GR 67662; (February, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-67662. February 9, 1989.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCOS MANALANG Y TAGUINOD, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Marcos Manalang, a 20-year-old cousin, lived with and was supported by the Lorenzo family. He became romantically involved with Maggie Chavez, causing him to neglect his studies and misuse his allowance. Fearing exposure of his deception and the potential loss of both his benefactor’s support and his girlfriend, he conceived a plan to eliminate the family. On January 3, 1984, after the spouses left for work, he sent the househelp on an errand. He then successively killed his 69-year-old aunt Felisa, his two young nephews (aged 9 and 7), and upon her return, the 19-year-old househelp Zenaida. He used a knife and a hammer. Thereafter, he stole cash and jewelry from the victims’ rooms, including a firearm, to fund his escape. He later surrendered to authorities.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of four counts of Murder and one count of Theft, instead of the complex crime of Robbery with Multiple Homicide as charged in the Information.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for four separate crimes of Murder and one crime of Theft, but modified the penalty. The legal logic is twofold. First, the court clarified the nature of the crimes committed. For the killings to constitute the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, the homicide must be committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The evidence established that the appellant decided to and did kill all four victims before committing the robbery. His primary motive was elimination, not theft; the robbery was a mere afterthought to finance his flight. Therefore, the killings were distinct crimes of Murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and not a component of Robbery with Homicide. The theft was a separate felony.
Second, the Court addressed the procedural issue of the Information charging “Robbery with Multiple Homicide.” This was deemed a formal defect that did not prejudice the appellant’s substantial rights. The designation is not controlling; the facts alleged and proven define the crime. The word “multiple” was surplusage, as the number of homicides is immaterial to the complex crime. The error was not fatal. The Court affirmed the findings of guilt but, due to the constitutional prohibition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution , modified the sentence for each Murder to reclusion perpetua and increased the civil indemnity.