@
Republic of the Whilippines
Supreme Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE GAR. No. 233108
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appelice,
Present
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Chairperson,
= versus = HERNANDO,
CARANDANG,”
DELOS SANTOS. and
BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J
EDDIE MANANSALAy
ALFARO, Promulgated
Aveuseu- Appellant. oz
DECISION
HERNANDO, J:
Before Us is an appeal! filed by herein accused-appellant Eddie
Manansala y Alfaro (Manansala)assailing the January 5, 2017 Decision? ofthe
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07893 which found him
bbeyond reasonable doubt ofthe crime of Murder.
The Information’ by which Manansala was charged, alleged:
‘Thatono about November 2.2013 inthe City of Manila, Pippin,
the sid accuse i then an thee wilfully unlawfully and felonious with
intent kill an with teahery and evident premeditation, tack. ssa nd
tse personal violence upon one ARMANDO RAMOS y SANTOS, by then
‘ata, p20 pepe by Asoc ice arene Gz and cnc by Asoc sesGR No.233104
snd there shooting him wih «handgun iting the et potion of his uppet
body (ack) thereby inflicting pon kim mortal gunshot wound which ras
‘the direst and immediate ease of his death thereat,
Contrary t a
During arraignment, Manansala pleaded “not guilty” to the crime
charged.‘ Thereafter, pre-trial and trial ensued, The prosecution presented the
eyewitness accounts of Edward Reyes (Edward? and Renato R. Mananguil
(Mananquil). It likewise presented the testimonies of Corazon Ramos
(Corazon) the vitims wife; Asas Ramos (Asas).' the victim's son; Barangay
Kagawad Jume Piojo (Piojo}” Police Officer | Leopoldo N. Tuazon (PO!
Tuazon):" Dr, Romeo T. Salen (Dr. Salen), medico-legal expert; and Senior
Police Officer 1 Jonathan L. Moreno (SPO1 Moreno). the investigating
officer.
‘The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimony of Manansala!™
and his daughter, Kiera Noreen Manansila (Kiera)!
Version ofthe Prosecution:
On November 2, 2013, at around 8 o'clock in the evening, brothers
Edvard and Elmer Reyes were in front oftheir rented apartment owned by the
vietim Armando Ramos (Ramos) at No. 2637 Severino Reyes Street, Tondo,
Manila, where the latter also resides. The Reyes brothers were watching,
Mananguil play his auitar beside the door of their rented apartment when
suddenly they heard a gunshot inside the house, Edward then Saw Manansala
facing towards the direction of the stirs and holding a gun aimed upwards.
‘Thereafter, Manansala hurviedly left towatds Lico Street while sil holding a
gun. Shouts and commotion soon followed upstairs. Edward also saw Ramos
fall from the stairs with blood oozing from his lett chest."
Corazon, for her part, testified that she was taking a bath atthe second
{oor oftheir house when Manasala came and shot her husband. When she heard
the gunshot, she immediately ran and saw her husband lying atthe bottom of
the stairs covered with blood. Asas, the victim's son who was also inside the
house, ikewise heard the gunshot and his fathers shout, He quickly ran towards
the door and saw his father falling down the stair.”
TSN Fabry 26,201, pp 224
few
ISN, Ap 30,20. 2:11 TSN. 28.2014 9p 28
‘argoDecision 3 GR. No, 235104
Several onlookers rushed Ramos to the Chinese General Hospital,
Corazon immediately followed but upon her arrival, she was told that her
husband had already expired."
‘A concemed citizen reported the shooting incident 10 the police
authorities. POI Marinito Daya and POI Tuazon went to verify the report, Upon
confirmation, Police Superintendent Roderick Mariano formed a team headed
by Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Alvin Balagat (PSI Balagat) 10 conduet an
extensive follow-up and hot pursuit operation for the apprehension of
Manansala.””
