the commencement of the assault, and evident premeditation requires proof of the time of determination, an act showing persistence, and a sufficient interval for reflection. Cruelty requires deliberate augmentation of the victim's suffering, and the number of wounds is not its criterion. In attempted homicide, the intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon aimed at a vital part, and Article 250 permits a reduction of the penalty after considering the facts.

Disposition

The judgments of the trial court as to Venerando Manzano were affirmed, with the modification that in the attempted homicide case he was sentenced to arresto mayor.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: conspiracy, once proved by concerted acts and common purpose, makes the act of one the act of all, and abuse of superiority qualifies the killing as murder. Examiners use this case to test circumstantial proof of conspiracy, the distinction between principal and accomplice, and the calibration of penalties for attempted homicide under Article 250.