THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HERNANDO MANANTAN Y BORJA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Manantan

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Hernando Manantan y Borja, a criminal case for the killing of Renato Nabong. The accused does not deny that he stabbed the victim; what he contests is the legal character of the killing and the circumstances that should be weighed for and against him. The case matters because the Supreme Court strips away a finding of treachery that rested on a factual premise no witness ever testified to, and because it shows how the qualifying circumstance of treachery must be proved, not assumed, and how the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender operates to lower both the crime and the penalty.

Procedural History

Hernando Manantan was charged and tried before the Regional Trial Court at Macabebe, Pampanga, Branch Fifty-Four of the Third Judicial Region. The trial court convicted him of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with its accessories, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 30,000 pesos for the death, and to reimburse hospitalization, medical, funeral, and other expenses in the aggregate sum of 56,833 pesos and 90 centavos. Manantan appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and the case was resolved by the Court's Third Division.

Facts

In the evening of June 19, 1985, Eddie Cabrera, the only eyewitness to the actual stabbing presented by the prosecution, was buying cigarettes at the store of Bella Musni in San Francisco, Macabebe, Pampanga. He saw Manantan and Nabong about five meters away, coming toward the store. Manantan had his left hand over Nabong's left shoulder; with his right hand, gripping a kitchen knife, he raised it and thrust the blade horizontally into Nabong's neck. After the stabbing, Manantan walked back the way he had come, while Nabong ran toward his home.

The stab wound transected the trachea at the level of the thyroid cartilage as well as the esophagus. Despite the efforts of physicians at Masantol, at the Central Luzon General Hospital, and at the University of Santo Tomas Hospital, Nabong died eighteen days later, on July 7, 1985.

Manantan admitted inflicting the fatal wound but claimed that the killing was not attended by treachery, and that voluntary surrender, sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party, and immediate vindication of a grave offense should be appreciated in his favor. He sought to show that earlier that day Nabong and some companions had manhandled him, robbed him of close to a hundred pesos, and later stripped him of his clothing and compelled him to dance. The trial court rejected that version as illogical and contrary to human experience, and both sides agreed that voluntary surrender should be credited to him.

Issues

• Whether or not the killing of Renato Nabong was qualified by treachery, so as to make the crime murder rather than homicide.
• Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party and immediate vindication of a grave offense should be appreciated in the accused's favor.
• Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be credited to the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court's findings on the credibility of the accused's evidence deserve respect on appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes homicide:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This is the provision under which the Court ultimately convicts the accused, once treachery is removed from the picture.

Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code governs the application of penalties according to modifying circumstances:

In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall apply the penalty prescribed by law in its minimum period, if there is any mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance.

This is the rule that allows the Court to impose reclusion temporal in its minimum period because of the single mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that treachery was not proved. The trial court had reasoned that Manantan first held the victim by the neck and squeezed it, choking and weakening him and ensuring that he would be defenseless. The Supreme Court rejects this because the conclusions have no factual foundation: none of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence of any squeezing of the neck immediately before the stabbing, and the only eyewitness, Eddie Cabrera, testified to something else entirely, namely that Manantan held the victim by the shoulder and thrust the knife horizontally into his neck. The Court adds that had there been any choking, Nabong would instantly have been put on defense and would have reacted to relieve the pressure on his windpipe. Treachery being absent, the killing is homicide, not murder.

On the second issue, the Court affirms the trial court's rejection of sufficient provocation and immediate vindication of a grave offense. The trial court found the accused's version of the antecedent events illogical and contrary to human experience, observing that even a group of hoodlums would not undress a man to let him dance naked. The Supreme Court finds nothing in the record to disturb that conclusion.

On the third issue, the Court credits voluntary surrender, there being agreement on all sides that it should be appreciated in the accused's favor.

On the fourth issue, the Court restates the settled rule that findings of the trial court on questions of fact are accorded the highest respect on appeal, if not regarded as conclusive, absent the usual exceptions. The policy rests on the trial court's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and to assess their credibility, not only by the nature of their testimony but also by their demeanor under questioning.

Applying Article 64, the Court imposes reclusion temporal in its minimum period, there being one mitigating circumstance not offset by any aggravating circumstance. The duration of reclusion temporal in its minimum period is twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum is taken from that period, and the minimum from the penalty next lower in degree, prision mayor, which has a duration of six years and one day to twelve years.

Doctrine

Treachery must be proved by evidence, not inferred from a premise no witness supports. The qualifying circumstance of alevosia, which means treachery, requires proof of the deliberate adoption of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. Where the finding of treachery rests on a supposed choking that the eyewitness never described, the finding cannot stand, and the crime is homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, not murder.

Voluntary surrender, when established or admitted, is a mitigating circumstance. Under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, where a divisible penalty contains three periods and there is a mitigating circumstance with no aggravating circumstance, the penalty is applied in its minimum period. The Indeterminate Sentence Law then fixes the maximum from that minimum period and the minimum from the penalty next lower in degree.

Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and on questions of fact are entitled to the highest respect on appeal, because only the trial court observes the witnesses' demeanor on the stand.

Disposition

The judgment of the Regional Trial Court is affirmed as to the finding that Manantan killed Renato Nabong and as to the reimbursement of 56,833 pesos and 90 centavos in expenses, but modified as to the crime, the penalty, and the civil indemnity: Manantan is declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as maximum, with the accessories provided by law, and ordered to pay the heirs an additional 50,000 pesos as indemnity for death.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: treachery cannot be appreciated where the finding rests on a factual premise that no witness testified to, so the killing is only homicide. Examiners use this case to test the elements of treachery, the effect of voluntary surrender under Article 64, and the respect owed to the trial court's factual findings on appeal.