Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 86883-85 January 29, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
NORBERTO MANERO, JR., EDILBERTO MANERO, ELPIDIO MANERO,
SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEÑAGO, ROGER BEDAÑO,
RODRIGO ESPIA, ARSENIO VILLAMOR, JR., JOHN DOE and PETER
DOE, accused.

SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEÑAGO and ROGER

BENDAÑO, accused-appellants.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Romeo P. Jorge for accused-appellants.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

This was gruesome murder in a main thoroughfare an hour before sundown. A hapless
foreign religious minister was riddled with bullets, his head shattered into bits and
pieces amidst the revelling of his executioners as they danced and laughed around
their quarry, chanting the tune "Mutya Ka Baleleng", a popular regional folk song,
kicking and scoffing at his prostrate, miserable, spiritless figure that was gasping its
last. Seemingly unsatiated with the ignominy of their manslaughter, their leader picked
up pieces of the splattered brain and mockingly displayed them before horrified
spectators. Some accounts swear that acts of cannibalism ensued, although they were
not sufficiently demonstrated. However, for their outrageous feat, the gangleader
already earned the monicker "cannibal priest-killer" But, what is indubitable is that Fr.
Tulio Favali1 was senselessly killed for no apparent reason than that he was one of
the Italian Catholic missionaries laboring in heir vineyard in the hinterlands of
Mindanao.2

In the aftermath of the murder, police authorities launched a massive manhunt which
resulted in the capture of the perpetrators except Arsenio Villamor, Jr., and two
unidentified persons who eluded arrest and still remain at large.

Informations for Murder,3 Attempted Murder4 and Arson5 were accordingly filed
against those responsible for the frenzied orgy of violence that fateful day of 11 April
1985. As these cases arose from the same occasion, they were all consolidated in
Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan, Cotabato.6
After trial, the court a quo held —

WHEREFORE . . . the Court finds the accused Norberto Manero, Jr.

alias Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero,
Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleñago
and Roger Bedaño GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Murder, and with the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and
treachery, hereby sentences each of them to a penalty of imprisonment
of reclusion perpetua; to pay the Pontifical Institute of Foreign Mission
(PIME) Brothers, the congregation to which Father Tulio Favali
belonged, a civil indemnity of P12,000.00; attorney's fees in the sum of
P50,000.00 for each of the eight (8) accused or a total sum of
P400,000.00; court appearance fee of P10,000.00 for every day the
case was set for trial; moral damages in the sum of P100,000.00; and to
pay proportionately the costs.

Further, the Court finds the accused Norberto Manero, Jr. alias
Commander Bucay GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Arson and with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
hereby sentences him to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of
not less than four (4) years, nine (9) months, one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as
maximum, and to indemnify the Pontifical Institute of Foreign Mission
(PIME) Brothers, the congregation to which Father Tulio Favali
belonged, the sum of P19,000.00 representing the value of the
motorcycle and to pay the costs.

Finally, the Court finds the accused Norberto Manero, Jr., alias
Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero,
Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleñago
and Roger Bedaño GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Attempted Murder and with the application of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, hereby sentences each of them to an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of not less than two (2) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, and minimum, to eight (8) years
and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the
complainant Rufino Robles the sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees
and P2,000.00 as court appearance fee for every day of trial and to pay
proportionately the costs.

The foregoing penalties shall be served by the said accused

successively in the order of their respective severity in accordance with
the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.7

From this judgment of conviction only accused Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren
Pleñago and Roger Bedaño appealed with respect to the cases for Murder and
Attempted Murder. The Manero brothers as well as Rodrigo Espia did not appeal;
neither did Norberto Manero, Jr., in the Arson case. Consequently, the decision as
against them already became final.
Culled from the records, the facts are: On 11 April 1985, around 10:00 o'clock in the
morning, the Manero brothers Norberto Jr., Edilberto and Elpidio, along with Rodrigo
Espia, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño, were inside the
eatery of one Reynaldo Diocades at Km. 125, La Esperanza, Tulunan, Cotabato. 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. Arsenio Villamor, Jr.
scribbled on a cigarette wrapper the following "NPA v. NPA, starring Fr. Peter,
Domingo Gomez, Bantil, Fred Gapate, Rene alias Tabagac and Villaning." "Fr. Peter"
is Fr. Peter Geremias, an Italian priest suspected of having links with the communist
movement; "Bantil" is Rufino Robles, a Catholic lay leader who is the complaining
witness in the Attempted Murder; Domingo Gomez is another lay leader, while the
others are simply "messengers". On the same occasion, the conspirators agreed to
Edilberto Manero's proposal that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter Geremias, another
Italian priest would be killed in his stead.8

At about 1:00 o'clock that afternoon, Elpidio Manero with two (2) unidentified
companions nailed a placard on a street-post beside the eatery of Deocades. The
placard bore the same inscriptions as those found on the cigarette wrapper except for
the additional phrase "versus Bucay, Edil and Palo." Some two (2) hours later, Elpidio
also posted a wooden placard bearing the same message on a street cross-sign close
to the eatery.9

Later, at 4:00 o'clock, the Manero brothers, together with Espia and the four (4)
appellants, all with assorted firearms, proceeded to the house of "Bantil", their first
intended victim, which was also in the vicinity of Deocades' carinderia. They were met
by "Bantil" who confronted them why his name was included in the placards. Edilberto
brushed aside the query; instead, he asked "Bantil" if he had any qualms about it, 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 any one to get out so that "Bantil" would die of
hemorrhage. Then Edilberto went back to the restaurant of Deocades and pistol-
whipped him on the face and accused him of being a communist coddler, while
appellants and their cohorts relished the unfolding drama. 11

Moments later, while Deocades was feeding his swine, Edilberto strewed him with a
burst of gunfire from his M-14 Armalite. Deocades cowered in fear as he knelt with
both hands clenched at the back of his head. This again drew boisterous laughter and
ridicule from the dreaded desperados.

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 Pleñago 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. 12
Upon seeing his motorcycle on fire, Fr. Favali accosted Norberto, Jr. But the latter
simply stepped backwards and executed a thumbs-down signal. At this point, Edilberto
asked the priest: "Ano ang gusto mo, padre (What is it you want, Father)? Gusto mo,
Father, bukon ko ang ulo mo (Do you want me, Father, to break your head)?"
Thereafter, 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 comrades-in-arms who now took
guarded positions to isolate the victim from possible assistance. 13

In seeking exculpation from criminal liability, appellants Severino Lines, Rudy Lines,
Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño contend that the trial court erred in disregarding
their respective defenses of alibi which, if properly appreciated, would tend to establish
that there was no prior agreement to kill; that the intended victim was Fr. Peter
Geremias, not Fr. Tulio Favali; that there was only one (1) gunman, Edilberto; and,
that there was absolutely no showing that appellants cooperated in the shooting of the
victim despite their proximity at the time to Edilberto.

But the evidence on record does not agree with the arguments of accused-appellants.

On their defense of alibi, accused brothers Severino and Rudy Lines claim that they
were harvesting palay the whole day of 11 April 1985 some one kilometer away from
the crime scene. Accused Roger Bedaño alleges that he was on an errand for the
church to buy lumber and nipa in M'lang, Cotabato, that morning of 11 April 1985,
taking along his wife and sick child for medical treatment and arrived in La Esperanza,
Tulunan, past noontime.

Interestingly, all appellants similarly contend that it was only after they heard gunshots
that they rushed to the house of Norberto Manero, Sr., Barangay Captain of La
Esperanza, where they were joined by their fellow CHDF members and co-accused,
and that it was only then that they proceeded together to where the crime took place
at Km. 125.

It is axiomatic that the accused interposing the defense of alibi must not only be at
some other place but that it must also be physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 14

Considering the failure of appellants to prove the required physical impossibility of

being present at the crime scene, as can be readily deduced from the proximity
between the places where accused-appellants were allegedly situated at the time of
the commission of the offenses and the locus criminis, 15 the defense of alibi is
definitely feeble. 16After all, it has been the consistent ruling of this Court that no
physical impossibility exists in instances where it would take the accused only fifteen
to twenty minutes by jeep or tricycle, or some one-and-a-half hours by foot, to traverse
the distance between the place where he allegedly was at the time of commission of
the offense and the scene of the crime. 17 Recently, we ruled that there can be no
physical impossibility even if the distance between two places is merely two (2) hours
by bus. 18 More important, it is well-settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over
the positive identification of the authors of the crime by the prosecution witnesses. 19

In the case before Us, two (2) eyewitnesses, Reynaldo Deocades and Manuel Bantolo,
testified that they were both inside the eatery at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of
11 April 1985 when the Manero brothers, together with appellants, first discussed their
plan to kill some communist sympathizers. The witnesses also testified that they still
saw the appellants in the company of the Manero brothers at 4:00 o'clock in the
afternoon when Rufino Robles was shot. Further, at 5:00 o'clock that same afternoon,
appellants were very much at the scene of the crime, along with the Manero brothers,
when Fr. Favali was brutally murdered. 20 Indeed, in the face of such positive
declarations that appellants were at the locus criminis from 10:00 o'clock in the
morning up to about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, the alibi of appellants that they were
somewhere else, which is negative in nature, cannot prevail. 21 The presence of
appellants in the eatery at Km. 125 having been positively established, all doubts that
they were not privy to the plot to liquidate alleged communist sympathizers are
therefore removed. There was direct proof to link them to the conspiracy.

