People of the Philippines vs. Manlansing

A qualifying circumstance that is not alleged with specificity in the information as a circumstance qualifying the offense to a more serious crime cannot be considered as such, and shall only be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure require the information to specify not only the acts constituting the offense but also its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

Appellants Joey and Mario Manlansing, brothers, had been tenants of the spouses Magin (70 years old) and Jorja (68 years old) Soriano for four years. On the night of December 27, 1994, the couple was attacked and killed inside their home in Bitas, Cabanatuan City. The prosecution alleged that the killings were motivated by the spouses’ announcement that the brothers would be ejected as tenants.

• The Crime Scene and Autopsy: Police responded on the morning of December 28, 1994, after a concerned citizen reported a killing. In the stockroom on the first floor, the body of Magin Soriano was found in a pool of blood with multiple hacking wounds on his head and nape and defensive wounds on his hands and arms. Upstairs, the body of Jorja Soriano lay with her throat slit and neck hacked; a small towel was stuffed in her mouth. A six-inch bloodstained knife with the initials “JF” was found under her body. Dr. Jun Concepcion, the Cabanatuan City medical officer, determined that the victims died between 10:00 P.M. on December 27 and 3:00 A.M. on December 28, 1994. He opined that the nature and depth of the wounds indicated they were inflicted by more than one person, using a hacking weapon and a sharp, pointed stabbing instrument.
• Arrests and Initial Statements: Two carpenters constructing a chapel for the Sorianos reported seeing the appellants enter the victims’ house on the night of the killings. Joey Manlansing was arrested on December 28, 1994, in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. During custodial investigation, after being advised to remain silent by Atty. Edgardo Villarin, he nonetheless named Mario as the killer and admitted boxing Jorja to prevent her from shouting while Mario assaulted Magin. Mario Manlansing was arrested on December 29, 1994, in Paniqui, Tarlac, after police were tipped on his whereabouts. Assisted by counsel, Mario confessed to killing the spouses and led authorities to a bolo hidden at his sister-in-law’s house. The bolo tested positive for human blood.
• Re-enactment and Admissions: During a December 30, 1994, re-enactment at the crime scene, Mario stated that after killing the spouses, he and Joey ransacked bags in the house but found no money or jewelry. He then told Joey to change clothes and attempted to clean the scene, washing the bolo and rags in the downstairs bathroom.
• Forensic Identification: NBI fingerprint expert Bayani Palad testified that two latent prints lifted from the crime scene matched the left middle and ring fingerprints of Joey Manlansing.
• Defense Testimony: Mario testified that he alone killed the spouses out of anger after Jorja told him he would be ejected as a tenant. He claimed Joey woke up only after Mario killed Magin and tried unsuccessfully to stop the attack on Jorja. Joey denied participation but admitted hitting Jorja once to stop her shouting, fearing Mario would hear and attack her. Their father, Enrique Manlansing, testified he fetched Mario from Tarlac to surrender him.
• Rebuttal Evidence: Balut vendor Mario Bartolome testified that around 11:00 P.M. on December 27, 1994, while selling balut across from the Soriano residence, he saw two persons emerge from the house wearing bloodstained shirts. They told him they had just killed a pig and threatened he could be next. He did not report the encounter until his conscience prompted him to do so days later.

• Conspiracy and Sole Culpability: Appellants argued that Mario’s voluntary and categorical confession, reiterated in open court, that he alone committed the killings should have been given full credit. A confession freely and voluntarily given deserves the highest evidentiary weight. The trial court further erred in finding Joey a conspirator merely because they were siblings, as an accused may competently testify for or against a co-accused.
• Imposition of the Death Penalty: Appellants contended that the trial court gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime, and abuse of superior strength, rendering the death penalty improper.

• Conspiracy Established by Circumstantial Evidence: The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that Joey’s guilt as a co-conspirator was proven beyond reasonable doubt through a chain of circumstances: (1) Joey’s admission of boxing Jorja, which the autopsy contradicted by showing multiple hematoma on her face and chest, indicating more than one blow; (2) the medical officer’s opinion that one person could not have simultaneously inflicted wounds using two different weapons—a bolo and a knife—both of which were recovered; (3) the presence of Joey’s fingerprints at the crime scene; (4) Mario’s admission during re-enactment that both brothers ransacked the victims’ belongings; (5) the balut vendor’s eyewitness testimony that both brothers left the house together in bloodstained shirts; and (6) Joey’s flight, which belied his claim of innocence.
• Propriety of Qualifying Circumstances: The OSG argued that the trial court correctly appreciated evident premeditation, treachery, and the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength, supporting the conviction for murder and the imposition of the death penalty.

• Conspiracy and Guilt of Joey Manlansing: Whether the trial court erred in convicting Joey Manlansing as a co-conspirator despite Mario Manlansing’s confession that he alone committed the killings.
• Qualification of the Crimes: Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, and the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength, to elevate the killings to murder.
• Propriety of the Death Penalty: Whether the death penalty was properly imposed on both appellants.

