G.R. Nos. 96123-24 March 8, 1993
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO MANALO Y CABISUELAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rodolfo Manalo was charged with two counts of Murder for the deaths of Warlito Bonilla and Carlito Diomampo on November 29, 1981, in San Pablo City. The amended informations alleged the killings were committed with intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation using an unlicensed .45 caliber pistol. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each, plus indemnity and damages. He appealed the decision.
The prosecution’s evidence, primarily through witness Carlos Lacbay, established that on the evening of November 29, 1981, Lacbay, Diomampo, and Bonilla were at Barangay San Rafael. Accused-appellant, a neighbor and acquaintance, invited Diomampo and Bonilla to his house for a drink; Lacbay accompanied them. As they walked to appellant’s house, with Diomampo and Bonilla ahead, followed by appellant and then Lacbay, appellant suddenly shot Diomampo once in the head and then Bonilla once in the temple from behind at close range. Appellant fired another shot at Diomampo. He told Lacbay he killed them because Diomampo had impregnated his daughter. Appellant then asked Lacbay to dig a grave, but Lacbay refused and later escaped. The victims’ bodies were later discovered buried in a shallow pit under the “banggerahan” of appellant’s house. Dr. Francisco Perez, the City Health Officer, conducted autopsies and confirmed the cause of death was gunshot wounds from a .45 caliber gun, with a gunpowder smudge on Diomampo’s wound indicating the gun was fired from very close range.
The defense presented a different version. Appellant claimed that after attending a chapel meeting, he saw two unknown men in front of his house. Later, Lacbay, Diomampo, and Bonilla arrived. The two unknown men then assaulted and shot Diomampo and Bonilla. They ordered appellant to get a spade, and they buried the bodies under his “banggerahan.” The unknown men threatened him not to report the incident.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant based on the testimony of prosecution witness Carlos Lacbay, despite alleged inconsistencies with the medico-legal findings and the lack of physical evidence directly linking appellant to the firing of the gun.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction with modification. The Court found the evidence supported the conviction. The alleged discrepancy between Lacbay’s testimony (that appellant shot from about three meters away) and Dr. Perez’s finding (based on a gunpowder smudge, indicating a distance of no more than eighteen inches) was deemed not fatal. The Court explained that the gunpowder smudge could have been caused by factors other than distance, such as the type of ammunition or an obstruction. Lacbay’s testimony was found credible and consistent on material points. The Court also noted appellant’s own admissions and conduct, including letters to the victim’s father offering settlement and asking for forgiveness, and a letter to the Assistant City Fiscal requesting the charge be reduced to Homicide, which indicated consciousness of guilt. The defense’s story of two unknown assailants was rejected as unbelievable and an obvious concoction. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 for each set of heirs, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.