THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GREGORIO MANALO ET AL., DEFENDANTS. SANTIAGO SILANG, ISABELO MENDOZA AND ANTOLIN GENEROSO, APPELLANTS.

People versus Silang

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippine Islands prosecuted Gregorio Manalo and four others for the killing of Pastor Dizon at a barrio fiesta, and the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tayabas convicted all five of murder. Three of the convicted men, Santiago Silang, Isabelo Mendoza and Antolin Generoso, brought the case to the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether the evidence established their participation in the killing and whether the crime was murder qualified by alevosia, that is, treachery, and aggravated by evident premeditation. The case matters for two reasons: it shows how the Court treats the testimony of several eyewitnesses who describe the same attack, and it shows how the Court reasons about conspiracy and cooperation when several persons act together against one victim. It also carries a forceful dissent on whether each accused should answer only for his own acts.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tayabas, which found the five accused guilty of murder. The trial court sentenced each of them to twenty years of cadena temporal, with the accessories prescribed by law, ordered them jointly and severally to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of 1,000 pesos, and required each to pay his proportional share of the costs. Of the five convicted, Gregorio Manalo and Anselmo Generoso withdrew their appeals, so the case reached the Supreme Court only as to Santiago Silang, Isabelo Mendoza and Antolin Generoso. The appeal was submitted to the Supreme Court for review of the judgment of conviction, and the Court affirmed it, with proportional costs against the three appellants. Chief Justice Avanceña, joined by Justice Romualdez, dissented.

Facts

On May 15, 1927, a fiesta was held in the barrio of Sintonisan, in the municipality of Dolores, Province of Tayabas. A number of men took part in a game known as the juego de anillo. Among those present were the deceased, Pastor Dizon, and the five accused: Gregorio Manalo, Anselmo Generoso, Antolin Generoso, Santiago Silang and Isabelo Mendoza.

At about six in the afternoon, Antolin Generoso stepped up behind Pastor Dizon and struck him on the back of the head with a piece of wood about eighteen inches long and one inch in diameter. Dizon reeled under the blow and turned partly around, inclining backwards. While in that position, he was struck on the upper lip with a whip made of rattan, in the hands of Isabelo Mendoza. At that moment, Anselmo Generoso seized Dizon by the left hand and Santiago Silang seized him by the right. Almost instantly, while Dizon was still inclining backwards with his hands held fast, Gregorio Manalo ran up from the front with a knife and plunged it into Dizon's body, entering the lower part of the sternum, somewhat to the right of the center. As Dizon fell, Anselmo Generoso released his left hand, and Santiago Silang released his right hand, but as he did so, or just before, Silang gave Dizon a second stab with a knife in nearly the same spot where Manalo had already struck him. Manalo fled at once, and the other assailants scattered. The injury inflicted by Manalo was almost instantly fatal, and Dizon died immediately without speaking a word.

Soon after the killing, Santiago Silang's hat was found on the ground near the body. A knife identified as the instrument with which Manalo inflicted the fatal blow was in Manalo's possession when he was arrested later that evening, and while being taken along the street in the custody of a policeman, Manalo dropped the knife to the ground, a movement the policeman detected from the audible sound it made on the cement pavement. At the trial, Antolin Generoso attempted to prove an absolute alibi, and Manalo claimed he had left the fiesta at about four thirty in the afternoon. Anselmo Generoso admitted being present and claimed he had merely been shaking the deceased's hand in a friendly way. Santiago Silang admitted being present but said he ran away out of fright and dropped his hat as he jumped over the canal. Isabelo Mendoza claimed he rushed in to pacify the crowd. The Court found the defense testimony, including the claim that the whip had been brought by the deceased himself, unworthy of credit.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of the three principal witnesses for the prosecution was credible, despite the claim that their accounts were excessively similar in detail.
• Whether or not the three appellants cooperated together, with common accord, in the commission of the offense.
• Whether or not the crime was qualified as murder by the circumstance of alevosia, that is, treachery.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court should be sustained.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory text. It applies the concepts of alevosia, evident premeditation, conspiracy and cooperation in the commission of a crime as these were understood under the penal law then in force, and it refers to cadena temporal and cadena perpetua as the penalties involved. Because the decision quotes no provision verbatim, no block quotation of a provision is set out here.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court rejected the criticism that the prosecution witnesses told an identical story. A careful collation of their testimony revealed sufficient diversity in detail to refute the hypothesis of a prior conspiracy to tell an identical story. For instance, Escolastico Avante did not claim to have seen the first blow with the stick, while Rufo Morada and Enrique Bautista established that Antolin Generoso did strike the deceased. The Court found that the trial judge had attentively considered the proof and weighed the testimony of both sides with proper discernment.

On the second issue, the Court held that the manner of the attack and the way the appellants cooperated with their coaccused left no room for doubt that all of the accused cooperated together, and with common accord, in the commission of the offense. The Court said that the manner in which the appellants and their coaccused cooperated showed that they were moved by a common motive and that their intention was to accomplish the death of Dizon.

On the third issue, the Court held that the manner of the attack and the cooperation of the appellants indubitably showed that the offense was qualified by the circumstance of alevosia, with the result that the crime committed was murder, and it was properly so characterized by the trial court.

On the fourth issue, the Court disagreed with the trial judge. Although it was quite possible that the killing was planned at a meeting held the day before, the proof on this point was not sufficient to satisfy the Court that the case was characterized by evident premeditation. The testimony of Enrique Bautista about a conversation with Antolin Generoso likewise indicated that Antolin expected to take part in some event of exceptional importance, but this proof was also insufficient to establish an anterior conspiracy.

On the fifth issue, the Court noted that the trial court's sentence of twenty years of cadena temporal indicated that it gave the accused the benefit of some mitigating circumstance, doubtless lack of instruction. The Attorney-General recommended that no mitigating circumstance be appreciated and that the appellants be sentenced to cadena perpetua. The majority of the Court, however, was of the opinion that the penalty may properly be allowed to rest at the point fixed by the trial judge.

Doctrine

First, the testimony of several eyewitnesses is not discredited merely because their accounts resemble one another; where a careful collation reveals sufficient diversity in detail, the hypothesis of a prior conspiracy to tell an identical story is refuted, and the testimony may be credited.

Second, where the manner of the attack and the acts of the accused show that they cooperated together, with common accord, and were moved by a common motive with the intention to accomplish the death of the victim, they are liable for the offense as coactors, even without proof of an anterior conspiracy.

Third, the qualifying circumstance of alevosia, that is, treachery, is established by the manner of the attack, as where the victim is struck from behind, his hands are seized by two assailants, and a third plunges a knife into his body while he is helpless, so that the crime is murder.

Fourth, evident premeditation requires proof sufficient to satisfy the Court that the killing was planned; mere evidence of a meeting the day before at which something obscure was discussed, or of a remark indicating that an accused expected an event of exceptional importance, is insufficient to establish it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court against Santiago Silang, Isabelo Mendoza and Antolin Generoso, with proportional costs against the three appellants.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the manner of the attack and the cooperation of the accused showed a common motive and the intention to accomplish the death of the victim, so that the crime was murder qualified by alevosia, even without sufficient proof of evident premeditation. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between conspiracy and cooperation, the appreciation of alevosia from the manner of the attack, and the sufficiency of evidence for evident premeditation.