• Conspiracy and Guilt of Joey Manlansing: The conviction of Joey as a co-conspirator was sustained. Conspiracy does not require a prior plan; it suffices that at the moment of aggression, all participants manifested by their acts a common intent to attack. The conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime may establish an extant conspiracy. Here, the evidence formed an unbroken chain: two different bladed weapons were used, making it physically impossible for one person to inflict all wounds simultaneously; Joey admitted striking Jorja; his fingerprints were found at the scene; both brothers admitted ransacking the victims’ belongings; an eyewitness saw them leaving together with bloodstained shirts; and Joey fled. The inconsistencies between Mario’s and Joey’s testimonies, including Joey’s shifting justifications for striking Jorja and the unexplained omission of a claimed wound, indicated that Mario’s exculpation of Joey was an afterthought.
• Qualification of the Crimes: The killings could not be qualified as murder. Pursuant to Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective December 1, 2000, the information must specify not only the acts constituting the offense but also its qualifying and aggravating circumstances with specificity. Applying the ruling in People v. Gario Alba, the amended informations here failed to allege any qualifying circumstance as elevating the killings to murder. Therefore, evident premeditation and treachery—though proven—were treated only as generic aggravating circumstances. Nighttime was discounted because darkness was not purposely sought to facilitate the crime. Abuse of superior strength and dwelling were not even alleged in the information and could not be appreciated. Nevertheless, evident premeditation was established by Mario’s testimony that after turning off the TV at 10:00 P.M., he spent ten minutes planning how to lure the couple out, positioned the bolo, and used the telephone as a ruse. Treachery was present in the sudden, unexpected attack on Magin when he answered the non-ringing telephone and on Jorja, who was asleep or unaware before her mouth was stuffed with a towel and her neck slashed.
• Application of Penalties and Mitigating Circumstances: The crimes committed were two counts of homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. Mario’s voluntary surrender was not appreciated because he was arrested after a police tip and manhunt; however, his spontaneous plea of guilty on arraignment was a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code. This offset one of the two generic aggravating circumstances (evident premeditation), leaving treachery as the remaining generic aggravating circumstance. The penalty was imposed in the maximum period of reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum was set at 17 years and 4 months (within prision mayor) and the maximum at 20 years (reclusion temporal maximum). Joey, with no mitigating circumstance and two generic aggravating circumstances, received the same indeterminate sentence because a greater penalty than the maximum of reclusion temporal could not be imposed. The award of actual damages was deleted for lack of receipts, substituted with temperate damages of P10,000 per count; moral damages were reduced from P500,000 to P50,000 per count; and civil indemnity of P50,000 per count was imposed.

• Specific Allegation of Qualifying Circumstances Under Rule 110 — Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure require that the information state the designation of the offense, aver the acts or omissions constituting it, and specify both its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. A qualifying circumstance that is not alleged with specificity as a circumstance qualifying the offense to a more serious crime cannot elevate the crime; it shall only serve as a generic aggravating circumstance.
• Conspiracy Established by Circumstantial Evidence — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. No previous plan or agreement is required; it is enough that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack. The conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime may be considered to demonstrate an extant conspiracy.
• Evident Premeditation — The three elements are: (1) the time when the offender has appeared determined to commit the crime; (2) an act evidently indicating that the offender has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution during which the offender could have reflected upon the consequences of his act.
• Treachery — The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the victim’s part.
• Mitigating Circumstances — Plea of Guilty and Voluntary Surrender — A plea of guilty on arraignment is a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code. For voluntary surrender to be mitigating, the offender must not have been actually arrested, must surrender to a person in authority, and the surrender must be voluntary. A surrender following a police manhunt and tip on the offender’s whereabouts is neither spontaneous nor voluntary.

• “Conspiracy does not require a previous plan or agreement to commit an assault. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack. Jurisprudence tells us consistently that the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime may be considered to show an extant conspiracy.” — The passage encapsulates the evidentiary approach to proving conspiracy without direct evidence.
• “Pursuant to Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which took effect on December 1, 2000, the information should state not only the designation of the offense and the acts and omissions constituting it but shall also specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.” — This states the procedural rule that mandated the reduction of the offense from murder to homicide.
• “The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without any risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the victim’s part.” — A succinct formulation of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

• People v. Gario Alba, G.R. No. 130523, January 29, 2002 — Followed as controlling precedent for the rule that a qualifying circumstance must be alleged with specificity in the information; applied to reduce the conviction from murder to homicide.

• Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Applied to require that the information specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Because the amended informations here failed to state that evident premeditation, treachery, or nighttime were qualifying circumstances, the killing could only be punished as homicide.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Applied as the basis for the penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide.
• Article 13(7), Revised Penal Code — Applied as the source of the mitigating circumstance of a voluntary plea of guilty on arraignment, credited in favor of Mario Manlansing.
• Article 64, Revised Penal Code — Used to determine the penalty in the maximum period of reclusion temporal given the presence of generic aggravating circumstances, under paragraphs 3 and 6.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to impose an indeterminate sentence within the ranges of prision mayor (minimum) and reclusion temporal (maximum).

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ.