[ G.R. Nos. L-47136-39. July 25, 1983 ] 208 Phil. 504
EN BANC
[ G.R. Nos. L-47136-39. July 25, 1983 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO MANALANG Y OCON, ACCUSED. D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Mandatory review of the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal imposing on Romeo Manalang y Ocon the death penalty in each of four murder cases, Criminal Cases Nos. CCC-2169-72-Rizal.
In the late afternoon of August 11, 1977, four (4) persons were found dead by police investigators in the house at No. 126 San Francisco St., Plainview, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. The body of Maria Lourdes Shih was in her bedroom, naked from the waist down. The bodies of Rosita Shih (sexagenarian) and Joy Angelique Shih, a five-year old child, were found in the adjoining room; while that of Hilda Pomida, housemaid, was found in her quarters. All four were victims of stabbing. As would later be revealed by necropsy reports, Maria Lourdes Shih bore twenty-four stab wounds; Rosita Shih, two stab wounds; Joy Angelique Shih, four stab wounds and Hilda Pomida, twenty-one stab wounds.
Earlier, at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Teresita Estonatoc, resident of a house adjacent to the Shihs, heard shouts of “Huwag Romy” or “huwag mommy” coming from the direction of the Shih residence. She went out of her house and saw Romeo Manalang y Ocon, whom she knew because Romeo had previously stayed with the Shihs for about three years, come out of the door and then go back to the Shih house. Sensing something wrong, Estonatoc went to her neighbor’s driveway, peeped through the wire screen, and saw Maria Lourdes Shih lying face up in the sala in a pool of blood. When she saw Romeo come out of Maria Lourdes’ room carrying a towel, she ran back to her house and ordered her son, Gerardo, to call the police. Gerardo then ran to the Municipal Hall and informed the policemen thereat that somebody had been beaten up (binugbog) in a nearby house.
The two policemen who first arrived knocked at the gate of the Shih residence. When no one responded, they asked Teresita Estonatoc what she had seen. Upon being told that Maria Lourdes was lying on the floor full of blood, they summoned assistance. Five other policemen responded. One of them, Pfc. Ruben Baluyot, a police investigator, interviewed Estonatoc, after which the policemen forced their way into the Shih residence where they saw the bodies of the four victims.
Investigation followed. Fingerprints were taken and a sketch of the place was made. Two knives, one bloodstained, were given to Pfc. Baluyot by Pat. Fortunato Capacillo, one of the two policemen who first arrived at the scene. Pat. Capacillo had earlier found these knives at the scene of the crimes. Interviewed further, Teresita Estonatoc identified Romeo Manalang as the only male person in the Shih residence at about the time the crimes took place; and she narrated how she saw Romeo in the house of the Shihs.
At about 3:45 o’clock in the morning of the following day, August 12, 1977, Romeo Manalang y Ocon was apprehended at the construction site of a project of one Engr. Rivera at Tambo, Parañaque, Rizal, by police operatives headed by Capt. Romeo Peña, Chief of the Special Operations Division of the Southern Police District. Recovered from Romeo were a Cal. 22 Smith and Wesson revolver with 6 live ammunition, 30 extra live ammunition, four hundred seventy-one pesos in different denominations, and Maria Lourdes Shih’s other personal belongings such as pictures and ID cards.
Romeo Manalang was brought to the Office of Captain Peña where he executed a six-page extra-judicial confession narrating in detail how and why he killed his four victims.
In the afternoon of August 12, 1977, Romeo Manalang reenacted the crimes in the presence of Capt. Peña, Mandaluyong Police Investigators and Asst. Provincial Fiscal Francisco Ibay, with some women posing as victims. No less than thirty-four pictures of the reenactment, depicting the details of the killing, were taken.
The extrajudicial confession of Romeo Manalang, in Tagalog, is replete with all the horrid details of the killing. Synthesized, the confession states:
Romeo Manalang y Ocon was twenty-three years old and residing with his mother in Caloocan when he committed the crimes. He had long planned to kill Rosita Shih (first cousin of his father but whom he called “Lola”) and Maria Lourdes Shih, whom he called “Marilou”, and he went to their house on August 11, 1977 precisely for that purpose.
