People v. Tabadero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dominador Manaligod was shot and killed by eight armed men, identified as members of the NPA, in Barrio San Salvador, Echague, Isabela. The deceased had allegedly poisoned the carabao of Raymundo de la Cruz and refused to vacate land purchased by Eulogio Tabadero. A criminal complaint for Murder was filed against Eulogio Tabadero, Maximo Tabadero, Raymundo de la Cruz, and the eight NPA members. Procedural History: An information was filed with the Court of First Instance of Isabela against Maximo Tabadero and Eulogio Tabadero. Raymundo de la Cruz was later included. Raymundo de la Cruz was not arraigned due to mental illness and was committed to a mental hospital. Maximo and Eulogio Tabadero were granted a separate trial. Raymundo de la Cruz later recovered and pleaded guilty, receiving a sentence of 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal. Maximo and Eulogio Tabadero were found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The Petition: The accused-appellants, Maximo Tabadero and Eulogio Tabadero, appealed their conviction, claiming errors in the trial court's appreciation of evidence, particularly the credibility of witnesses, the existence of personal grudges, the physical impossibility of their presence at the scene of the crime, and the finding of conspiracy with the NPA.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the second version of the testimony of Avelina Liban over her first version. Whether the accused were victims of personal grudge and suspicion by the prosecution witnesses. Whether it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime due to the distance. Whether conspiracy was proven between the accused and the NPA members.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the accused-appellants guilty of murder. Their sentence of reclusion perpetua was upheld, along with the indemnity to the heirs of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Avelina Liban's testimony: The Court held that the trial court did not err in giving credence to the second version of Avelina Liban's testimony. While her initial statement only implicated Raymundo de la Cruz, the trial court observed her acting under fear, possibly from the NPA. Courts are not bound to accept or reject the entire testimony of a witness and may believe parts while disbelieving others, considering various factors such as demeanor, consistency, and motive. The trial court's adoption of the second version, which included the appellants in bringing down the victim, was based on a thorough consideration of these circumstances, and thus, the appellate court found no reason to disturb this finding. The Court reiterated the principle that where there is an irreconcilable conflict in testimony, the appellate court will not reverse the lower court's judgment if the prevailing party's evidence, considered alone, is sufficient to sustain the verdict. On the claim of personal grudge: The Court found no merit in the contention that the accused were victims of personal grudge. It reasoned that it was more probable for the accused to bear a grudge against the deceased, given the incidents involving the poisoned carabao and the refusal to vacate the land. The fact that Raymundo de la Cruz reported the carabao incident to the police, who referred him to a veterinarian, and the deceased's refusal to vacate Eulogio Tabadero's land, provided sufficient motive for the appellants to seek the aid of the NPA. Conversely, the prosecution witnesses' alleged grudge was deemed insufficient to motivate them to falsely implicate the accused, especially since no further police action was taken against the deceased regarding the carabao incident. On the physical impossibility of presence at the scene: The defense of alibi was found to be unmeritorious. Maximo Tabadero testified that he and his father, Eulogio Tabadero, were building a camarin about a kilometer away from the deceased's house. The Court ruled that a distance of one kilometer, traversable in a matter of minutes, did not preclude the appellants from perpetrating the crime and returning to their vicinity. Therefore, the alibi did not establish the physical impossibility of their participation. On the existence of conspiracy: The Court found that conspiracy was sufficiently proven. The record showed that the appellants were seen in the company of the eight NPA members the day before the killing, sleeping at Eulogio Tabadero's house. They were again seen together with the same NPA members on the morning of the killing, proceeding to Dominador Manaligod's house. The evidence clearly indicated that the appellants, along with Raymundo de la Cruz, went up the house, brought the victim down, and delivered him to the waiting NPA members who then executed him. These actions demonstrated a conspiracy to commit the killing. The Court emphasized that conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence but can be inferred from acts done in pursuance of a common unlawful purpose, and that the agreement of minds need not be proved directly.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for murder, holding that conspiracy was sufficiently established by their acts of coordinating with the NPA in abducting and delivering the victim to them for execution, and that the defense of alibi was unmeritorious given the proximity of the crime scene and the established conspiracy.