Title
People vs. Tanzon y Delos Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 129793
Decision Date
Dec 15, 1999
Lemuel Juanillo was fatally shot by Augusto Tanzon after declining an invitation to drink; Tanzon's conviction for murder was upheld by the Supreme Court, affirming witness credibility and autopsy evidence.
murder
conviction
witness testimony
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 129793)

Factual Background

In the evening of November 19, 1994, the deceased, Lemuel Juanillo y Egeron, was walking home from work with his common-law wife, Liza Quilang, passing by accused-appellant Augusto Tanzon and four friends who were then drinking in front of accused-appellant’s home. Accused-appellant invited the deceased to drink, but the deceased declined and proceeded to go home.

Liza, about seven arms length ahead of the deceased, turned back and saw accused-appellant let out a burst of gunfire from a long metal pipe, hitting the deceased from behind and causing him to fall immediately. As another shot was fired, Liza shouted for accused-appellant and his friends to stop, but her protestations were ignored. Accused-appellant’s companions dragged the deceased about seven meters away. After entering his house and after a short interval, accused-appellant came out holding a small gun and shot the deceased who lay prostrate. Accused-appellant’s friends then kicked, punched, and slumped a chair on the deceased. When Liza again protested, one of the men responded, “Wala kang nakita.” When the men left, Liza tried to approach her husband, but one of them returned and resumed shooting. He first shot Liza three times; however, Liza survived because she ran “zigzagging” toward the house of her in-laws about fifty meters away. Only about an hour later did policemen arrive. Liza and her mother-in-law were then able to approach the body.

Corroborating Evidence from Other Witnesses

The prosecution’s narrative was corroborated by the testimony of Paz Tumbagahan, who testified that at about 11:30 p.m., she heard a gunshot. She went out near a NAWASA tank to determine the source and saw accused-appellant and friends poking a long metal pipe at someone she could not immediately identify due to a dim corner. Paz had no difficulty identifying accused-appellant because he and his group were in a well-lighted area. When another shot rang out, Paz heard a woman scream and saw Liza Quilang running in zigzag manner, chased by Alex Tanzon, the son of accused-appellant. Alex fired three shots and then stopped, later directing threats to the onlookers by saying, “Bumaba ang matapang.”

The prosecution also relied on the testimony of witnesses who placed gunshots being heard around the time accused-appellant’s daughter Cristina Tanzon was hosting a birthday celebration in the Tanzon residence. Arcayna, the barangay secretary who was at the party, testified that he arrived at the residence between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., and that at around 11:00 p.m., he heard four gunshots coming from the street while the guests were inside the house. Cristina Tanzon testified that at around 10:30 p.m., she heard a shot from the upper part of Tanzon Street, and that after that she saw her father and Mr. Arcayna herd the guests inside; she learned at around 12:00 midnight from a policeman that someone had been killed outside. Other neighbors such as Rosita Panes testified to seeing men running from an elevated portion of the street carrying guns, hearing shots, and securing her home.

Filing of Information and Arraignment

On December 2, 1994, the prosecution filed an information charging accused-appellant with murder, alleging that on or about November 19, 1994, in Quezon City, accused-appellant, conspiring with unidentified persons, attacked the victim with treachery and abuse of superior strength, shooting the victim with a long gun and then again shooting the fallen body from behind with a handgun. The information further alleged evident premeditation and cruelty, and that the co-accused deliberately kicked, slapped, and dragged the victim to augment his sufferings, resulting in the victim’s death.

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment.

Defense Theory and Its Evidentiary Support

Accused-appellant denied participation. He claimed that from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on November 19, 1994, he was inside his house tending guests for his daughter Cristina’s birthday party. He stated that at around 11:00 p.m., two men, recognized as Mike Tumbagahan and “Tino,” entered the compound and started an altercation with the guests, and that Barangay Secretary Vic Arcayna prevented the trouble. He said that later someone shouted “May mga taong pababa rito, armado yon ang sabi,” and that panic ensued when a shot was fired from the upper part of the street. According to him, he gathered and herded the guests into his house. After the policemen arrived, he was told that someone had been shot dead outside. He claimed that the police informed him that the wife of the deceased was accusing him, and that at the station he executed a sworn statement in the presence of the fiscal.

