Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Camarines Sur Hall of Justice
City of Naga
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTION OFFICE
NILDA S. CENTENO V-10-INQ-
09A-00005
Complainant,
Versus For: Murder
EDGARDO MATINIEZ y
DE JESUS, SR.,
Respondent,
x---------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION

A complaint for murder was filed by James Santillan Ronatay, Acting Chief of
Police of Canaman, Camarines Sur on behalf of Nilda S. Centeno, widow of the deceased
Michael Centeno of Phase I, Section St. Progress Homes Subd, San Vicente, Canaman,
Camarines Sur against Edgardo Martinez, Sr. y De Jesus, alos a resident of Phase I,
Second St. Progres Homes Subd., Brgy. San Vincente, Canaman. Camarines, Sur for the
death of Michael Centeno y Andaya.

According to Isabel Andaya-Centeno, mother of the deceased, at around 10:20 in

the evening of January 5, 2009, while she was inside her house watching television at
Phase I of San Vicente, Canaman, Camarines Sur, she noticed that her son Michael went
out of the house and so she turned the tv to loom at the window to see where he was
heading. She saw Michael and his friend board his trimobile and passed by the store of
respondent Martinez. She heard then respondent Martinez shouting invectives at her son
and then saw Michael walking towards the front of Martinez store. The family of
Martinez was inside the store and she saw Edgardo Martinez get something in front of the
house. When he went out of the house, he opened his gate but he did not get out of it,
instead he just stood up. Thereafter, he saw Martinez shoot his son twice in his body. She
also heard him say “Saan ang tapang mo?”, while Michael was lying bloodied on the
ground. She then took her camera and she took pictures of the scene after the shooting
incident. She recalls that her son and her assailant had a misunderstanding regarding the
light in the post in front of their houses.

According to Joseph Mendoza, on January 5, 2009 starting from 7:00 in the

evening, he was with Michael, Mark Romie Ocampo, Ian de Casa and Toto Salvador
inside the house of Michael Centeno having a drinking spree. At around 10:00 pm he
decided to go home and Michael told them that he will bring to his house in Calauag,
Naga City using his tricycle. When they are already on board the tricycle, it moved a few
distance but the engine stopped right in front of the store. He then heard the voice of a
man saying “akin na ang susi” (give me the key) and the voice of another man trying to
stop the first man from going out of the house. He was shocked when he realized that the
words being uttered are directed toward them. Michael then alighted from the tricycle and
Joseph tried to prevent him but he said that he will talk to them. When Michael was
already in the middle of the street, in front of the man’s house, he heard Michael say
“Halion mo ang badil mo” (remove your gun). He then saw the man shoot Michael with a
gun successively at his body. They were able to bring Michael in his tricycle but he was
dead on arrival at the hospital. He learned the identity of the shooter on Edgardo Martinez
at the office of the police.

Nilda Centeno, widow of Michael, in her affidavit, stated that on January 9, 2009,
she was awakened by a man who told her that Michael was shot. When she went out of
the house, he saw her husband bloodied and lying on the ground. While she was holding
him, she heard Edgardo Martinez say “Tarantado Ka!” Michael died before he was
brought to the hospital. She claimed that on December 23, 2008 Edgardo Martinez got
angry with her husband when he learned that her husband placed a switch at the lamp
post in front of the house of Edgardo Martinez.

Edgardo Martinez was immediately arrested on that same night. When he was
brought at the Provincial Prosecutors office for Inquest Proceedings, he asked for a
formal preliminary investigation and he waived the provisions of Art. 125. Thus, he was
made to receive the subpoena issued to him for him to submit hi9s counter-affidavit.

