Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > June 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 83902 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCADIO MANRIQUE, JR., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 83902. June 8, 1993.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARCADIO MANRIQUE, JR. and JOHN DOE, Accused, ARCADIO MANRIQUE, JR., Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ABSENCE OF SET OF PROCEDURES IN IDENTIFYING SUSPECTS. — As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, there is no rule or set procedure which requires that for anyone to be identified and named as a suspect in a crime, he had to stand among other people to be ceremoniously picked-out like what is done in the movies.

2. ID.; ID.; CREDIBILITY; NOT AFFECTED BY MINOR INCONSISTENCIES. — Whether there were inconsistencies on the number of persons in the office of Major Bautista, as testified to by the witnesses, the same relate to minor details, which do not destroy the credibility of their testimonies (People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 [1991]). Testimonial inconsistencies to merit due consideration by the courts, must relate to material matters. The defense has not shown the significance on the materiality of the correct counting of the number of persons present during the confrontation.

3. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; NOT GIVEN WEIGHT WHERE IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THE ACCUSED TO HAVE BEEN AT THE PLACE AT THE TIME OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. — The defense of alibi cannot be given any weight in the absence of a convincing proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the place of the commission of the crime (People v. Vasquez, 196 SCRA 564 [1991]).

4. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE; TREACHERY; APPRECIATED WHERE SHOOTING WAS SUDDEN, UNEXPECTED AND DONE AT CLOSE-RANGE. — The trial court correctly qualified the killing to murder as it was committed with treachery. The shooting was sudden, unexpected and done at close-range when the victim had no expectation whatsoever that he would be attacked (People v. Serenio, 179 SCRA 379 [1989).

5. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; INSULT OR DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE VICTIM ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RANK; CASE AT BAR. — The trial court correctly appreciated the presence of the aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard of the respect due the victim on account of his rank. Appellant admitted that he knew that the victim was the Chief of Police and the one in charge of the maintenance of peace and order in San Pablo City.

6. CIVIL LAW DAMAGES; INDEMNITY FOR DEATH RAISED TO P50,000.00. — The indemnity of P30,000.00 as civil liability of the accused to the heirs of the deceased in murder cases has been increased to P50,000.00 (People v. Yeban, 190 SCRA 409 [1990]).


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, San Pablo City in Criminal Case No. 4373-SP, finding Arcadio Manrique, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentencing him to suffer "the supreme penalty of death. However, with the abolition of the death penalty, the penalty has to be reduced to reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution." (Judgment, p. 14; Rollo, p. 51).cralawnad

In said criminal case, Arcadio Manrique, Jr. and John Doe, were charged with Murder, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about May 21, 1985 in the City of San Pablo, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, with intent to kill, with treachery and with insult or in disregard of the respect due the victim as Station Commander of the PC-INP of San Pablo City, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shot one P/Lt. COL. RODELO DIONGLAY with unlicensed firearms, with which the accused were then conveniently provided, thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon the person of said P/Lt. Co. Rodelo Dionglay which caused his immediate death. (Decision, p. 1; Rollo, p. 38).

The accused John Doe remains unidentified and at large. Arcadio Manrique, Jr. entered a plea of "not guilty" and after trial, was sentenced accordingly.

On the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial, the court a quo found that at 6:00 p.m. of May 21, 1985 in Barangay Bagong Pook, San Pablo City, appellant shot and killed Lt. Col. Rodelo Dionglay, the commander of the San Pablo, Laguna PNP Station. The victim was at that time seated on a bench in front of his house, playing dama with Ricardo Dinglasan in the presence of about six other persons. Appellant, with the accused John Doe, sneaked from behind the victim. Appellant was armed with a .38 caliber revolver while John Doe had a .45 caliber pistol. Appellant fired the first shot, hitting Lt. Col. Dionglay at the back. When the latter stood up and ran to escape from his assailants, John Doe fired successive shots at him. Appellant and his companion retreated back to back from the crime scene with their firearms raised in readiness. The wounded victim sought refuge in the house of Pablo Recaña, where he collapsed near the comfort room.chanrobles law library : red

Immediately after the incident, Ricardo Dinglasan and Pablo Recaña were summoned to the police headquarters, where they gave the descriptions of the assailants.

On May 22, 1985, the two eye-witnesses went to the National Bureau of Investigation office in San Pablo City. An NBI artist made a sketch of the assailants based on the description given by them.

On June 5, 1985, Recaña and Dinglasan were again summoned to the police headquarters. Shown a police album, they pointed to a picture of appellant as one of the assailants of Lt. Col. Dionglay.

On June 25, 1985, Pablo Recaña and Marlene D. de Mesa, daughter of the slain official, personally identified appellant in a police line-up at Camp Nakar, Lucena City, as one of the assailants.

Before this Court, appellant claims that the procedure for his identification by the prosecution’s witnesses was conducted irregularly, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) that there was no police line-up as alleged by the prosecution;

(2) that Pablo Recaña and Marlene D. de Mesa contradicted each other on the number of persons present in the room where the confrontation was made; and

(3) that while the police investigators fetched several witnesses from San Pablo City for the identification of the assailant, only one was able to point to him. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 7-8).

Furthermore, appellant argues that the police investigators failed to pursue the theory that the killing of Lt. Col. Dionglay was the handiwork of subversive elements as reported in the issue of the People Journal of May 22, 1985. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 8-9).

As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, there is no rule or set procedure which requires that for anyone to be identified and named as a suspect in a crime, he had to stand among other people to be ceremoniously picked-out (Appellee’s Brief, pp. 13-14) like what is done in the movies.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The other contentions of appellant are likewise unmeritorious. Whether there were inconsistencies on the number of persons in the office of Major Bautista, as testified to by the witnesses, the same relate to minor details, which do not destroy the credibility of their testimonies (People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 [1991]). Testimonial inconsistencies to merit due consideration by the courts, must relate to material matters. The defense has not shown the significance or the materiality of the correct counting of the number of persons present during the confrontation.cralawnad

With regard to the fetching of additional witnesses from San Pablo City, the fact that only one of them was able to identify the appellant bolsters the veracity of the identification. If the bringing of the additional witnesses was stage-managed, all the "rehearsed" witnesses should have pointed their fingers at the Appellant.

Appellant anchors his defense of alibi on the testimony of Artemio Cosico, the owner of the construction project where he worked. Cosico testified that at the time of the commission of the crime, appellant was at his work place, partaking drinks with his foreman. The trial court was in wonder why the foreman was not presented as a witness to corroborate appellant’s alibi.

Cosico made a poor impression as a witness on the trial court, which observed: ". . . This witness is unreliable as he has shown his propensity, for evasiveness and unresponsive answers." (Judgment, p. 7; Rollo, p. 44).

As appellant himself admitted, he left his house at 6:00 p.m. of May 21, 1985 and returned an hour later. Furthermore, he admitted that the travelling time needed to negotiate ADB Subdivision, where appellant lived, to Bagong Pook, where the crime was committed, did not exceed 15 minutes.

The defense of alibi cannot be given any weight in the absence of a convincing proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the place of the commission of the crime (People v. Vasquez, 196 SCRA 564 [1991]).

There was no arbitrariness in the discarding by the police of the theory that the subversives were behind the killing. After the identification of appellant, it was useless for the police to pursue any other theory of the case.

The inquiry by the police into the motive of appellant, while not necessary, helped explain why Lt. Col. Dionglay was liquidated. The inquiry showed that a policeman under Lt. Col. Dionglay’s command, was a suspect in the killing of a brother of appellant and that Lt. Col. Dionglay had a heated altercation with another brother of appellant regarding the custody of said policeman.

The trial court correctly qualified the killing to murder as it was committed with treachery. The shooting was sudden, unexpected and done at close-range when the victim had no expectation whatsoever that he would be attacked (People v. Serenio, 179 SCRA 379 [1989]). Likewise, the trial court correctly appreciated the presence of the aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard of the respect due the victim on account of his rank. Appellant admitted that he knew that the victim was the Chief of Police and the one in charge of the maintenance of peace and order in San Pablo City.

The indemnity of P30,000.00 as civil liability of the accused to the heirs of the deceased in murder cases has been increased to P50,000.00 (People v. Yeban, 190 SCRA 409 [1990]).

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the indemnity to be paid by appellant to the heirs of the victim is increased to P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Aquino, Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 70310-11 June 1, 1993 - MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 71998-99 June 2, 1991

    EMILIANO R. DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99866 June 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIDRO D. DORO

  • G.R. No. 105005 June 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITA A. MARCELO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-460 June 3, 1993 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. OSMUNDO M. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93511 June 3, 1993 - CORAZON L. CABAGNOT v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97309-10 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO QUEJADA

  • G.R. No. 97426 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO APOLINARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97931 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105285 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO D. FIDER

  • G.R. No. 105884 June 3, 1993 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74298 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PATELLAR SACRISTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88246 June 4, 1993 - LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97457 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO CABALLERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100290 June 4, 1993 - NORBERTO TIBAJIA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100606 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEMI BALACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101216-18 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REDENTOR D. DICHOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83902 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCADIO MANRIQUE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84921 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO DURAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88291 June 8, 1993 - ERNESTO M. MACEDA v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 96354 June 8, 1993 - LAPERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98177 June 8, 1993 - BARFEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101292 June 8, 1993 - RICARDO ENCARNACION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102773-77 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO SAYAT

  • G.R. No. 103631 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 106621 June 8, 1993 - PSBA MANILA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95357 June 9, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO GELAVER

  • G.R. No. 57828 June 14, 1993 - SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94630 June 14, 1993 - SALOME ROSENDO RIVAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95539 June 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR B. DATINGGINOO

  • G.R. No. 97835 June 14, 1993 - FIRST GENERAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 100641 June 14, 1993 - FARLE P. ALMODIEL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108957 June 14, 1993 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-92-709 June 14, 1993 - ROGER A. DOMAGAS v. DELIA MALANA

  • G.R. Nos. 94709-10 June 15, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN CABARRUBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106037 June 15, 1993 - RICARDO C. ROA, ET AL. v. PH CREDIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • B.M. No. 553 June 17, 1993 - MAURICIO C. ULEP v. LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-88-142 June 17, 1993 - ERLINDA A. MENDOZA v. RODOLFO A. MABUTAS

  • A.M. No. P-92-673 June 17, 1993 - LUMEN POLICARPIO, ET AL. v. GALLARDO TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 3694 June 17, 1993 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN M. GRECIA

  • G.R. No. 88445 June 17, 1993 - JESUS KHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92492 June 17, 1993 - THELMA VDA. DE CANILANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101730 June 17, 1993 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106011 June 17, 1993 - TOWN SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106374 June 17, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106973 June 17, 1993 - MARIA L. LOPEZ v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108000 June 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-657 June 21, 1993 - LOURDES PRESADO v. MANUEL C. GENOVA

  • G.R. No. 104408 June 21, 1993 - METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105607 June 21, 1993 - HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99843 June 22, 1993 - Sps. BRAULIO ABALOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104304-05 June 22, 1993 - LUNINGNING LANDRITO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993 - ROBERTO A. FLORES, ET AL. v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-752 June 23, 1993 - JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, SR. v. BALTAZAR DIZON

  • G.R. No. 90643 June 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN G. FORTES

  • G.R. No. 93109 June 25, 1993 - MILAGROS LLAMANZARES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101728 June 25, 1993 - RAMON V. ROXAS v. SPS. ANDRES DY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102206 June 25, 1993 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102958 June 25, 1993 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104175 June 25, 1993 - YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105361 June 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ENCISO

  • G.R. No. 105883 June 25, 1993 - LETICIA A. ALIMARIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • A.M. No. RTJ-86-50 June 28, 1993 - ADELAIDA P. FELONGCO v. JUDGE LUIS D. DICTADO

  • G.R. No. 79760 June 28, 1993 - PERPETUAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL. v. JOSE ORO B. FAJARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99333 June 28, 1993 - SPS. ANTONIO PAILANO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102980 June 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR OSIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106498 June 28, 1993 - LOLITA DADUBO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-711-P June 29, 1993 - SPS. ALFONSO AQUINO LIM, ET AL. v. OSCAR GUASCH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78631 June 29, 1993 - COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. ALFREDO C. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97564 June 29, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO CAYETANO

  • G.R. No. 99395 June 29, 1993 - ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. RUBEN O. TORRES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-554 June 30, 1993 - WARLITO ALISANGCO v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 58057 June 30, 1993 - HEIRS OF MARIANO LAGUTAN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA ICAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72319 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALVERO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72608 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO U. ARNAN

  • G.R. No. 86390 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME A. ROSALES

  • G.R. No. 86994 June 30, 1993 - JAIME LOOT v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 94310 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO ALAY-AY

  • G.R. No. 97212 June 30, 1993 - BENJAMIN YU v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98000-02 June 30, 1993 - INOCENCIO PEÑANUEVA, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98321-24 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO S. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100720-23 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CODILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102748 June 30, 1993 - GOULDS PUMPS (PHILS.), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102984 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN TAKBOBO

  • G.R. No. 104609 June 30, 1993 - PHILIP LEE GO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105671 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL M. MAGTULOY

  • G.R. No. 105751 June 30, 1993 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. RUFINO CO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106646 June 30, 1993 - JAIME LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108284 June 30, 1993 - PERSONNEL SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.