PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTHONY MANGUERA Y ALINGASTRE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Manguera

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Anthony Manguera y Alingastre, a criminal case for the special complex crime of rape with homicide. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of a young woman by force and intimidation and, on the occasion of that rape, stabbing her with a bladed instrument and causing her death. The case matters to every reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean teaching case on the dying declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule, where the conviction rested largely on the victim's words spoken shortly before she died. Second, it is a reminder that even in the gravest of crimes, the death penalty cannot be imposed on an offender who was below eighteen years of age at the time of the commission of the crime.

Procedural History

Anthony Manguera was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, of Tanauan, Batangas. When arraigned, he entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide, imposed the death penalty, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The trial court relied heavily on the dying declaration of the victim, narrated by her brother.

Manguera appealed to the Supreme Court, assailing the dying declaration that identified him as the author of the crime and blaming the trial court for ignoring his defense of alibi. The case reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal from the judgment of conviction imposing the death penalty.

Facts

On the evening of 25 February 1996, just after sunset, Josephine Managa, a neighbor of the victim, was walking home in Barangay San Miguel, Santo Tomas, Batangas, when she thought she heard the victim screaming "Inay, Inay" from a nearby coconut plantation. Worried, Josephine went to the victim's house to ask if the girl was home. The victim's older brother told her the girl had not yet arrived, so Josephine told him what she had heard. The brother, together with Josephine, his mother, his sister, and his wife, rushed to the plantation.

At the site, the brother heard the victim call out, "Kuya, kuya, tulungan mo ako." He ran toward the voice and found his sister lying naked, her panties and shorts pulled down to her left ankle. When he asked what had happened, she replied, "Kuya, ginahasa ako." Asked who was responsible, she answered, "Si Nognog, si Nognog." When pressed for the full name, she said, "Anthony Manguera." Moments later, visibly weak, she told her brother, "Kuya, parang hindi ko na kaya. May saksak ako sa likod." He turned her over and saw her back bloodied with stab wounds. When asked whether Anthony Manguera had been with her on her way home, she answered that he was waiting for her, and that he raped her and stabbed her. She died on the way to the Municipal Health Office.

The post mortem report showed a contusion on the head, multiple stab wounds on the back, lacerations of the hymen, and listed the cause of death as cardio-pulmonary arrest secondary to multiple stab wounds. That same evening, police officers, accompanied by the brother, apprehended Anthony Manguera at his residence. He was only fifteen years old at the time. In his defense, he interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was at home serving his father's guests, among them barangay officials and policemen. The trial court rejected the defense and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the ante mortem statement of the victim, identifying Anthony Manguera as her rapist and assailant, is admissible in evidence as a dying declaration.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting the defense of alibi.
• Whether or not the death penalty was correctly imposed, given that the accused was only fifteen years old at the time of the commission of the crime.
• Whether or not the award of damages should be modified.

Applicable Provisions

Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act Number 7659, provides:

Article 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of death penalty cases. The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below eighteen years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

This provision directly governs the penalty, because the accused was below eighteen years of age when the crime was committed, so the death penalty could not be imposed on him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the ante mortem statement of the victim was admissible as a dying declaration and was a weighty and telling piece of evidence. A dying declaration is admissible when it concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; when it is made while death appears imminent and the declarant is conscious of impending death; when the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and when it is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant's death. All these conditions were present. The victim's words that she could no longer bear it and had been stabbed in the back showed her consciousness of impending death, and her identification of her assailant was entitled to the highest degree of credence and respect. The Court also rejected the claim of inconsistency between the testimonies of Josephine and the brother, explaining that the brother's words about the son of Antonio with a tricycle came as a clarificatory question after the victim had already named Anthony Manguera.

On the second issue, the Court held that the defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, clear and convincing evidence must establish that it was impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed. It would be a fragile alibi where the two places are located within the same barangay.

On the third issue, the Court held that it was error for the trial court to impose the death penalty. The accused was only fifteen years old at the time of the commission of the crime, as shown by his Certificate of Live Birth. Pursuant to Article 47, as amended, and consistent with Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, which treats minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance, the penalty that could be imposed was reclusion perpetua.

On the fourth issue, the Court modified the award of damages. Under prevailing jurisprudence, the victim's heirs are entitled to civil indemnity of 100,000 pesos and moral damages of 50,000 pesos. Only 15,000 pesos in funeral expenses was duly receipted and proved, so the Court allowed temperate damages of 25,000 pesos in lieu of the actual damages.

Doctrine

A dying declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when four conditions concur: it concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; it is made when death appears imminent and the declarant is conscious of impending death; the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and it is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant's death. Statements uttered by a victim on the verge of death identifying the assailant are entitled to the highest degree of credence and respect, and a conviction may rest solely on such a dying declaration.

For the defense of alibi to prosper, clear and convincing evidence must establish that it was impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed. An alibi is fragile where the places involved are within the same barangay.

Under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the death penalty shall not be imposed when the guilty person is below eighteen years of age at the time of the commission of the crime; in such a case the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. This is consistent with Article 68, which treats minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of Anthony Manguera for rape with homicide but modified the judgment by commuting the death penalty to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim 100,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 25,000 pesos as temperate damages, with costs de oficio.

Remember This

Remember the four conditions of a dying declaration and the rule that a conviction may rest solely on it, and remember that minority below eighteen years at the time of the crime bars the death penalty and lowers it to reclusion perpetua. Examiners like to use this case on the admissibility of dying declarations and on the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 47 and Article 68.