Submitted likewise with the complaint are the following documents:

1. Certification of the excerpt from the police blotter

2. Certificate of Death of Michael Centeno

3. Medico-legal Autopsy Report

On January 12, 2009, respondent submitted his counter-affidavit. He alleged that

on January 5, 2009 he arrived home at 10:00in the evening and he parked his motorcycle
inside his compound. While he was parking inside the compound, Michael Centeno and
companion, upon seeing him, went towards their big gate with a trimobile and challenged
him to a fight shouting invectives at him saying that he intertwined electric connection
switch that he caused to be installed at the electric post. His wife told him not to mind the
men as they were drunk. He told his wife that he will just explain to them that he had
already brought the matter to the barangay officials in order to be able to peacefully settle
the matter. His wife asked him to go inside the house and their small gate was near the
door of the house. When he opened the gate, he was surprised when Michael left the
trimobile came near the big gate while carrying a red horse bottle in his hand and walk
towards the gate and confronted him. Michael hurried the red horse bottle at him but he
missed and hit the gate. Michael then said “ Hambogon ka may badil ka, sige bdilan kita,
bonotan mo at badilan kita!” (You are arrogant because you have a gun; you think you
are the only one with a gun? Come on and let’s shoot, get your gun”. At that instant
Michael tried to get something at his waist. He was shocked, tense and afraid that
Michael would shoot him. Intending to prevent getting the weapon, he fired his gun
indiscriminately and retreated into the house. He alleged that he later surrendered to the
police.

Cerenida Martinez, wife of the respondent, and Edgardo Martinez, Jr.

corroborated his allegations in their affidavits.

On February 4, 2009, private complainant through counsel submitted a comment

on Respondent’s counter-affidavit and affidavits of his witnesses.
 Counsel for private complainant, Atty. Hedy Aganan averred that the killing of
Michael Centeno by Edgardo Martinez, Sr. has the qualifying circumstance of treachery
and evident premeditation in support of this claim; she submitted the affidavits of Mark
Ronnjie Ocampo and Nilda Centeno.

According to Mark Ronnie Ocampo, on January 9, 2009 at around 10:00 in the

evening, he dropped by7 Michael Centeno infront of their house. The group was chatting
with each other. There were two (2) jumbo red horse beer in front of them and two (2)
other empty bottles of jumbo red horse placed beside the door. He did not drink during
that night as he was in medication. At around 10:00 o’ clock in the evening, he heard the
sound of a motorcycle and when he peeped on the screen of the aluminium door, he saw
Edgardo Martinez Sr. riding on his motorcycle near the small gate. He then turned his
motorcycle and focused the motorcycle’s light towards the door where the group was
seated and for several seconds, he kept on revving the engine of his motorcycle and was
trying to see who the persons behind the door were. He told Michael about it and was told
by the latter not to mind him as he is drunk and might cock again his gun as what he had
been doing during the previous days. After the son of Martinez opened the big gate, he
turned left his motorcycle and went inside and parked it. At around 10:20 in the evening,
Michael got the key of his motorcycle to take Joseph Mendoza home. They boarded the
tricycle of Michael and Joseph was the back rider. He was left beside the electric post in
front of Michael’s house. When the tricycle of Michael reached a closed store opposite
the big gate of Martinez, the tricycle stopped probably due to engine trouble. He saw
Michael kicking the starter of the tricycle several times but it did not start. He then heard
a loud voice coming from the big gate saying “ Akin na ang Susi (give me the key).
Another voice was saying , “Pasensya na bro, lasing si Papa ( excuse him bro, my father
is drunk}. The other voice the said “ Ba’t ka hihingi diyan ng pasensya , gago yan,
tarantado yan! (why will you ask for an excuse , he is a fool!) . Michael then alighted
from his tricycle and walked in the middle of the road going back to the direction of his
house . By the time he was already in front of the small gate with his two hands raised
saying (“mayo akong armas, mayo akong badil, halion moan bachil mo”) (I have no
weapon, I have no gun . Remove your gun!) he saw Martinez Jr. successively fire two
shots hitting the body of Michael . Michael then called on him before he fell. Martinez
again shouted “Asan ang tapang mo? May bala pa dito.” (where is your courage, I still
have a bullet here!) Sensing that Martinez Sr, will fire another shot, Mark got hold of an
empty jumbo red horse bottle and hurled it towards the assailed. It missed him and so he
hid behind the door near the window of Michael’s house. At that instance, he heard a
third gunfire . The next day he learned that it hit and penetrated the door of Michael’s
house. He stated that Michael used to say that should anything happen to him, Martinez
Sr. will be responsible.