‘Meanwhile, upon Corazon’s request, Ramos’s cadaver was examined by
Dr. Salen. The medical findings indicated thatthe entry point ofthe gunshot
‘wound was atthe vietim’s back, pantcularly atthe lambar region, while the exit
point was atthe front portion of the body. The trajectory ofthe bullet From the
entrance to the exit was upward andthe distance between the muzzle ofthe gun
and the vietim’s body was about two feet or more The gunshot wound fatally
lacerated the lungs and the heart which caused the vitim’s death,”
(On November 6, 2013, the team of PSI Balagat received an information
that Manansala was hiding in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. They immediately
coordinated with Chief PSupt Jel Estris (CPSupt. Estaris). The nextday, PSI
alagat and his team went to San Jose Del Monte after receiving information
from CPSupt. Estaris that Manansala is already in their custody. PSI Balagat
and his team verified the identity of Manansala and thereafter brought him 10
Jose Abad Santos Police Station (PS-7), Manila Police District (MPD) for
verification. Manansals was then turned aver to MPD’s Crime Against Person
Section
During trial, the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footages ofthe crime
scene were presented in court where a man appearing to be Manansala was seen
entering the house while armed with a gun and proceeding upstairs. The man
then aimed his gun, shot the vitim and immediataly thereafter left the house
Asas testified that he was the one who transferred the video footages from
the barangay-owned CCTV that was located outside their house 1 the compact
ise that was submitted in court as evidence. When the footage was played in
court and the enlarged screenshot was presented, he identified said person as
‘Manansala and the perpetrator of the crime,
‘The prosecution also presented the testimony of Barangay Kagawad
Piojo who confirmed the location of the CCTV. He also impressed upon the
‘rial court that prior to the killing incident, there were several complaints filed
against Manasala conceming the ‘installation of illegal electricDecision ‘ GR No, 233106
cconnections/jumpers. These complaints became the subject of the altercation
between Manasala and Ramos one day before the latter was killed
Version ofthe Defense:
Manansala, on the other hand, averred that on November 2, 2013, at
around 7 o'clock inthe evening, he was on his way to Bulacan to visithis fiend,
‘Allan Bautista (Bautista). While on his way, he passed by the house af Ramos
then took the bus bound for Bulacan and arrived thereat past 8 o'clock in the
evening,
‘On November 3, 2013, he was surprised upon being informed by his
daughter, Kiera, that he was_the suspect in the killing of Ramos and that the
{ulling was all over the local news. He denied killing Ramos and planned to
surrender to a certain “Col. Pascual", Kiera's godparent. However, on
[November 5, 2013, he was suddenly arrested in Bautista's home by the police
forces of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan.
‘Manansala claimed that he had known Ramos since he was 13 years old
and that he was the one doing the rpsits for his eletrcity and water supply,
However, Ramos hac! ill-feelings towards him because of the jumpers he
installed which Manansala claimed even benefitted Ramos and his tenants, He
denied the allegations against him, as well as of owning a gun. Kiera
corroborated his sory
ling of the RIC:
In its October 20, 2015 Decision * the RTC adjudged Manansala guilty
as charged. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads
WHEREPORE, in the light ofthe foregoing the proseeuion having
proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt ofthe exime of
‘Marder, he accused EDDIE MANANSALA y ALFARO, alias “Ee Pus",
alls “Bulag” hereby sentenced to RECLLUSION PERPETUA,
[Aso te evil Tibi, the cused serch’ onre to pay the bits
ofthe deceased Armando Ramos, the following
1 107,286.17 a actual damages)
2875.60.00 asi inde; and)
3, B50,000.00 as moral danas
‘so onpenen:
‘The RTC relied heavily on the accounts of the eyewitnesses pointing to
Manansala as the author of the crime, especially since their accounts were
corroborated by the CCTV footages.
23.5 pena ty sige Martin M NanDecision s GR. No, 233108
‘The RTC found that treachery attended the commission of the crime
because the shooting was sudden and unexpected, leaving the vietim no chance
to defend himself. As revealed by the medieal finding, the entrance ofthe fatal
{gunshot wound was at the back ofthe vietim’s body.** The tral cout also found
the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation to be present, The RTC
noted that there was a prior public confrontation and altercation between the
vietim and Manansala on the alleged installation of eletrc jumpers, The tial
court surmised that Manansala must have harbored resentment against the
vietim and resolved to kill him asa form of retal
All inall, the trial court held thatthe prosecution satisfactorily established
the guilt of Manansala beyond reasonable doubt and successfully proved all the
clements of Murder.