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a

crime and decide to commit it. 22It 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. 26

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. For sure, appellants 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. 27Undoubtedly, 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.

While it may be true that Fr. Favali was not originally the intended victim, as it was Fr.
Peter Geremias whom the group targetted for the kill, nevertheless, Fr. Favali was
deemed a good substitute in the murder as he was an Italian priest. On this, the
conspirators expressly agreed. As witness Manuel Bantolo explained 28 —

Q Aside from those persons listed in that paper to be killed,

were there other persons who were to be liquidated?

A There were some others.

Q Who were they?

A They said that if they could not kill those persons listed
in that paper then they will (sic) kill anyone so long as he
is (sic) an Italian and if they could not kill the persons they
like to kill they will (sic) make Reynaldo Deocades as their
sample.

That appellants and their co-accused reached a common understanding to kill another
Italian priest in the event that Fr. Peter Geremias could not be spotted was elucidated
by Bantolo thus 29 —

Q Who suggested that Fr. Peter be the first to be killed?

A All of them in the group.

Q What was the reaction of Norberto Manero with respect

to the plan to kill Fr. Peter?

A He laughed and even said, "amo ina" meaning "yes, we

will kill him ahead."

xxx xxx xxx

Q What about Severino Lines? What was his reaction?

A He also laughed and so conformed and agreed to it.

Q Rudy Lines.
 A He also said "yes".

Q What do you mean "yes"?

A He also agreed and he was happy and said "yes" we will

kill him.

xxx xxx xxx

Q What about Efren Pleñago?

A He also agreed and even commented laughing "go

ahead".

Q Roger Bedaño, what was his reaction to that suggestion

that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter, they will (sic) kill
anybody provided he is an Italian and if not, they will (sic)
make Reynaldo Deocades an example?

A He also agreed laughing.

Conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design being sufficiently shown,

the act of one is the act of all the other conspirators, and
the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary. 30

The award of moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 to the congregation, the
Pontifical Institute of Foreign Mission (PIME) Brothers, is not proper. There is nothing
on record which indicates that the deceased effectively severed his civil relations with
his family, or that he disinherited any member thereof, when he joined his religious
congregation. As a matter of fact, Fr. Peter Geremias of the same congregation, who
was then a parish priest of Kidapawan, testified that "the religious family belongs to
the natural family of origin." 31 Besides, as We already held, 32 a juridical person is not
entitled to moral damages because, not being a natural person, it cannot experience
physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental
anguish or moral shock. It is only when a juridical person has a good reputation that
is debased, resulting in social humiliation, that moral damages may be awarded.

Neither can We award moral damages to the heirs of the deceased who may otherwise
be lawfully entitled thereto pursuant to par. (3), Art. 2206, of the Civil Code, 33 for the
reason that the heirs never presented any evidence showing that they suffered mental
anguish; much less did they take the witness stand. It has been held 34 that moral
damages and their causal relation to the defendant's acts should be satisfactorily
proved by the claimant. It is elementary that in order that moral damages may be
awarded there must be proof of moral suffering. 35 However, considering that the
brutal slaying of Fr. Tulio Favali was attended with abuse of superior strength, cruelty
and ignominy by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the pain and anguish of the
victim, outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse, exemplary damages may be
awarded to the lawful heirs, 36 even though not proved nor expressly pleaded in the
complaint, 37 and the amount of P100,000.00 is considered reasonable.
With respect to the civil indemnity of P12,000.00 for the death of Fr. Tulio Favali, the
amount is increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with existing jurisprudence, which
should be paid to the lawful heirs, not the PIME as the trial court ruled.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from being in accord with law and the evidence
is AFFIRMED with the modification that the civil indemnity which is increased from
P12,000.00 to P50,000.00 is awarded to the lawful heirs of the deceased plus
exemplary damages of P100,000.00; however, the award of moral damages is
deleted.

Costs against accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Padilla and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.