Case Digest (G.R. No. 85531)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Amando Tasarra and Abelardo Tasarra, G.R. No. 85531, December 10, 1990, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.The respondents-appellants Amando Tasarra and Abelardo Tasarra (hereafter "appellants") were charged with murder attended by treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and nighttime in the Regional Trial Court (Branch 42, Virac, Catanduanes) for the October 9, 1987 slaying of Ildefonso Panti y Manoguid. Their co-accused, Antonio Boseo, remained at large and was not arraigned; only Amando and Abelardo pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.
At trial the prosecution presented testimony principally from Rosita Panti (the victim’s widow), Tita Panti Tawat (a daughter), and Dr. Loreto T. Rojas (Municipal Health Officer), together with a medico-legal necropsy report. Rosita testified that at about 10:00 p.m. on October 9 she and her husband were returning from a store when three persons attacked and stabbed her husband from behind; she positively identified the appellants as among the assailants, citing good illumination from the store and a moonlit night and personal acquaintance with them. The necropsy listed multiple stab/cut wounds and massive hemorrhage as cause of death. Tita testified that four days before the killing Antonio Boseo had threatened to kill the victim if he passed “their way,” which was reported to the police. The trial court found motive rooted in the victim’s role as a prosecution witness in a separate case involving Abelardo and others.
Appellants offered alibi defenses: Amando claimed he was working with Jose Tayamora in an abaca plantation at Bontahiya, Patagan, Salvacion; Abelardo claimed he was with Melecio Boseo in an abaca plantation at Maysima, Patagan, Salvacion. Tayamora and Melecio were produced to corroborate. The trial court nonetheless convicted both appellants of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering joint and several indemnities (originally P30,000 for death, P10,000 moral and exemplary damages, and P1,000 burial expenses). The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the trial court erred in (1) rejecting their alibi, (2) crediting Rosita’s testimony despite inconsistencies, and (3) finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed with a single modification increasing civil indemnity in line with the Court’s then-recent en banc policy.
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in refusing to credit the alibi offered by the appellants?
- Did the trial court err in giving full credence to Rosita Panti’s eyewitness testimony despite alleged inconsistencies?
- Did the evidence establish the appellants’ guilt of murder beyond reasonable doubt, and were the attendant qualifying circumstances properly found?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)