Previously, in 1970, he was brought by his mother to the Shih household so that the family could have a male companion and he had deeply resented the fact that during the three years that he stayed with them, he was treated like a mere houseboy and not as a relative. Marilou promised to get a driver’s license for him and to have him taught driving, but the promise remained unfulfilled. He was made to watch the cars of family guests, wait on the family members like a servant (“para akong alila”), fed left-overs, and was cursed at the slightest mistake- “putang ina mo” or at times “tak naido mo”. He had planned to kill Rosita and Marilou even when he was yet living with them but he could not muster enough courage. He left the household full of resentment over the treatment he had received.
When Romeo went to the Shih residence on August 11, 1977, he had come from Odeon Theatre where he saw an English film. The housemaid (Hilda) let him in. He went straight to the kitchen and took some coffee. At that time, only Lola, the child and the housemaid were in the house. The child was sleeping in Lola’s bedroom. Lola asked him (the accused) why he was there when she first saw him, but when she came back after having gone to her bedroom, she scolded him, recalling that he (Romeo) even left the door open when he left the Shih house years back. When Lola turned her back, Romeo drew near, got a kitchen knife and stabbed the old woman. Lola ran to her room but Romeo followed and further stabbed her. When Romeo went out of the room, the maid suddenly appeared shouting “saklolo”. Romeo stabbed her to keep her silent (“para hindi marinig ng mga kapitbahay”). The maid ran towards her quarters but Romeo overtook her. Romeo then continued to stab the maid until she was silent. Romeo went back to Lola’s room still holding the knife. He found the child crying. He also stabbed the girl to death. Thereafter, he waited for Ate Malou, who was then out of the house. Some time later, Malou arrived. With the knife concealed at his back, he opened the gate for Maria Lourdes Shih. She asked him why he was there, and then went straight to the house. He was following behind. When Malou reached the house, he continuously stabbed her, cursing “Tang ina mo, ngayon lang ako makakaganti sa iyo”. After Malou fell, Romeo dragged her into her bedroom. Thereat, he removed Malou’s pants and panty and, having stripped her naked from the waist down, placed a pillow under her buttocks thus exposing the woman’s genitals.
Romeo then went to the faucet and washed his hands and feet. After getting Maria Lourdes’ wallet and key holder from her bag which he emptied on a sofa, Romeo went to the intersection of Boni Avenue and the Hi-way (EDSA), boarded a bus and went to the construction site where he was apprehended by the police.
In his statement, the accused admitted getting from Marilou’s bag the following items which were with him when he was arrested: the Smith and Wesson revolver, extra ammunition, black holster, P459.00, Marilou’s IDs, key holder and Chinese good luck charm.
Romeo Manalang was charged before the Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal with murder in four separate informations which read-
In Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-2169 - Rizal -
“That on or about the 11th day of August, 1977, in the municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery to the person of one Rosita Shih and armed with a kitchen knife, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and stab said Rosita Shih, thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wounds on the different parts of her body which directly caused her death.
“Contrary to law and with additional aggravating circumstances of dwelling of the offended and disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her age who is already sixty (60) years old.”
In Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-2170-Rizal-
“That on or about the 11th day of August, 1977, in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery to the person of one Hilda Pomida and armed with a kitchen knife, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab said Hilda Pomida thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wounds on the different parts of her body which directly caused her death.
“Contrary to the law and with the additional aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party.”
In Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-2171-Rizal-
“That on or about the 11th day of August, 1977, in the municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery to the person of one Joy Angelique Shih and armed with a kitchen knife, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab said Joy Angelique Shih thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wounds on the different parts of her body which directly caused her death.
“Contrary to law and with the additional aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party,”
In Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-2172-Rizal-
“That on or about the 11th day of August 1977, in the municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery to the person of one Maria Lourdes Shih and armed with a kitchen knife, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab said Maria Lourdes Shih thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wounds on the different parts of her body which directly caused her death.”
“Contrary to law and with the additional aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party.”