Accused-appellant’s testimony was corroborated by Vic Arcayna, who testified about two uninvited persons arriving at about 11:00 p.m. and creating altercation. Arcayna testified that while inside the house, he heard four gunshots coming from the street.

Trial Court Ruling

On June 30, 1997, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. It also ordered payments to the heirs of the deceased: PHP 50,000.00 as indemnification for death, PHP 15,000.00 as actual damages for funeral services, and PHP 50,000.00 as moral damages. Other claims for damages were denied.

Issues on Appeal and Appellant’s Arguments

On appeal, accused-appellant challenged the credibility and consistency of the prosecution witnesses. He asserted that Liza Quilang’s testimony was inconsistent with the autopsy report, pointing out that she allegedly said he shot the victim twice with a shotgun, while the autopsy allegedly showed nine shotgun wounds caused by a single bullet from a “sumpak” shotgun. He further argued that it would have been impossible for Paz Tumbagahan to witness the shooting because the NAWASA tank was supposedly ninety meters away from the place of the incident.

He also questioned findings that gunpowder nitrates were detected on his right hand, adding that the prosecution did not present the alleged murder weapons in evidence.

Appellate Court’s Assessment of Credibility and Forensic Corroboration

The Court held that it would not disturb the trial court’s factual findings on credibility absent overlooked circumstances of weight or influence. It emphasized that the trial court was in a better position because it had heard the witnesses.

On the alleged inconsistency between Liza’s testimony and the autopsy, the Court relied on the autopsy performed by Chief Inspector Florante F. Baltazar, who testified that the deceased sustained nine shotgun wounds and a gunshot wound, allegedly from a .38 caliber gun. The doctor explained that the wounds came from a shotgun because pellets recovered were ordinarily used in a “sumpak” shotgun. Although there were nine wounds, the doctor said they were caused by a single shot that burst in different directions. The Court noted that entry points for the gunshot wounds were found at the back of the victim, consistent with Liza’s account that the victim was shot from behind. It also found corroboration for the dragging of the body through the presence of multiple abrasions on the abdominal region, arms, and right knee, which the doctor said could have resulted from contact with a rough surface.

The Court further treated as significant the forensic finding that accused-appellant’s right hand tested positive for gun powder nitrates. It noted that the forensic chemist, Mrs. De Villa, rejected the possibility that the traces were caused by firecrackers lit by accused-appellant, because gun powder nitrate traces could be detected only if the firecracker exploded while in the accused’s hands. The Court thus concluded that Liza’s testimony was materially corroborated by the autopsy and other physical evidence, and it considered that honest mistakes do not automatically destroy the integrity of the prosecution.

Regarding the argument that murder weapons were not presented in evidence, the Court held that their presentation was not indispensable where the accused was positively identified. It ruled that the non-presentation of the items used was not fatal because identity had been established.

On the purported impossibility of Paz witnessing the incident, the Court observed that the record did not support the claim that the NAWASA tank was ninety meters away. It relied on the trial court’s ocular inspection showing that the NAWASA tank was only forty-five meters away, and that it was not impossible for a person standing near the tank to observe what transpired in the street in front of accused-appellant’s home. It also held that even if Paz’s testimony was disregarded, the Court was not left without an eyewitness because Liza was only about seven arms length away when the victim was shot from behind. Liza knew accused-appellant from the same barangay, and she identified him without being mistaken, especially in view of the fact that accused-appellant admitted no misunderstanding or quarrel with the deceased’s family prior to the incident.

Evaluation of the Defense Evidence and Perceived Inconsistencies

The Court found that the defense evidence was undermined by internal and external inconsistencies. It highlighted contradictions in the defense narrative and the testimonies supporting the alleged genesis of the trouble. While accused-appellant and Arcayna claimed that trouble started when uninvited guests arrived, Cristina testified to no incident of the sort on the night in question. The Court also noted that Cristina’s recollection of trouble was not produced until about three weeks after her testimony was first taken. It further observed that another witness, Rosita Panes, said that visitors were adults, while Cristina said

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms