PEOPLE OF
THE
Appellee,
Present:
-
versus - Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario, and
Nachura, JJ.
JEMUEL TAN and
CHARLIE AMAR,
Appellants. Promulgated:
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Mercedes Amar, Jemuel
Tan and Charlie Amar were charged with murder in an Information that reads:
That on or about the 3rd
day of June, 1992, in the Municipality of Tibiao, Province of Antique, Republic
of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused being then armed with a knife, conspiring, confederating
together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with the
qualifying circumstances of treachery and taking advantage of superior
strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and stab with said knife one Jessie Dionesio y Cumla, thereby inflicting on the
latter fatal wound on the vital part of his body which caused his instantaneous
death.
Contrary to the provisions of
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.[1]
The accused pleaded not
guilty. Trial on the merits ensued
thereafter.
The prosecution
presented Rogelio Cumla, Dr. Emilia Monicimpo, and Celedonia Dionesio, as
witnesses.
Rogelio Cumla testified
that on
Celedonia Dionesio is
the mother of the victim. She testified
that on
The following day,
Mercedes went to their house and took back the slippers. Later that day, Celedonia went to the Municipal
Hall then to the health clinic. She
alleged that she saw Mercedes Amar following her. When she went to the Rural Bank of Tibiao,
Mercedes allegedly informed her that Jessie would have been dead earlier or on
Dr. Monicimpo, the
Municipal Health Officer of Tibiao, Antique testified that on
The defense presented PO2 Victoriano Songcayawon, Mercedes Amar,
Charlie Amar, Jemuel Tan, SPO3 Orlando Julian, and Antonio Dalumpines.
PO2 Songcayawon
testified that at about
Mercedes Amar testified
that her co-accused, Charlie Amar and Jemuel Tan, are her son and nephew,
respectively. She narrated that on the
night of the incident, she was at the feeder road to bolt their fence when she
saw the victim, Jessie Dionesio, talking with Eva Cumla and Pedro Cumla some 10
meters away from their fence. She told
them to go home and eat their supper as there was a “red alert” in their
community. She then turned back and
walked towards her house. After a while,
she heard somebody cry “aguy.” She went back to investigate and
saw Jessie who was wounded while another person whom she did not recognize was
running towards the hill.
Mercedes shouted for
help. After a while, Charlie and Jemuel
arrived. Together, they carried the body
of Jessie to the roadside to avoid being run over by passing vehicles. Charlie then borrowed a petromax from Pedro Cumla which Mercedes lighted and placed beside
Jessie. She then went to Celedonia’s
house and informed her about the incident. Charlie and Jemuel went inside the house and
boiled water in case Celedonia would need it.
Mercedes further
testified that after informing Celedonia, she accompanied the victim’s sister,
Ana, to the house of the barangay captain to report the incident aboard a
tricycle driven by Mercedes’ husband.
However, the barangay captain was not around so they proceeded to the
police station and reported the incident.
The police then
proceeded to the crime scene.
Thereafter, Mercedes, Guillermo Dionesio, Ninfa Dionesio, and PO3 Julian
went to Sitio Mangkuyas to inform a certain Bernardo Cumla about the
incident. While at the house of
Bernardo, prosecution witness Rogelio Cumla allegedly informed them that the
victim was a trouble maker.
Mercedes denied the
allegations of prosecution witness Rogelio Cumla that she, together with her
son Charlie and nephew Jemuel, were responsible for the death of Jessie. On the contrary, she claimed that they were
the ones who rendered assistance to the wounded victim. She claimed that Rogelio
did not witness the crime as he was not in the vicinity when the incident
happened.
Charlie Amar alleged
that on the night of the incident, he was inside their house together with his
father, younger brothers, and cousin Jemuel, while his mother was locking the
gate. When he heard his mother shout for
help, he and Jemuel went out to investigate and saw the body of Jessie sprawled
on the ground with a stab wound on his chest.
The three of them moved the body of Jessie to the roadside. Thereafter, his mother lighted a petromax,
then informed the relatives of Jessie. Charlie
alleged that his father remained inside their house.
Charlie denied stabbing
Jessie. He claimed that more than a
month prior to the incident, Jessie had been staying in their house because he
had a fight with his twin brother, Jaime.
Charlie narrated that in the morning of
On cross-examination,
Charlie explained that they had only one petromax which they used inside
their house, thus he had to borrow a petromax from their neighbor, Pedro
Cumla, and placed the same near the body of the deceased.
Jemuel Tan testified that
on the night of the incident, he went to the house of Mercedes to buy kerosene
and was thereafter invited for dinner.
While eating, he heard his aunt Mercedes shout for help. Together with Charlie, he ran towards the
gate near the feeder road where he saw Mercedes focusing her flashlight on
Jessie who was bloodied and lying on the ground. After carrying the body of
Jessie to the roadside, they lighted a petromax which Charlie borrowed
from their neighbor Pedro Cumla. He denied any participation in the stabbing incident.
On cross-examination, he
admitted that Mercedes’ husband, Carlito Amar, was inside the house when the
incident happened. Carlito did not go
out because he does not want to be implicated in the incident. Jemuel also alleged that nobody responded to
Mercedes’ plea for help except him and Charlie.
Nobody went to the crime scene from the time they saw Jessie sprawled on
the ground, up to time of Celedonia’s arrival.
PO3 Julian testified
that at about
When PO3 Julian went to
the crime scene, Celedonia requested that Bernardo Cumla be informed about the
incident. Thus, PO3 Julian, Mercedes
Amar, Guillermo Dionesio, and Ninfa Dionesio, proceeded to the house of
Bernardo in Sitio Mangcuyas. When they
arrived, Mercedes called out Bernardo but it was Rogelio Cumla who answered
them. PO3 Julian claimed that he heard
Rogelio dismiss the death of Jessie because he was allegedly a bad guy.
Thereafter, Bernardo accompanied them to the crime scene while Rogelio stayed
behind.
On cross-examination, PO3
Julian testified that the body of Jessie was sprawled about three arms length
away from the gate of Mercedes and was positioned at the center of the road.
Another defense witness,
Antonio Dalumpines, testified that he was on his way home on
On May
19, 1998, the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Antique, Branch 12, rendered
judgment acquitting Mercedes, convicting Charlie as principal by direct
participation, and Jemuel as accomplice, for the crime of murder. The dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE,
for failure of the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt
of Mercedes Amar, she is hereby ACQUITTED for the offense charged. Further, finding the accused Jemuel Tan and
Charlie Amar GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as defined
and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court imposes upon
Charlie Amar who is a principal by direct participation the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, and upon Jemuel Tan who is an accomplice, to an
indeterminate penalty of seven (7) years of prision correccional as minimum to
thirteen (13) years of prision mayor as maximum, applying Article 52 in
relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and to indemnify the heirs
of Jessie Dionesio the sum of P50,000.00 for his death and P12,000.00
for funeral expenses, jointly and severally.
No
costs.[2]
The trial court found
the testimony of prosecution witness Rogelio Cumla that he saw Charlie stab the
victim on the chest while Jemuel pinned his hands and held him immobile, to be
credible. However, it acquitted Mercedes
based on the alleged contradictory statements of Rogelio Cumla. The court a quo noted that initially,
Rogelio testified that he saw Mercedes tie a rope around Jessie’s neck but
later alleged that Mercedes was merely wrapping her hands around the victim’s
neck.
The trial court also
found that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior
strength attended the commission of the crime.
There was treachery because Charlie and Jemuel committed the crime in
such a manner as to deprive the victim any chance to defend himself. Abuse of superior strength was likewise
present because there was notorious inequality of forces between the
malefactors and the victim.
On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court’s Decision, thus:
WHEREFORE,
in the light of the foregoing, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Jemuel Tan is sentenced to suffer also the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
SO
ORDERED.[3]
The appellate court noted
that although the trial court disbelieved in part the account of Rogelio Cumla,
it correctly lent credence to his testimony that he witnessed the stabbing of
the victim by Charlie Amar with the help of Jemuel Tan. It likewise noted that the trial court
correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of
superior strength.
However, the appellate
court ruled that Jemuel Tan should likewise be convicted as a principal by
direct participation and not merely as an accomplice. It observed that the trial court found unity
of purpose between the two malefactors and even discussed in the body of its
decision that the two should be found guilty of murder as principals by direct
participation. However, in the
dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision, it inadvertently convicted
Jemuel Tam merely as an accomplice.
Accordingly, the appellate court modified the trial court’s decision by
finding Jemuel Tan guilty of murder as principal by direct participation and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Hence, this petition.
We find Charlie Amar and
Jemuel Tan guilty as principals by direct participation for the crime of murder.
Although the trial court
disbelieved in part the testimony of Rogelio Cumla as regards the participation
of Mercedes in the perpetration of the crime, it nevertheless did not err in
giving credence to the rest of Rogelio’s testimony. Settled is the rule that a witness’ testimony
may be believed in part and disbelieved in another part, depending upon the
probabilities and improbabilities of the case.[4]
Appellants’ contention
that it is highly incredible for Rogelio not to shout and come to the aid of
Jessie if he indeed saw the latter being stabbed lacks merit. People react differently when confronted by a
startling experience. As admitted by
Rogelio, he was gripped with fear when he witnessed the incident thus he decided
to run away from the scene. Even his
companion Edmundo Fillores did the same.
We find this explanation plausible and normal under the
circumstances. The crime was committed a
few arms length from the house of the malefactors located at Brgy. Importante
while Rogelio hails from Sitio Mangcuyas.
There were two assailants and one of them was armed while there was only
Rogelio and Edmundo Fillores who ran away upon witnessing the stabbing
incident.
Appellants’ contention that
Rogelio’s testimony should be disbelieved because he is jobless lacks
basis. The credibility of a person’s
testimony does not depend on whether he/she is jobless. Besides, Rogelio was not exactly
jobless. In fact, he was selling fish
when the stabbing occurred. The trial
court which is in the best position to determine the credibility of a witness, found
the eyewitness account of Rogelio that he saw Charlie stab Jessie while Jemuel
pinned his hands at the back, credible and straightforward. We have also examined
the records and found no reason to deviate from said findings.
Furthermore, we find the
testimonies of the appellants and the defense witnesses incredible, rehearsed
and inconsistent with each other.
Charlie Amar and Jemuel
Tan testified that they carried the body of Jessie to the side of the road to
avoid being run over by passing vehicles.
However, this was contradicted by the testimony of defense witness, PO3
Julian, who testified that:
Q: And this house of Mercedes Amar, towards
what direction was this in relation to the dead body of Jessie Dionesio?
A: Beside.
Q: And the dead body was about how far from
the gate of the house of Mercedes Amar?
A: About 3 armslength away, more or less.
Q: Was it at the center of the road…the
dead body?
A: Yes sir.
Q: So that the position of the body is that
if ever a motor vehicle passes by it will be ran over because it was at the
center of the road?
A: Can be reached when a vehicle passes
by.[5]
Similarly, Jemuel
testified that Jessie’s body was “cold” when touched. This is impossible considering that they
supposedly found the wounded body of Jessie mere seconds after he was
stabbed. Thus:
Q: Why do you say that you lighted the
cadaver of Jessie Dionesio, what do you mean by cadaver?
A: The dead body.
Q: How did you come to know that it is the
cadaver of the dead body of said Jessie Dionesio?
A: Because we saw him full of blood and when
we touched him his body was cold.[6]
Charlie
testified that he rushed outside upon hearing his mother shout for help. However, Mercedes’ husband, Carlito, remained
inside the house and was unconcerned about what was happening outside. We find this strange considering that it was his
wife, Mercedes, who was shouting for help and whose life may be in danger. Charlie testified thus:
A: I heard a voice shouting in the other
house ... I heard a voice shouting for a fight in the other house and also I
heard the voice of my mother asking for help that is why I and Jemuel ran
outside of the house.
Q: How about your father, what did he do?
A: He remained inside the house observing?
Q: In what manner was he observing?
A: He was observing who killed Jessie, he
might return.
Q: That was immediately after you and
Jemuel went out of your house?
COURT:
Answer politely.
A: I do not know what my father was doing
inside the house for we ran towards outside and when I returned I asked my
father and he answered that he was just observing.
ATTY.
SIRUELO:
Q: And your father told you that he was
observing because the person who could have killed Jessie Dionesio might have
returned?
A: Yes sir.
Q: That was what your father told you when
you and Jemuel Tan entered the house?