Arraigned in all four cases of murder, Romeo Manalang, duly assisted by three counsels de oficio pleaded guilty, although advised of the consequences and effects of a plea of guilty. Thereafter, a joint trial was conducted. The prosecution presented Police Capt. Romeo Peña who testified on the search for, and apprehension and confession of Romeo Manalang, and the reenactment of the crimes during which Romeo further explained how he killed the deceased. Capt. Peña identified and explained the photographs taken during the reenactment, and narrated the statements made by Romeo as the latter went through the whole process. The following also testified: Teresita Estonatoc who saw Romeo Manalang in the house of the Shihs at about the time the four murders were committed, identifying him as the person whom she saw coming out of Maria Lourdes Shih’s room as the latter lay full of blood and gasping for breath in the living room; Police investigator Ruben Baluyot who was with the team which entered the Shih house and found the four victims, and Maximo Reyes, the NBI medico-legal officer who conducted the post mortem examination of the cadavers and testified on the number, location and gravity of the wounds inflicted.
After trial, the lower court convicted the accused and sentenced him as follows:
“Wherefore, in view of the spontaneous and voluntary confession of guilt made by accused Romeo Manalang y Ocon, the Court finds him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer one death penalty for each of criminal cases Nos. CCC-VII-2169-Rizal, 2170, 2171, and 2172-Rizal; to indemnify the heirs of the victims, Mrs. Rosita Shih, Hilda Pomida, Joy Angelique Shih, and Ma. Lourdes Shih the amount of P12,000.00 in each of the above-cited criminal cases; to pay moral damages in the amount of P5,000.00 in each of the aforementioned four criminal cases, and another P5,000.00 as exemplary damages in each of the above-entitled cases and to pay the costs.”
After a review of the records of the four cases, we affirm the decision of the trial court, subject to the modifications hereafter indicated.
There can hardly be any doubt that the accused was responsible for the killing of Rosita Shih, Hilda Pomida, Joy Angelique Shih and Ma. Lourdes Shih. He was the only person at the scene of the crime when the mass killing took place - while one of the victims was still gasping for breath on the throes of death. Within twelve hours thereafter, he was arrested with various personal items belonging to one of the victims, which admittedly he took after killing her (Maria Lourdes Shih). He admitted authorship of the crimes in his extrajudicial confession where he narrated horrible details that only the killer could have known and which were found to jibe with the physical facts found by police investigators at the scene of the crime. Thus, in his extrajudicial confession, he disclosed the number of people he had killed and their names, the house where he killed them, the weapon that he used in committing the crimes, the manner of killing, and the precise parts of the Shih house where the killings took place. The accused even disclosed that after killing Maria Lourdes Shih, he dragged her into her room, undressed her, and placed a pillow under her buttocks. (Hinubaran ko po siya ng pantalon at panty tapos ay nilagyan ko ng unan ang puwit niya … para mapahiya po siya kung may makakakita ng “ari” niya.) See extrajudicial confession and Exhibit “U”.
The extrajudicial confession was followed by the reenactment of the crimes during which the accused narrated the gruesome details of his misdeed. This was later affirmed in his voluntary plea of guilty, made with the assistance of counsel de oficio, followed by the taking of evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt the circumstances surrounding the killings and the authorship thereof.
In the four informations charging the accused of murder, treachery, evident premeditation and dwelling were uniformly alleged. They were all found by the trial court to have been established beyond doubt.
Rosita Shih was stabbed suddenly and unexpectedly from behind as she was moving from the accused after a brief conversation with the latter and was about to go to the bathroom. (TSN p. 58; Exhibit “L-2”; Extra-judicial confession, answer to question No. 53.) Maria Lourdes Shih was similarly stabbed by the accused after lulling her into complacency by masking his evil design as he opened the gate for her, hiding the murder weapon behind his back so that his intended victim would not suspect his evil intent. The five-year old child was stabbed by the accused after putting her on bed. (Exhibits L-10 and L-11.) However, the attack on Hilda, the maid, was unplanned. The accused instinctively stabbed her as he was about to leave the room of his first victim (Rosita), when Hilda suddenly appeared at the door and shouted “saklolo”, which impelled the accused to strike her at that very instance to keep her silent. We hold there was no treachery in the killing of Hilda. (People v. Cañete, 44 Phil. 478; People vs. Calinawan, 83 Phil. 647.)