Nilda Centeno in her affidavit recounted the misunderstanding between her

husband and the respondent which transpired prior to the shooting incident.

On February 24, 2009, a Comment to Reply and Formal Entry of Appearance was
filed by Atty. Gualberto C. Manlagnit, counsel for the respondent.

Based on all the evidence presented, the undersigned proceeded with the
resolution of this complaint.

The events of January 24, 2009 as presented by both parties controvert each other but
there are common facts in them. These uncontroverted facts are the following:
1. Both parties were present at Phase 1 Second St. Progress Homes Subd. San
Vicente Canaman Camarines Sur on January 5, 2009 at around 10:00 o’ clock in
the evening.
2. That both parties were outside their respective residences at the time of the
incident.
3. That they previously have a misunderstanding with each other pertaining to the
light on the electric post
4. That the deceased had a few bottle of beer.
5. That there was an exchange of words between the deceased and the respondent
prior to the shooting incident.
6. That the respondent shot Michael twice and the shots were the cause of his death.
7. From thesae uncontroverted facts, the undersigned is more inclined to believe that
the crime committed in the case at bar, is homicide only as the facts in the case do
not support a finding of treachery or evident premeditation on the part of the
accused when he shot the deceased.
8. Respondent arrived at the house at around 10:00 p.m. and the shooting accident
happened 20 minutes after his arrival and in just several minutes after the victim
got out of his house to bring his friend Joseph home. In said short span of time,
there was a heated exchange of words, characterized by anger on both parties.
Considering their previous altercation prior to the shooting incident, there was
already a brewing tension between Michael and the shooter. In the said span of
time, when both parties were in the heat of anger, the respondent shot the victim,
at the time when the victim went to him purposely to confront him. Since there
was tension on both parties, the unfortunate accident happened. No treachery
however can be deduced from the given circumstances because to constitute
treachery, the means, methods or forms of attack must be consciously adopted by
the offender (People vs. Tumaab, 83 Phil 72). Considering the heated exchange of
words or altercation on the part of both parties, which prompted the respondent to
get something from inside his house and for the deceased to go to him and
confront him at his house, it can be said that the shooting of the victim was
brought about by passion and the abruptness of the situation. It is for this reason
that the undersigned believes that the shooting of Michael was not consciously
adopted by the offender in order to kill him.
9. In People vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000, the Supreme Court
clearly emphasized that “It was a spun-of-the-moment crime. One who is in the
heat of passion loses his reason and self-control and cannot consciously employ a
particular means, method or form of attack in the execution of a crime.”
10. Moreover, evident premeditation cannot be considered in the case at bar as there
is no evidence which will show the exact time when the respondent decided to
commit to crime, that he clung to his determination and that there was sufficient
lapse of time between the decision and the execution to allow the accused to
reflect upon the consequence of the act. The undersigned is of the opinion, that
under the uncontroverted circumstances, what transpired was a spur-of-the-
moment crime.
11. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned finds probable cause for
Homicide against the reponsdent, as proven by the fact that said respondent with
intent to kill, killed Michael Centeno on the evening of January 5, 2009 by
shooting him twice on his body which fatally hit him and caused his immediate
death. Let therefore an information for said crime be filed against him before the
 Regional Trial Court in Naga City. The bail for his temporary liberty is set at
P40,000.00.

SO RESOLVED.
Naga City, Philippines, March 25, 2009.

ZHELLA MUNSTRATE-
MANRIQUE
4th Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL:

1st Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

APPROVED:

AGAPITO B ROSALES
Provincial Prosecutor