People v. Tinampay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 18, 1983, Maximo Hinacay, his brother Segundo Hinacay, and son Florencio Hinacay were walking home after attending a cockfight. As they turned onto a footpath leading to Maximo's house, they were suddenly attacked by Venerando, Juanito, Maximino, and Desiderio Tinampay, who were armed with a bolo and pieces of wood. The accused allegedly conspired, confederated, and helped each other with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, and by taking advantage of superior strength. The attack resulted in the death of Maximo Hinacay and serious physical injuries to Segundo Hinacay. Florencio Hinacay sustained slight physical injuries and managed to escape. Desiderio Tinampay allegedly used the bolo to stab Maximo and Segundo, while the other accused used pieces of wood. The pieces of wood used by Maximino, Venerando, and Juanito broke during the assault. Florencio witnessed the attack and later approached the fallen bodies. He was subsequently attacked by Venerando and Juanito, and Maximino struck his forearm. Florencio sought refuge and the police were summoned. The post-mortem examination of Maximo Hinacay revealed multiple stab wounds and lacerated wounds. Segundo Hinacay sustained a comminuted fracture of the right orbit and nose, contusions, and a stab wound. Florencio Hinacay sustained abrasions and contusions. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Branch 4, found Maximino Tinampay and Desiderio Tinampay guilty of murder (Criminal Case No. 3738), frustrated murder (Criminal Case No. 3739), and attempted murder (Criminal Case No. 3740). The cases against Venerando and Juanito Tinampay were dismissed as they died during the pendency of the cases. Maximino and Desiderio Tinampay were sentenced to reclusion perpetua for murder and to indemnify the heirs of Maximo Hinacay. They were also sentenced to indeterminate penalties for frustrated and attempted murder. The Petition: Accused-appellants Maximino Tinampay and Desiderio Tinampay appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies while disregarding the defense witnesses, and that their guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants Maximino Tinampay and Desiderio Tinampay for murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution's version of the incident over the defense's version. Whether the defenses of self-defense and alibi, as claimed by the accused-appellants, are tenable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court with modifications to the penalties and indemnities. The Court found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused-appellants for murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder: The Court held that the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses, including the victims themselves (Segundo and Florencio Hinacay), positively identified the appellants as the assailants. The Court found that treachery qualified the attacks, as the offenders employed means without risk to themselves arising from the defense the offended parties might make. In Criminal Case No. 3739, the elements of frustrated murder were present as all acts of execution were performed but the felony was not produced due to timely medical attention. In Criminal Case No. 3740, the elements of attempted murder were met because the appellants commenced the commission of the crime by overt acts but did not perform all acts of execution due to the victim's escape. Conspiracy was also established by the combined acts of the appellants, indicating a common design to commit the crime. On the trial court's assessment of credibility and the prosecution's version: The Court found no error in the trial court's decision to give credence to the prosecution's version. The fact that the prosecution witnesses were relatives of the deceased did not automatically discredit their testimonies; it must be shown that their testimonies were inherently improbable or that they had improper motives. The Court noted that physical evidence supported the prosecution's version and that the appellants did not present any evidence of improper motives. Minor inconsistencies in Florencio's testimony and variances between his affidavit and court testimony were considered usual among witnesses and did not affect their overall credibility. The Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial judge on the credibility of witnesses deserve respect from the appellate court, absent grave abuse of discretion. On the defenses of self-defense and alibi: The claims of self-defense and alibi were found to be without merit. For self-defense to be appreciated, it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found that the appellant Maximino Tinampay did not present such evidence. Circumstances that discounted his claim included his failure to file charges against the alleged aggressors, his belated ventilation of the self-defense story, the fact that he was allegedly up against three armed men but one of the alleged aggressors died and another suffered serious injuries, and the injuries he sustained were not commensurate to the supposed attack. The Court also noted that while Maximino had three incised wounds, these could be attributed to the melee involving seven combatants. Regarding the defense of alibi by appellant Desiderio Tinampay, it is a well-settled rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by prosecution witnesses. Alibi is an inherently weak defense and will only be accepted upon the clearest proof that the appellant could not have been at the scene of the crime. In this case, Desiderio admitted to being at his brother's house less than a kilometer from the scene, which did not preclude his presence at the crime scene.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder, holding that treachery qualified the attacks, and that the defenses of self-defense and alibi were not sufficiently proven. The Court also reiterated that the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve respect.