You are on page 1of 4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NORBERTO MANERO, JR.

,
EDILBERTO MANERO, ELPIDIO MANERO,
SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEAGO,
ROGER BEDAO, RODRIGO ESPIA, ARSENIO VILLAMOR, JR.,
JOHN DOE and PETER DOE
G.R. Nos. 86883-85, January 29, 1993
Facts:
11 April 1985, around 10:00 o'clock in the morning, the Manero
brothers, along with Rodrigo Espia, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren
Pleago and Roger Bedao, were inside the eatery of one Reynaldo
Diocades. They were conferring with Arsenio Villamor, Jr., private
secretary to the Municipal Mayor of Tulunan, Cotabato, and his two (2)
unidentified bodyguards. Plans to liquidate a number of suspected
communist sympathizers were discussed. On the same occasion, the
conspirators agreed to Edilberto Manero's proposal that should they fail
to kill Fr. Peter Geremias.
Later, at 4:00 o'clock, the Manero brothers, together with Espia and the
four (4) others, all with assorted firearms, proceeded to the house of
"Bantil", which was also in the vicinity of Deocades' carinderia and
without any provocation, Edilberto drew his revolver and fired at the
forehead of "Bantil". "Bantil" was able to parry the gun, albeit his right
finger and the lower portion of his right ear were hit. Then they
grappled for its possession until "Bantil" was extricated by his wife
from the fray. But, as he was running away, he was again fired upon by
Edilberto. Only his trousers were hit. "Bantil" however managed to seek
refuge in the house of a certain Domingo Gomez. 10 Norberto, Jr.,
ordered his men to surround the house and not to allow anyone to get
out so that "Bantil" would die of hemorrhage.
At 5:00 o'clock, Fr. Tulio Favali arrived at Km. 125 on board his
motorcycle. He entered the house of Gomez. While inside, Norberto, Jr.,
and his co-accused Pleago towed the motorcycle outside to the center
of the highway. Norberto, Jr., opened the gasoline tank, spilled some
fuel, lit a fire and burned the motorcycle. As the vehicle was ablaze,
the felons raved and rejoiced.
Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire, Fr. Favali accosted Norberto, Jr. In a
flash, Edilberto fired at the head of the priest. As Fr. Favali dropped to
the ground, his hands clasped against his chest, Norberto, Jr., taunted
Edilberto if that was the only way he knew to kill a priest. Slighted over
the remark, Edilberto jumped over the prostrate body three (3) times,
kicked it twice, and fired anew. The burst of gunfire virtually shattered
the head of Fr. Favali, causing his brain to scatter on the road. As
Norberto, Jr., flaunted the brain to the terrified onlookers, his brothers

danced and sang "Mutya Ka Baleleng" to the delight of their comradesin-arms who now took guarded positions to isolate the victim from
possible assistance.
Issue:
Whether or not, accused are guilty of Murder and Attempted Murder by
conspiracy.
Held:
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement
to commit a crime and decide to commit it. 22 It is not essential that
all the accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the
offense. 23 It is enough that an accused participates in an act or deed
where there is singularity of purpose, and unity in its execution is
present. 24
The findings of the court a quo unmistakably show that there was
indeed a community of design as evidenced by the concerted acts of
all the accused. Thus
The other six accused, 25 all armed with high powered firearms, were
positively identified with Norberto Manero, Jr. and Edilberto Manero in
the carinderia of Reynaldo Deocades in La Esperanza, Tulunan,
Cotabato at 10:00 o'clock in the morning of 11 April 1985 morning . . .
they were outside of the carinderia by the window near the table where
Edilberto Manero, Norberto Manero, Jr., Jun Villamor, Elpidio Manero
and unidentified members of the airborne from Cotabato were grouped
together. Later that morning, they all went to the cockhouse nearby to
finish their plan and drink tuba. They were seen again with Edilberto
Manero and Norberto Manero, Jr., at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of
that day near the house of Rufino Robles (Bantil) when Edilberto
Manero shot Robles. They surrounded the house of Domingo Gomez
where Robles fled and hid, but later left when Edilberto Manero told
them to leave as Robles would die of hemorrhage. They followed Fr.
Favali to Domingo Gomez' house, witnessed and enjoyed the burning
of the motorcycle of Fr. Favali and later stood guard with their firearms
ready on the road when Edilberto Manero shot to death Fr. Favali.
Finally, they joined Norberto Manero, Jr. and Edilberto Manero in their
enjoyment and merriment on the death of the priest.
From the foregoing narration of the trial court, it is clear that appellants
were not merely innocent bystanders but were in fact vital cogs in
perpetrating the savage murder of Fr. Favali and the attempted murder
of Rufino Robles by the Manero brothers and their militiamen. Accused
all assumed a fighting stance to discourage if not prevent any attempt
to provide assistance to the fallen priest. They surrounded the house of