Ruling ofthe Ca:
Upon review, the CA. sustained the finding of the RTC that the
prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime of Murder and
has proved the guilt of Manansala beyond reasonable doubt.
‘The CA gave credence to the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution which reasonably and positively pointed to Manansala asthe person
‘who shot the vitim as the same was corroborated by the CCTV footages played
and viewed in open court.”
‘The CA held that the RTC correctly admitted the CCTV footages as
evidence as well as the competency of Asas in attesting tothe accuracy ofthe
footages. The appellate court rejected the argument of Manansala that Asas was
hot qualified to authenticate the footages as he was not the one who made the
recording and that the CCTV was owned by the barangay. The CA held thatthe
Rules on Electronic Evidence provides that the one who made the recording can
authenticate the video, as well as any other person competent to testify on the
accuracy of the video.”
Finally, the CA held that considering the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation, the proper imposable penalty is death
However, due to its proscription, the CA imposed instead the penalty of
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The CA also modified the
monetary awards by increasing the amounts of civil indemnity and moral
damages to P100,000.00 each and awarding exemplary damages for the same
amountDecision 6 GR. No, 235104
‘Thus, the dispositive portion ofthe January 5, 2017 Decision” of the CA
states:
WHEREFORE, the assiel cision dato October 20,2015 ofthe
Regional Trial Cour, Branch 25, Mania finding scewsed-appetart EDDIE
MANANSALA y ALFARO @ “Eddie Psa" “Bulag” gully beyond
‘essonnble doubt of the cine of muse is AFFIRMED without iis
for parole.
Te cv abies accusd-appelian are hereby MODIFLED, ant
hes orered 1 pay the heirs of decetaed Armando Ramos teflon
Pip 100.00.00 by way of ii indemnity ex dere:
Pp 100,000.00 by way of moral dager:
Pap 100,000.00 byway of exemplay damages;
Pp 107286.17 a acta damages an
All monetary awards shal eam interest atthe ate of six
erent (6) per anna fom dat of iyo this Dees uni ily pad.
‘SO ORDERED
Undeterred, Manansala filed his appeal before Us.
Assignment of Errors
L
‘THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
INSUFFICIENCY OF TIM PROSECUTION'S FVIDENCE TO PROVE
THATIT WaS THE FORMER WHO SHOT THE VICTIM.
‘THE COURT 4 OU0 GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO SUFFICIENTLY. ESTABLISH THE
EXISTENCE OF TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.”
Our Ruling
‘The instant appeal is dismissed
Settled is the rue that an appeal in a criminal ease throws the entire ease
wide open for review. Thus, it becomes the duty of the appellate cour to correct
any error that may be found in the appealed judgment, Whether assigned as an
error of not. Inthe crime of murder, the elements of murder and the aggravating
circumstances qualifying the killing must be proven beyond reasonable doubt
by the prosecution.”
SP Ma, GR. No 21724, a 5,208Decision 7 GR. No, 233104
Here, Manansala was charged with Murder qualified by evident
premeditation and teachery. Anicle 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
states:
Antcl 248, Murder. - Any person wh, ot filing within the provisions
of Amticle 246 shall Kill another, shall be guy of murder and shal be
‘Punished by rectsion temporal nt axiom pei to death, reamed
‘with any ofthe Following tendut cnemstances
1. With weachery xxx
5. With evident pemesittion,
Jurisprudence dictates thatthe elements of murder areas follows: () that
4 person was killed; (b) thatthe accused killed him; (c) thatthe killing was
attended by any ofthe qualifying cireumstances mentioned in Article 248; and
(@) that the killing isnot paricide or infanticide."
‘Thus, for the charge of Murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt that (1) the offender killed the vietim, (2) through
treachery, or by any of the other five qualiiying cicumstances, dly alleged in
the Information.”
Inthe case at bar, the death ofthe victim Ramos is undisputed and there
is no question that the killin is neither particide nor infanticide. The remaining
points of contentions are wlnedier Manansala was the perpettator ofthe crime
and whether the killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation.
