People vs. Manero

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

NORBERTO MANERO, JR., EDILBERTO MANERO, ELPIDIO MANERO, SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEÑAGO, ROGER BEDAÑO, RODRIGO ESPIA, ARSENIO VILLAMOR, JR., JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, Accused. SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEÑAGO and ROGER BENDAÑO, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. Nos. 86883-85
January 29, 1993

FACTS:

In 1985, around 10:00 o’clock in the morning, the accused-appellants Norberto Jr., Edilberto, Elpidio, Rodrigo, Severino, Rudy, Efren, and Roger, were inside the eatery of one Deocades. They were conferring with Arsenio their plans to liquidate a number of suspected communist sympathizers. Arsenio scribbled on a cigarette wrapper the following “NPA v. NPA, starring Fr. Peter, Domingo Gomez, Bantil, Fred Gapate, Rene alias Tabagac and Villaning.” “Fr. Peter” is Fr. Peter Geremias, an Italian priest suspected of having links with the communist movement; “Bantil” is Rufino Robles, a Catholic lay leader who is the complaining witness in the Attempted Murder; Domingo Gomez is another lay leader, while the others are simply “messengers”. On the same occasion, the conspirators agreed to Edilberto’s proposal that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter, another Italian priest would be killed in his stead.

Later, at 4:00 o’clock, accused-appellants, all with firearms, proceeded to the house of “Bantil”, their first intended victim. Upon meeting “Bantil”, Edilberto drew his revolver and fired at the forehead of “Bantil”. “Bantil” was able to parry the gun, albeit his right finger and the lower portion of his right ear were hit. Then they grappled for its possession until “Bantil” was extricated from the fray. But, as he was running away, he was again fired upon by Edilberto. “Bantil” however managed to seek refuge in the house of a certain Gomez. Norberto ordered his men to surround the house and not to allow anyone to get out so that “Bantil” would die of hemorrhage. Then Edilberto went back to the restaurant of Deocades and pistol-whipped him on the face and accused him of being a communist coddler. Edilberto strewed him with a burst of gunfire. Deocades cowered in fear as he knelt with both hands clenched at the back of his head. This again drew boisterous laughter and ridicule from other accused-appellants.

At 5:00 o’clock, Fr. Favali arrived on board his motorcycle. He entered the house of Gomez. While inside, Norberto, and his co-accused Pleñago towed the motorcycle outside to the center of the highway. Norberto opened the gasoline tank, spilled some fuel, lit a fire and burned the motorcycle. As the vehicle was ablaze, accused-appellants raved and rejoiced. Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire, Fr. Favali accosted Norberto. At this point, Edilberto asked the priest: “What is it you want, Father? Do you want me, Father, to break your head?” Thereafter, Edilberto fired at the head of the priest. As Fr. Favali dropped to the ground, Norberto taunted Edilberto if that was the only way he knew to kill a priest. Slighted over the remark, Edilberto jumped over the prostrate body three (3) times, kicked it twice, and fired anew. The burst of gunfire virtually shattered the head of Fr. Favali, causing his brain to scatter on the road. As Norberto flaunted the brain to the terrified onlookers, his brothers danced and sang “Mutya Ka Baleleng” to the delight of the accused-appellants who now took guarded positions to isolate the victim from possible assistance. Informations for Murder, Attempted Murder and Arson were accordingly filed against accused-appellants.

ISSUE:

Are the accused-appellants liable for all the crimes committed by Norberto and Edilberto although they have not directly participated in the commission of those crimes?

HELD:

YES. Under Article of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it. It is not essential that all the accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the offense. It is enough that an accused participates in an act or deed where there is singularity of purpose and unity in its execution is present.

From the foregoing narration of facts, it is clear that accused-appellants were not merely innocent bystanders but were in fact vital cogs in perpetrating the savage murder of Fr. Favali and the attempted murder of Robles. For sure, they all assumed a fighting stance to discourage if not prevent any attempt to provide assistance to the fallen priest. They surrounded the house of Gomez to stop Robles and the other occupants from leaving so that the wounded Robles may die of hemorrhage. Undoubtedly, these were overt acts to ensure success of the commission of the crimes and in furtherance of the aims of the conspiracy. The accused-appellants acted in concert in the murder of Fr. Favali and in the attempted murder of Robles. While accused-appellants may not have delivered the fatal shots themselves, their collective action showed a common intent to commit the criminal acts. Conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design being sufficiently shown, the act of one is the act of all the other conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary. Therefore, all of the accused-appellants are liable collectively for the individual acts of their co-accused.

HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.

For attribution or removal, contact us.