PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RESURRECION JUANILLO MANZANO, JR. AND REZOR JUANILLO MANZANO, ACCUSED, REZOR JUANILLO MANZANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Rezor Manzano versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the appeal of Rezor Juanillo Manzano, whom the courts below convicted of murder for the killing of Lucio Silava on the night of 19 March 2010 in Hamtic, Antique. The accused admitted that he stabbed the victim but pleaded self-defense, so the case turns on who bears the burden of proof once the killing is admitted, and on whether the qualifying circumstances and the claimed mitigating circumstances were correctly appreciated. It matters to every examinee because it gathers in one decision the rules on credibility of witnesses, the elements of self-defense, the doctrine of conspiracy, abuse of superior strength, and voluntary surrender.

Procedural History

The accused and his elder brother Resurrecion Manzano were charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique. Resurrecion remained at large, so only Rezor was tried. After arraignment, in which he pleaded not guilty and raised self-defense, the parties agreed to an inverted trial. The trial court convicted him of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 15,000 pesos as actual damages, and 25,000 pesos as moral damages, plus costs. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, Twentieth Division, which denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court decision in full. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court reviewed the entire records as criminal appeals are open to full review.

Facts

At about nine in the evening of 19 March 2010, the spouses Lucio and Victoria Silava were in their store, which faced the house of the accused. Lucio was eating dinner in the kitchen inside the store while Victoria watched the store. The accused and his brother Resurrecion called out from the gate to buy cigarettes. Because the gate was already closed, Lucio told them to come in.

Resurrecion stayed outside and handed Victoria twenty pesos for Fortune white cigarettes. When Victoria told him she had no stock left, he said he would no longer buy and moved toward the kitchen. The accused had already entered and gone to where Lucio was eating. Victoria then heard Lucio ask, "What wrong have I committed?" She rushed to the kitchen and saw her husband bloodied and leaning on the door while the accused and Resurrecion were stabbing him. She ran out shouting for help, then returned and saw Lucio run outside the store but still within the fenced premises, with the two brothers chasing him. She saw Resurrecion hold Lucio's hands while the accused, behind the victim, held his body with one arm and stabbed his back with the other. When Resurrecion released his grip, Lucio fell face down, but the two continued stabbing him until Victoria cried out that she would let them eat her husband alive. The brothers then fled toward the farm.

Lucio died of hypovolemic shock secondary to hemorrhage from multiple stab wounds. The accused, for his part, claimed that Lucio had been throwing stones at his house, that a stone hit his knee and made him fall, and that Lucio rushed at him with a knife, so they grappled for it. He said he blacked out and started stabbing Lucio, then fled to his brother Reno's house and surrendered to the police the following day. The trial court found that he did not voluntarily surrender, because he fled the scene, did not go to the Hamtic police station, and was taken into custody only after Reno informed the police of his presence.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Victoria Silava.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating incomplete self-defense as a privileged mitigating circumstance.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the accused acted with abuse of superior strength.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating the accused's voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance.

Applicable Provisions

Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, on justifying circumstances, is the provision the Court invokes when it speaks of self-defense:

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability: 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

This provision bears on the case because the accused admitted the killing and anchored his defense on self-defense, which requires all three elements to concur.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, on murder, is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

This provision bears on the case because the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength raised the killing from homicide to murder.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses must be respected, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor under gruelling examination. The Court reviewed the entire records, as a criminal appeal throws the whole case open for review, and found no reason to depart from that rule. Victoria's testimony was positive, convincing, and straightforward, and she could not have been mistaken about the assailants' identity because the place was well lighted. What she admitted she did not witness was the alleged scuffle before she heard her husband's plea, and her brief absence to shout for help did not prevent her from seeing the later stabbing, since she returned within the fenced premises. The Court also held that minor discrepancies in collateral matters do not destroy credibility, and that absent proof of ill motive, the logical conclusion is that no such motive exists.

On the second issue, the Court held that the accused who pleads self-defense admits the commission of the acts that would otherwise create criminal liability, and so he assumes the burden of establishing his plea by credible, clear, and convincing evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's. Since unlawful aggression was absent, self-defense failed, and incomplete self-defense could not be appreciated.

On the third issue, the Court sustained the finding of abuse of superior strength, since the two armed brothers conspired, surprised the victim in his kitchen, and helped each other assault him, one holding him while the other stabbed. Their concerted action established conspiracy.

On the fourth issue, the Court sustained the rejection of voluntary surrender, because the accused fled the scene and was taken into custody only after his brother informed the police of his presence.

Doctrine

First, when the accused admits killing the victim and pleads self-defense under Article 11, the burden shifts to him to prove by credible, clear, and convincing evidence the concurrence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation on his part. Absent unlawful aggression, the plea fails entirely, and incomplete self-defense cannot be appreciated.

Second, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and minor inconsistencies in collateral matters do not impair the essential credibility of a witness.

Third, conspiracy is established by concerted action showing a common design, and abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance under Article 248 is appreciated where the assailants deliberately used their combined strength and weapons to overpower the victim.

Fourth, voluntary surrender requires that the offender surrender spontaneously and before arrest, and flight from the scene negates it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Rezor Juanillo Manzano for murder, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of damages sustained.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that an accused who admits the killing and pleads self-defense bears the burden of proving it by clear and convincing evidence, and absent unlawful aggression the plea must fail. Examiners like to use this case on the burden of proof in self-defense, on the respect accorded to trial court findings on credibility, and on the appreciation of abuse of superior strength and voluntary surrender.