‘This Court agrees with the CA thatthe pieces of circumstantial evidence
sufficiently support the finding that Manansala was the one who Killed the
victim. It is an elementary rule in ctiminal law that absence of direct evidence
will not bar conviction of the accused when pieces of circumstantial evidence
satisfactorily prove the ime charged
In People ». Evangetio,” this Cour elaborated on how circumstantial
‘evidence may be appreciated 10 support convietion, thus:
Circumstantial evidence also known sine or nesumptive evidence,
tefers to proof of collateral ais an circumstances whence te existence o the
iain fort may be infeed according o reason and common experience
Gireamstanal evidence is suicint ts sustincnvction i a) there B more
‘than one circumstance; (b) the fats from which the inferences are derived
are proven; (€) he combination af ll circumstances such as to proce
‘conviction beyond reasonable doubt, A julgment of conviton Based on
‘ircumstantal evidence canbe sustained when the circumstances proved
form an unbroken chain that results «far and reasonable conclusion
Pointing tothe acuse, ro the exclusion of al ther. ns the perpet
[mph supaDecision ‘ GR.No. 233104
Here, We are in agreement with the Office ofthe Solicitor General in its
brief, as affirmed by the CA, thatthe prosecution was able to establish that
Manansala was the author of the crime of murdet based on the following
circumstantial evidence:
1. Upon hearing the gunshot, Eswand tuned around and sw appellant
Dolding
2. When Edward saw appllant, the later ws fing the sis ofthe
victim's house where he id hs gun amo onan the sir
3. Afler Edward saw appellant rinning towards Lio Sree, the former
‘went ek tothe place where the guns was sd aa these se the itn
face down on the ground Blooded and unconciovs, Blood was coving from
the victim's ect
‘4 Mananquil on the oe han, afer hearing the guns tured to his
"ight and saw appellant coming out rm the house the vei
'. When appellant was no longer inthe vicinity of the shooting.
Mananguil went Bak tothe vit’ House. There es the vit Ing
down,
6. The CCTV and its printouts conohoratng the testimonies of Edvard
and Mananguil"
‘The inescapable conclusion based on the above circumstances lid out by
the prosecution convincingly point to Manansala asthe killer
Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the divest
‘employment of means, methods, o fons the exciton ofthe eime against
{ore offender nsng from te defense which he offended pa night make
The essence of teacher) is tat the aick is dlierte and without waning
done in-a swift and unoxpocted ay, affording the hapless unarmed and
‘unsuspecting vitim ne chance resist or eseape. In onder for each to be
‘ropetly appreciated, evo clement mathe present (1) the tinea the tack
the vicina not in'a positon to defend hinsel: and (2) the accused
‘consciously and deliberately adopted the pareulr means, metas, o forms
fF atack employed hy hi, x33
‘These elements are present in this ease as testified to by the prosecution
‘witnesses and corroborated by the CCTV footages.
Manansala stealthily entered the house of the vietim and shot him while
‘he was going upstairs. The fatal wound was inflicted from behind since the entry
point was located atthe back lumbar region while the exit point was atthe front
portion of the victim’s body with the trajectory traversing upwards, These
clearly indicate that the vietim was going upstairs with his back towards the
assailant when he was shot. We ate thus in agreement with the OSG that
treachery attended the killing ss the vietim’s position rendered him defenseless
from the sudden attack from behind.*
Pe Rca 87 i s.r ars,Decision ° GR No 255108
Incidentally, treachery was also proven by the CTY footages presented
in court and testifed on by witness Asas. Pertinent excerpts of Asas” testimony
shows the following:
ACP POSO:
During te last bearing you were asked to produce the age mags extracted
Inthe CCTY, do you have that copy ofthe picture or larger image of what
‘were marked ung the presentation of your festinony?
WITNESS [ASA5):
Yeesi
‘AcP POso
‘The wines handed 9 me these pictures. these pictues handed Yo me,
vere isthe tart or the Bepianing of the video?
WITNESS
topo.
‘AcP POso
‘May {pray that this felage] picture rom the CCTV menor be {marked
‘sour exhibit U. Ths is prior tothe shooting your Honor. Another [tlaged]
(se) copy of he pcre depiing some ping ears U-1 pour
court
Markit
ace paso
‘Whos [depicted inthis pict?
HTNESS
Eddie Manassas
Ace POsO.
‘While looking rhe door where the incident happened the person identified
1s Ee Manan be [marked] as exhibit V?
court
‘kay how abot the first ne, the ist picture?
cP POsO.
