Title
People vs. Tasarra
Case
G.R. No. 85531
Decision Date
Dec 10, 1990
Three men stabbed a witness to death in 1987; alibi defense rejected, murder conviction upheld due to eyewitness testimony and treachery.
murder case
witness
conspiracy
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 141466)

Factual Background

On the evening of October 9, 1987, at around ten o’clock p.m., Rosita Panti and her husband, the victim, went out from their home in Obo, San Miguel, Catanduanes. They intended to stroll on a moonlit night and to buy a gin bottle of kerosene from the store of Romeo Bernal, located about one hundred twenty meters from their house. While they were only about eight meters away from the store on their way back, Rosita heard a sound behind them, which she initially thought was that of an approaching carabao. When she turned, she saw the victim with his arm already on her shoulder being stabbed from behind by the three accused.

Rosita continued to shout for help while the stabbing was taking place. No one intervened, even among those in the store, until the accused left the place, which Rosita later learned was due to fear. After the attack, the victim was brought with the help of Romeo Bernal to the house of Mrs. Morales, where he died on arrival.

The cause and nature of the injuries were established through the medico-legal necropsy report prepared by Dr. Loreto T. Rojas, whose report detailed external wounds such as cut wounds and stab wounds, and internal findings including hemothorax and death due to shock secondary to hemorrhage, massive. The trial court adopted these findings in determining the circumstances of the killing.

Manner of Attack and Identification

Rosita Panti testified that she recognized the three assailants “very well” as the ones who stabbed her husband. The Court noted that recognition was made possible by store lighting, the electric post, and the moonlit night, and because Rosita personally knew the accused as they were likewise from Obo, San Miguel, Catanduanes. The Court characterized the attack as an almost simultaneous assault from behind while the victim was on the way home, followed by the attackers’ departure without any assistance being rendered during the act of stabbing.

The Court treated Rosita’s identification as positive, and the record showed no reason offered by the defense why Rosita would fabricate so serious an accusation against the appellants.

Motive as Found by the Trial Court

The trial court found the motive to be likely connected to a prior case in which the victim had allegedly acted as a witness for the prosecution. The motive was described as deriving from Criminal Case No. 1374 for violation of P.D. No. 533 pending before the court at Branch 43, where Abelardo Tasarra and Vicente Boseo were among the accused. In the present case, the Court’s narration reflected that Antonio Boseo—the co-accused in the instant prosecution—was among the accused in the prior case, and the prosecution linked the threatened act and subsequent killing to hostility arising from the victim’s testimony.

Additionally, the evidence reflected a warning allegedly issued by Antonio Boseo about four days before the incident. On or about October 5, 1987, when Tita Panti Tawat was washing clothes at the river in Obo, San Miguel, Catanduanes, Antonio Boseo allegedly approached her and asked where her father was. After learning that the victim was at home, he allegedly told her: “Tell your father that he should pass his own way. If he passes our own way, I’ll kill him.” Tita testified that she caused this to be blotted in the police station.

Defense Evidence and Theory

Both appellants denied participation in the killing. Amando claimed that on October 9, 1987, he was with Jose Tayamora in the abaca plantation of the latter at Bontahiya, Patagan, Salvacion, San Miguel, clearing the plantation and splitting and stripping abaca. Abelardo claimed that he was in the family abaca plantation at Maysima, Patagan, Salvacion, San Miguel, with Melecio Boseo, clearing the plantation and stripping abaca.

To support their respective alibis, both Jose Tayamora and Melecio Boseo were presented as corroborating witnesses.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

After trial, the trial court found Amando and Abelardo Tasarra guilty of murder, and it imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also ordered civil liability awards to be paid jointly and severally to the heirs of the victim: P30,000.00 as indemnity for the victim’s death, P10,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages, and P1,000.00 for burial expenses.

On the characterization of the crime, the trial court found the killing attended by treachery, based on the sudden and unexpected attack that rendered the victim unable to defend himself. It did not sustain the allegation of evident premeditation for want of evidential requisites. The trial court also found abuse of superior strength and nighttime, but treated them as absorbed in treachery for purposes of qualifying the offense.

Appellants’ Assignments of Error

On appeal, the defense contended that the trial court erred in: (one) not giving credence to the alibi; (two) giving full faith and credence to Rosita Panti’s testimony despite “very serious inconsistencies”; and (three) convicting the appellants of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellate Court’s Evaluation of Alibi

The Supreme Court reiterated the settled rule that the trial court’s conclusions and findings of fact deserved great weight on appeal because it was in a better position to observe witness demeanor. The Court found no strong and valid reason to disturb those findings.

On the alibi, the Court held that the defense assertion was “puerile” in light of the distances involved and the circumstances of travel. The Court invoked the trial court’s reasoning that if the distance between the crime scene and the alleged whereabouts was only a few kilometers, presence at the locus criminis could still be possible even if walking was the sole means of travel, and therefore alibi could not automatically negate the possibility of participation.

The Court further emphasized that for alibi to prosper, the accused must show that they were so far away that they could not have been physically present at the time and place of the commission. It concluded that the appellants were not situated so far from the crime scene. Finally, it restated the controlling principle that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.

Credibility of Rosita Panti and Treatment of Alleged Inconsistencies

The Court upheld Rosita Panti’s testimony as the basis for conviction. It relied on her positive identification of the appellants as the assailants who attacked the victim on the moonlit night of October 9, 1987, and it treated the illumination from the store and streetlight as further support for recognition.

As to the defense claim that Rosita’s testimony was replete with inconsistencies, the Court held that any lapses referred only to minor details—such as the distances of the assailants from the victim and who struck the first blow. The Court ruled that these points did not materially impair credibility nor affect the substance of Rosita’s account. It characterized such minor inconsistencies as indicative of veracity rather than fabrication.

Legal Characterization: Murder and Treachery

The Supreme Court sustained the trial court’s conclusion that the killing constituted murder. It found that treachery was present due to the sudden and unexpected attack on the victim by the appellants, which rendered the victim unable to defend himself. The Court, however, did not sustain evident premedi

...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