A: Yes sir.[7]
Since Carlito remained
inside the house, then he could not have known initially about the stabbing of
Jessie. It is therefore illogical for
Charlie to claim that his father remained inside the house “to observe” because
the killer might return. Also, if
Carlito was apprehensive about the killer returning to the crime scene, then he
should not have allowed his wife Mercedes to go to Celedonia’s house by
herself.
Jemuel testified that
they had several neighbors whose houses are close to each other. Yet, only Jemuel, Charlie and Mercedes were
present and who allegedly attended to the victim from the time he was stabbed
until the victim’s mother arrived.
Q: Now, near the house of Mercedes there
are houses very near, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: As a matter of fact at the back of the
house there is a house which is adjacent to the fence?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And on both sides of the house of
Mercedes there were houses about two meters from the fence of the house of
Mercedes Amar?
A: Yes, sir.[8]
Finally, appellants
insist that assuming they killed Jessie, they could not be held liable for
murder because the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior
strength are not present. At the very
least, they could only be found guilty of homicide.
We are not persuaded.
As correctly found by
the trial court and the Court of Appeals, there was conspiracy between the
malefactors in the commission of the crime.
Their concerted efforts were performed with closeness and coordination indicating
their common purpose to inflict injury on the victim. For conspiracy to exist,
the evidence need not establish the actual agreement which shows the
preconceived plan, motive, interest or purpose in the commission of the crime.
Proof of publicly observable mutual agreement is not indispensable to establish
conspiracy. Hence, there is conspiracy where two of the accused held the
victim's hands and the third stabbed the victim from behind.[9] Conspiracy may be implied from the concerted
action of the assailants in confronting the victim.[10]
In the instant case, the prosecution satisfactorily established that Jemuel
twisted and pinned Jessie’s hands at the back, after which Charlie delivered
the fatal blow.
Since there was
conspiracy between the malefactors, the actual role played by each of them does
not have to be differentiated or segregated from the acts performed by the
other accused. As a conspirator, each would still be equally responsible for
the acts of the other conspirators.[11] Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly found
Jemuel Tan liable as a principal by direct participation and not merely as an
accomplice.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly
appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The sudden and unexpected stabbing of Jessie
while being held by Jemuel, insured the killing without risk to the assailants.[12]
However, we find no
basis for the lower courts’ finding that the aggravating circumstance of abuse
of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. Abuse
of superior strength requires deliberate intent on the part of the accused to
take advantage of such superiority. It must be shown that the accused purposely
used excessive force that was manifestly out of proportion to the means
available to the victim's defense. In this light, it is necessary to evaluate
not only the physical condition and weapon of the protagonists but also the
various incidents of the event.[13] In the instant case, the prosecution failed
to establish the physical condition of the protagonists, much less that
appellants deliberately took advantage of their superior strength.
Anent the award of
damages, we note that the lower court awarded P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P12,000.00 as funeral expenses. However, no receipts were presented to
substantiate the claim for funeral expenses hence it must be deleted. It is necessary for a party seeking the award
of actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to
justify such award. Only substantiated
and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in
connection with the death, wake, or burial of the victim will be recognized in
court.[14] Nonetheless, we shall award nominal damages
in the amount of P10,000.00 since the heirs of the victim clearly
incurred funeral expenses.[15] In addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00
shall be awarded. Celedonia Dionesio
testified on the mental anguish she suffered as a consequence of the death of
Jessie.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals finding appellants
Charlie Amar and Jemuel Tan guilty of murder and sentencing them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Jessie Dionesio
the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that appellants are further ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00
as moral damages; the amount of P12,000.00 as funeral expenses is DELETED and in lieu
thereof, appellants are ordered to pay the amount of P10,000.00 as nominal
damages.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] CA rollo, p. 10.
[2]
[3] Rollo, p. 8. Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon
and concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Priscilla
Baltazar-Padilla.
[4] People v. Lucena, G.R. No. 137281,
[5] TSN,
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9] People v. Tala, 225 Phil. 198, 207-208 (1986).
[10] People v. Ebora, 225 Phil. 242, 245 (1986).
[11] People v. Tala, supra at 208.
[12] See People v.
Ebora, supra.
[13] People v. Ortega, Jr., 342 Phil. 124, 138 (1997).
[14] People
v. Caraig, 448 Phil. 78, 95 (2003).
[15]