G.R. No. 131736 -37 March 11, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Joey Manlansing y Ambrosio, and Mario Manlansing y Ambrosio, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Joey and Mario Manlansing, brothers and former tenants of spouses Magin and Jorja Soriano, were charged with two counts of murder for the deaths of the spouses on December 27, 1994, in Cabanatuan City. Mario pleaded guilty to both charges, while Joey pleaded not guilty. The cases were consolidated. Prosecution evidence showed that the police found the victims’ bodies in their home; Magin had multiple hacking wounds, and Jorja had a hacked neck with a knife found under her body. Dr. Jun Concepcion, who autopsied the bodies, testified that the deaths occurred between 10:00 P.M. on December 27 and 3:00 A.M. on December 28, and that the wounds indicated more than one assailant using two different weapons (a bolo and a knife). Appellant Joey was arrested and, during custodial investigation, named his brother Mario as the killer but admitted boxing Jorja to prevent her from shouting. Appellant Mario was also arrested, confessed, and led police to the hidden bolo. NBI forensic tests confirmed human blood on the bolo and knife. A re-enactment was conducted where Mario stated he and Joey ransacked the house after the killings. NBI fingerprint expert Bayani Palad testified that fingerprints from the crime scene matched Joey’s left middle and ring fingers. Rebuttal witness Mario Bartolome, a balut vendor, testified he saw two men (whom he later identified as the appellants) come out of the Sorianos’ house on the night of the killings wearing bloodied shirts. For the defense, Mario claimed sole responsibility, insisting Joey had no part, and Joey affirmed his statement denying participation but admitting he hit Jorja. The Regional Trial Court convicted both appellants of two counts of murder and sentenced them to death for each count, plus damages.

ISSUE

1. Did the trial court err in convicting both appellants Mario Manlansing and Joey Manlansing for alleged conspiracy to kill the Sorianos?
2. Did the trial court err in imposing the death penalty upon appellants?

RULING

1. The trial court did not err in convicting both appellants. Conspiracy was established beyond reasonable doubt. The collective evidence—including Joey’s admission of hitting Jorja, the medico-legal finding that the wounds required more than one assailant, the recovery of two weapons, Joey’s fingerprints at the crime scene, Mario’s statement during re-enactment that they ransacked the house together, and the eyewitness account of Mario Bartolome seeing both appellants leave the house with bloodied shirts—proved that Joey cooperated in the execution of the criminal design. Mario’s confession exonerating Joey could not prevail over this concrete evidence of conspiracy.
2. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. The qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, abuse of superior strength, and nighttime were not sufficiently alleged in the informations with particularity to allow the imposition of the death penalty. The informations merely stated the circumstances in a generic manner without detailing how they attended the commission of the crime. Under the rules, aggravating circumstances must be stated with specificity to qualify the crime and warrant the death penalty. Since the aggravating circumstances were not properly alleged, the crime is homicide, not murder. However, the penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling (which was proven but not alleged), the penalty is imposed in its maximum period. Each appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count of homicide. The award of damages is modified.