Thus, except as to Hilda, the trial court correctly appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance.
Similarly, dwelling was correctly considered by the trial court as an aggravating circumstance inasmuch as the killings were perpetrated without provocation in the sanctity of the home of the four victims.
The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was present in the killing of Rosita Shih and Maria Lourdes Shih. As admitted by the accused, he went to the Shih house precisely to kill Rosita (Lola) and Maria Lourdes (Marilou).
“Tanong:
Sinabi mo na napatay mo sila sa bahay ni Marilou Shih, bakit ka naman nagpunta sa bahay nila?
Sagot:
Kasi po ay balak ko na po patayin iyang dalawa, sina Lola at Marilou.
. . . . . . . . .
T:
Kailan mo naman binalak na patayin si Lola at si Marilou?
S:
Mahigit na pong tatlong taon kong binabalak.
T:
Ano naman ang dahilan at pinagbabalakan mong patayin ang dalawang ito?
S:
Dahil sa gusto ko pong makaganti sa inabot kong hirap sa kanila.
T:
Anong klaseng paghihirap naman ang inyong tinutukoy na siyang dahilan para mo sila pagbalakan na patayin?
S:
Dahil sa halos ay hindi na po ako makatulog sa bahay, lahat po ng trabaho ay ako ang gumagawa at saka malimit po ay hinihiya nila ako sa harap ng mga tao.
. . . . . . . . .
T:
Noong tumira ka na sa kanila, ano naman ang nangyari doon?
S:
Iyon nga po, ako po ay hindi nila tinarato na kamag-anak kundi katulong at pagpupunta ang nanay ko roon ay saka lamang maganda ang pakita nila sa akin ngunit pagkakaalis ay minamaltrato po ako.
T:
Anong klaseng pagmamaltrato naman ang ginagawa sa iyo ng mga ito, ang ibig sabihin ay ni Lola at Marilou?
S:
Yon po na pagka-may bisita sila ay pinagbabantay ako ng mga kotse sa labas, tapos po sinisilbihan ko sila na para akong alila, tapos sa pagkain ay malimit tira-tira lamang ang pinakakain sa akin, minsan ang ulam ay tatlong araw ng luto ilalagay lamang sa freezer at ang kanin maski lamig ipinakakain sa amin, sa kaunting pagkakamali ay sinasaktan nila ako at minumura ako ng “PUTANG INA MO” minsan murang kapangpangan na “TAK NAIDO MO” tapos pati ang mga kapatid ko ay sinasabi nila ng masasama at halos po ay araw araw ay ginagawa nila sa akin ito.
T:
Noon bang mangyari na sila ay pinatay mo, ikaw ba ay nakatira sa kanila?
S:
Hindi po.
T:
Saan ka naman nakatira ng mangyari and mga bagay na ito?
S:
Doon po sa Caloocan sa Nanay ko.
T:
Kailan ka naman umalis sa bahay nina Marilou?
S:
May dalawang taon na po, kasi dalawang pasko na wala ako sa kanila.
T:
Bale ilan taon ka namang nakatira sa bahay ni Marilou?
S:
Mahigit pong tatlong taon.
T:
Sinabi mo kanina na tatlong taon mo nang binalak na patayin itong mga taong ito, kailan ito nagsimula, noong ikaw ay nakatira pa sa kanila o noong ikaw ay nakaalis na?
S:
Noong nakatira pa po ako sa kanila, mga ikalawang taon ko roon.
T:
Bakit hindi mo naman naisagawa ang balak mong ito sa kanila noong ikaw ay nasa kanila pa?
S:
Wala pa po akong lakas ng loob noon.” (Extrajudicial confession, page 2.)
The words of the accused while he was stabbing Maria Lourdes Shih were revealing:
“T:
Ano naman ang ginawa mo ng siya (Marilou) ay nasa upisina na niya?