Domingo Gomez to stop Robles and the other occupants from leaving
so that the wounded Robles may die of hemorrhage. Undoubtedly,
these were overt acts to ensure success of the commission of the
crimes and in furtherance of the aims of the conspiracy. The appellants
acted in concert in the murder of Fr. Favali and in the attempted
murder of Rufino Robles. While accused-appellants may not have
delivered the fatal shots themselves, their collective action showed a
common intent to commit the criminal acts.
Ty vs People
G.R. No. 149275.
September 27, 2004
Facts: This case stemmed from the filing of 7 Information for violation of B.P.
22against Ty before the RTC of Manila. The said accused drew and
issues to Manila Doctors Hospital to apply on account or for
value to Editha L.Vecino several post-dated checks. The said accused
well knowing that at the time of issue she did not have suffi cient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of such
checks in full upon its presentment, which check when presented
for payment within ninety (90) days from the
d a t e h e re o f , w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s h o n o re d b y t h e d r a w e e
b a n k f o r Account Closed and despite receipt of notice of
such dishonor, said accused failed to pay said Manila Doctors
Hospital the amount of the checks or to make arrangement for full
payment of the same within five (5)banking days after receiving said notice. Ty
claimed that she issued the checks because of an uncontrollable
fear of a greater injury. She claims that she was forced to issue the checks to
obtain release of her mother whom the hospital inhumanely and
harshly treated, and would not discharge unless the hospital bills are paid. The
trial court rendered judgment against Ty. Ty interposed an
appeal with the CA and reiterated her defense that she issued the
checks under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury
or in avoidance of a greater evil or injury. The appellate court affirmed
the judgment of the trial court with modification. It set aside the
penalty of imprisonment and instead sentenced Ty to pay a fine of sixty
thousand pesos P 60,000.00equivalent to double the amount of the check, in
each case.
Issue:
Whether or not the defense of uncontrollable fear is
t e n a b l e t o warrant her exemption from criminal liability?
Held:
No.
Uncontrollable fear Fo r t h i s e xe m p t i n g c i rc u m s t a n c e t o b e i n v o ke d

successfully, the following requisites must concur: (1) existenc


e of an uncontrollable fear; (2) the fear must be real and
imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to
that committed. In the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided
is merely expected or a n t i c i p a t e d .
I f t h e e v i l s o u g h t t o b e a v o i d e d i s m e re l y e x p e c t e d o r anti
cipated or may happen in the future, this defense is not applicable. It must
appear that the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear is of such gravity and
imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it. It
should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear for ones life
or l i m b . A m e re t h re a t o f a f u t u re i n j u r y i s n o t
enough. It should not be
speculative, fanciful, or remote. A person invoking uncontrollab
le fear must show therefore that the compulsion was such that it reduced him
to a mere instrument acting not only without will but against his will as
well. It must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the
accused for escape.
Speculative fear - The fear harbored by Ty was not real and
imminent. Ty claims that she was compelled to issue the checks, a
condition the hospital allegedly demanded of her before her mother
could be discharged, for fear that her mothers health might deteriorate
further due to the inhumane treatment of
the hospital or worse, her mother might commit
s u i c i d e . T h i s i s speculative fear; it is not the uncontrollable fear
contemplated by law.