‘Also the accused your Honor. The accused your Honor, The aecused as
inte toby the witness as V- your Honor?
court
Markit
ACP PoSO.
‘Anoter picture ofthe accused while he was lead about fo paste door of
the house where the incident happened as exhibit W your Honor ad the
Picture othe accused looking ate doors W-1?
court
Mark iDesison 0 GR.No. 233108
ACP pOSO,
Another picture showing the acu [csring| the door of the house and
raising his arm while shooting the vsti a extubitX andthe location of the
secused a ou exit X1?
court
Olay.
ACP POO.
“The picture showing the aceused after the shooting letving he door of the
hows where the incident happened a exhibit ¥ andthe pete holding the
um ight afer the shoting exhibit Y-1 your Honor?
court,
Marc i*
‘This Court agrees with the RTC jn appreciating the CCTV footages and
admitting the same as evidence because they bolstered the testimonies of the
‘witnesses and supported the finding of treachery in the ease at bar. As correctly
held by the CA, the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides that persons
authorized to authenticate the video or CCTV recording is not limited solely to
the person who made the recording but also by another competent witness who
can testify t0 its accuracy. In the case at har, Asas was able fo establish the
‘origin of the recording and explain how it was transfered tothe compact dise
and subsequently presented to the trial court! Hence, this Court finds 10
reason to contradict such finding,
However, this Court finds that the prosecution was not able to
satisfactorily establish the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation,
Per jurisprudence, “[tJhe elements of evident premeditation ae: (1) a previous
decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) an overt actor acts manifestly
indicating thatthe accused clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time
between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to
allow accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts:
‘The above circumstances are not present in the ease at bar. The only
basis forthe RTC and the appellate court in finding evident premeditation as
attendant tothe crime was the confrontation between the victim and Manansala
‘one day before the killing. The trial court merely surmised that Manansala must
hhave harbored feelings of resentment towatds the victim and has clung to that
‘thought and killed the vitim,
‘The essence of evident premeditation is tha the execution ofthe criminal
‘act mus be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry
‘out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arsive a a calm
judgment. When itis not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched
‘or what time had elapsed before it was caried out, evident premeditation cannot
Pegi Kain GR. NoDecision u GR.No. 253108
be considered, “Evident premeditation must be based on external acts and must,
be evident, not merely suspected, indicating deliberate planning.”
Nevertheless, despite the absence of evident premeditation, the killing
remains to be murder in view of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Necessarily so, this Cour modifies the penalty imposed in light with our
pronouncement in People v Juguera™ and revert the penalty to reclusion
perpetua in accordance with Article 248 of the RPC. Considering too that no
‘other agaravating circumstance was present in the killing, the awards of civil
indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be reverted to
+P75,000.00 each."
Anent the award of actual damages, Article 2199 of the Civil Code
provides that “one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
Pecuniary oss suffered by him as he has duly proved.” In this ease, the amount
‘ofP7,286.17" and P100,000.00" as hospital and funeral expenses, respectively,
\were ‘duly supported by official receipts. The handwritten list of expenses
amounting t0 #36,000.00 as shovn in Exhibit S* were not duly supported by
receipts hence were properly disregarded. The heirs ofthe victim ate therefore
‘entitled to be paid the amount of P107,286.17 as actual damages.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The January 5,2017
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CR HC No. 07893 is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in thot accused-appellant CDDIE
MANANSALA y ALFARO @ “Eddie Pusa,” @ “Bulag” is found GUILTY
‘of Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, He is
‘ordered to pay the heirs of deceased Armando Ramos the following:
1. 75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
2. 75,000.00 as moral damages;
3. 75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
4 P107,286.17 a actual damages.
Interest a the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be in
agategate amount of the monetary awards computed from the fi
Decision until full payment.
«Pe at 6. 978 GHD.
seh sein
sn res,Desison 2 GR No.223104
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
rsresasl fees senna
Sites
oe
ight or, remo, ste natents
fone hi pomeias haa
on official Les
PRISCILLA J. BALTAZARSPADILLA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
1 attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the ease was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division
este wifi as nema
Sonor seas aie
‘hatnenDecision 8 GR No. 253104
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
(Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify thatthe conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the ease was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division,
DIOSDADG M. PERALTA