S:
Doon ko na nga po siya pinagsasasaksak at habang sinasaksak ko siya ay minumura ko siya ng “TANG INA MO, NGAYON LANG AKO MAKAKAGANTI SA IYO” tapos bumagsak po siya at tapos ay hinila ko siya sa kuarto niya.” (Ibid., p. 4)
While the foregoing circumstances establish evident premeditation as regards the killing of Maria Lourdes and Rosita Shih, they negate the presence thereof in the killing of Hilda Pomida and Joy Angelique Shih, against whom the accused had no standing grudge.
The killing of Rosita Shih was attended by disrespect due her on account of her age, she being a sexagenarian.
As to the killing of Maria Lourdes, the same was also characterized by ignominy, as above depicted.
Appellant contends that the trial court should have allowed him to testify in order to determine the extent of his criminal liability. This is a mis-statement. For the trial court indeed gave the appellant a chance to prove any mitigating circumstance. However, when the trial court realized that what appellant wanted to prove was insanity, which in effect would amount to a withdrawal of his plea of guilty, the court did not allow the appellant to take the witness stand.
“Court
You will not present any evidence? [referring to the counsel (of the accused)].
Atty. Galvan We will, your Honor. Court What? Atty. Galvan The accused, your honor. Court But, why? Fiscal Angeles Are you withdrawing your plea of guilty? Atty. Galvan No. Fiscal Angeles Then, what …., for what purpose? Atty. Galvan
It is our right. Since this is a capital offense, and the accused is entitled to explain himself, your Honor.
Court
But he pleaded guilty and that is already absorbed, so what do you want?
Atty. Galvan There might be some mitigating circumstances.
. . . . . . . . .
Court All right, present any mitigating circumstance. Atty. Galvan We present the accused now, your Honor. Court Swear him in.
. . . . . . . . .
Court What mitigating circumstance will you present? Atty. Galvan
According to this accused, he was not in his complete senses when he committed the killings, and he might be insane, your Honor, and so, we will not be prevented to present our evidence.
Fiscal Angeles Why did he plead guilty? Court
Is that mitigating or aggravating circumstance under Article 13 or 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
Atty. Galvan Insanity, your Honor. Court It is not mitigating. Atty. Galvan
We will submit to the sound discretion of the court, your Honor.
Court
Submitted.” (TSN, August 16, 1977, pages 20-22, Italics supplied.)
The trial court in the exercise of its discretion thus correctly did not allow appellant to testify on his alleged insanity, while maintaining his plea of guilty. Moreover, under Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code, insanity, as an exempting circumstance, means that the accused must have been deprived completely of reason and freedom of the will at the time of the commission of the crime. The execution of the crimes perpetrated by appellant Manalang, as well as his acts subsequent thereto (within 24 hours following the killing), including his narration of the events and his reenactment thereof, clearly indicate that he was in full possession of his faculties. It is quite true that mass killing will not be done by a normal person, but the abnormality inherent in the taking of human life is not the kind of abnormality that will exclude imputability.
Summarizing, we find the accused guilty of the following crimes:
Murder of Rosita Shih - qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation, dwelling and disrespect on account of age.
Murder of Maria Lourdes Shih - qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation, dwelling and ignominy.
Murder of Joy Angelique Shih - qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling.
Homicide of Hilda Pomida, aggravated by dwelling.
Plea of guilty should however be appreciated in all the foregoing crimes as a mitigating circumstance.
WHEREFORE, we affirm the decision of the trial court sentencing appellant Manalang to death for each of the murders of Rosita Shih and Maria Lourdes Shih. For the killing of Joy Angelique Shih, we find the appellant guilty of murder, with dwelling as an aggravating circumstance offset by his plea of guilty, and sentence him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. For the killing of Hilda Pomida, we find the appellant guilty only of homicide, attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling which is offset by his plea of guilty, and sentence him to twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur. Fernando, C.J., concurs in the dissent. Teehankee, J., files a separate concurring opinion. Aquino, J., concurs in separate opinion. Makasiar, J., dissents in separate opinion. De Castro, J., concurs in the dissent of Justice Makasiar.