People vs.

Manero
G.R. Nos. 86883-85, January 29, 1993
Facts: On 11 April 1985, 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. They were conferring with three others of a plan to liquidate a number
of suspected communist sympathizers. Among their targets are: 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. They later on
nailed a placard near the carinderia bearing the names of their intended victims.Later, at 4:00 pm, 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 . After a heated confrontation, Edilberto drew his revolver and fired at the forehead of Bantil who
was able to parry and was hit at the lower portion of his ear. Bantil tried to run but he was again fired
upon by Edilberto. Though Bantil was able to seek refuge in the house of a certain Domingo Gomez,
Norberto Jr. ordered his men to surround the house so that Bantil would die of hemorrhage. Moments
later, while Deocades was feeding his swine, Edilberto strewed him with a burst of gun fire 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 afire 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. But the latter simply stepped backwards and executed a thumbs-down signal. At thispoint, Edilberto
asked the priest: "Ano ang gusto mo, padre (What is it you want, Father)? Gusto mo, Father, bukon
koang 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 KaBaleleng" to the
delight of their comrades-in-arms who now took guarded positions to isolate the victim from
possibleassistance.From this judgment of conviction only accused Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren
Pleñago and Roger Bedaño appealedwith respect to the cases for Murder and Attempted Murder. The
Manero brothers as well as Rodrigo Espia did notappeal; neither did Norberto Manero, Jr., in the Arson
case. Consequently, the decision as against them already became final.

Issue:Whether or not the appellants can be exculpated from criminal liability on the basis of defense of
alibi which wouldestablish that there is no conspiracy to kill.

Held:The court did not appreciate the defense of alibi of the Lines brother, who according to them, were
in a farm some one kilometre away from the crime scene. The court held that ―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.‖ There is no
physical impossibility where the accused can be at the crime scene in a matter of 15-20 minutes by jeep
or tricycle. 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. In this case, there were two eye
witnesses who positively identified the accused.Contrary to the claim of the Lines brothers, there is a
community of design to commit the crime. Based on the findings of the lower court, they are not merely
innocent bystanders but in fact were vital cogs in the murder of Fr. Fuvali. They performed overt acts to
ensure the success of the commission of the crimes and the furtherance of the aims of the conspiracy.
While accused-appellants may not have delivered the fatal shots themselves, their collective action
showed a common intent to commit the criminal acts.There is conspiracy when two or more persons
come to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it.
It is not essential that all the accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the offense. 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 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. The accused agreed that in case they fail to kill the
intended victims, it will be suffice to kill another priest as long as the person is also Italian priest.