REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
LUCENA CITY

JOBERT BARBERO,
Complainant,
NPS Docket No. 17D-0399
FOR: HOMICIDE
-versus-

TINO MANRIQUE,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

The respondent TINO MANRIQUE was charged of the crime of

HOMICIDE in a complaint filed by JOBERT BARBERO.

In support of his complaint, the herein complainant attached the following

documents;

1. Police Report of SP01 CARDO DALISAY; and

2. Autoposy Report.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Based on the investigation conducted by the Police Investigators, SP01

CARDO DALISAY and P03 PERALTA LEONEN, the facts of the case are stated
hereunder:

1. On or about 3:00 in the afternoon of February 22, 2021, the

Barangay Chairman of Ibabang Iyam of Lucena City reported and
sought immediate police assistance regarding an altercation near a
local eatery named “Kainan sa Gomez”. PO2 EDWARD
NEWGATE, being a few blocks away, was dispatched and was able
to see three men shouting at each other. Two civilians,
(DOMINADOR MONDRAGON AND ARNEL PINEDO) were
calming them down. The three persons shouting at each other were
unnamed. When P02 EDWARD NEWGATE approached them,
they suddenly clamed down but one of the men shouted, “Mahal
ko siya, lumayas ka na sa buhay namin o hahanapin kita!” P02
NEWGATE later found out that the altercation and attempted
fistfight was due to an affair between the “live-in” partner of one of
the combatants and the other. The third person in the altercation
was about to leave and was telling the two combatants to calm
down while he was on his motorcycle. P02 NEWGATE thought
that the parties have calmed down, so he left the scene.

2. However, when P02 NEWGATE was about 70 meters away

from the scene, he heard two gunshots and upon turning his head,
found one of the combatants lying on the ground, bleeding. Upon

1
running back to the scene, P02 NEWGATE apprehended the only
combatant in the scene of the crime, as it seems that the third
person involved in the altercation already fled.

3. Upon apprehending the combatant, P02 NEWGATE found a

firearm in his possession. Thereafter, he checked the pulse of the
body lying on the ground. Upon discovery that there was no pulse,
P02 NEWGATE apprehended the combatant and took him to the
precinct.

4. Lucena City Police conducted a follow-up investigation and

later found out that TINO MANRIQUE was the combatant
apprehended by P02 NEWGATE, the other combatant who fled
with his motorcycle was DOMINADOR TINAPAY, and the
deceased was YUNO BARBERO .

5. In the statement of TINO MANRIQUE, he said that although

he had a firearm in his possession, it was not him who shot YUNO
BARBERO, but it was DOMINADOR TINAPAY, the third
combatant who fled the scene on his motorcycle. He also presented
as evidence the permit for his firearm. TINO MANRIQUE ended
his statement by saying that he was very shocked when P02
NEWGATE apprehended him, that is why he was unable to move
or explain the situation.

In the complaint-affidavit of JOBERT BARBERO, he stated that:

1. On 22 February 2021, around 3:00 in the afternoon, YUNO

and I were about to eat at “Kainan sa Gomez” when YUNO was
called outside by TINO MANRIQUE.

2. Thereafter, screaming outside ensued but I did not mind

because I was aware with the situation between YUNO and TINO
MANRIQUE;

3. The altercation continued, and a third voice could now be

heard so I looked outside the window, however, I immediately
looked away because I did not want to bring the ire of TINO
MANRIQUE to myself;

4. Eventually, I just started eating without YUNO when I heard

two gunshots. Upon looking out the window of the eatery, I just
found TINO MANRIQUE standing there with YUNO’s lifeless body
on the ground;

In his counter-affidavit, the accused TINO MANRIQUE, stated that:

1. On 22 February 2021, I went to “Kainan sa Gomez” to

confront YUNO BARBERO about his illicit affair with my “live-in”
partner ROCHELLE WAGWAG;

2. I confronted YUNO BARBERO and we exchanged words. I

had no intention of killing or hurting him, but I only wanted to give
him a warning to stay away from ROCHELLE;

2
 3. I could not have been the culprit of his death because I just
gave him a stern warning. It was DOMINADOR TINAPAY who
shot YUNO BARBERO and quickly fled the scene;

4. It also came to my knowledge that YUNO secured a

Php100,000 loan from DOMINADOR TINAPAY and was unable to
pay the same. The said loan was for YUNO and ROCHELLE to leave
Lucena City and start a new life together.

5. Consequently, YUNO BARBERO was not able to pay

DOMINADOR TINAPAY despite the continuous demands of the
latter, thereby prompting DOMINADOR TINAPAY to shoot YUNO
BARBERO as compensation for the unpaid debt;

In the autopsy report conducted by DR. REO SPEEDWAGON, it was

concluded that “This 28-year-old man, YUNO BARBERO, died of two gunshot
wounds of the heart… Autopsy examination revealed a penetrating gunshot
wound of the chest area, which damaged the heart and resulted in internal
bleeding. two bullets were recovered inside the chest cavity. The autopsy would
reveal that the victim was shot in a semi close-range, about 20 meters.”

ANALYSES/FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code specifically state as follows:

“Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within

the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the
attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the
next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and
be punished by reclusion temporal.”

In this case, indeed, there was no proof to show (1) that TINO MANRIQUE
fired his firearm; (2) that TINO MANRIQUE killed YUNO BARBERO; and (3)
that TINO MANRIQUE’S firearm was discharged at the time of YUNO
BARBERO’S death.

It is pertinent to note that DOMINADOR TINAPAY has not yet been

questioned by the Lucena City police and that his statement is necessary to verify
the truth of TINO MANRIQUE’S claims. However, that being said, it is clear
from the evidence that TINO MANRIQUE could not have fired his firearm, and
thereby killed YUNO BARBERO.

The following facts and circumstances based on the personal knowledge of

the investigating officer show that there was no probable cause to believe that
respondent TINO MANRIQUE committed a crime, viz.:

1. TINO MANRIQUE was shocked thereby making him unable to process

the information and explain the same to P02 NEWGATE

3
 2. TINO MANRQIUE did not get a hold of his firearm

3. The absence of gunpowder on the person of TINO MANRIQUE which

should have been present had he shot YUNO BARBERO considering the
point-blank distance of him and the deceased; and

4. Reasonable doubt as to believe that there was no probable cause that the
accused was the one who committed the crime subject to the absence of the
statement of DOMINADOR TINAPAY

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

recommended that the complaint for the crime of HOMICIDE against the
respondent TINO MANRIQUE.

Lucena City, Quezon.

ERIK C. VILLANUEVA
Assistant City Prosecutor
APPROVED BY:

SEBASTIAN GABRIEL M. ELARDO

Chief City Prosecutor