People vs. Manero (G.R. Nos.

86883-85)
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 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. 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.
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.
Issue: Whether or not the appellants can be exculpated from criminal liability on the basis of defense of alibi which
would establish 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 eyewitnesses 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.