People v. Tabaco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Mario Tabaco, was charged with four counts of Murder for allegedly shooting to death Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Ex-Mayor Jorge Arreola, Felicito Rigunan, and Pat. Romeo Regunton on March 22, 1987. He was also charged with the complex crime of Homicide and Frustrated Homicide for shooting to death Jorge Siriban, Jr. and wounding Sgt. Benito Raquepo on the same date and occasion. The incidents occurred at the Octagon Cockpit Arena in Aparri, Cagayan, during a cock derby sponsored by the 117th PC. The prosecution presented evidence that the accused, armed with an M-14 rifle, suddenly and without provocation shot the victims. The defense claimed the accused was merely performing his duty to maintain peace and order and fired a warning shot after hearing gunfire, and that the subsequent shooting of Siriban and wounding of Raquepo occurred during a struggle for his firearm. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10 of Aparri, Cagayan, consolidated all cases and, in a joint decision dated January 14, 1991, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all charges. The RTC imposed a single penalty of reclusion perpetua for the four murder counts, considering them a complex crime, and an indeterminate penalty for homicide and frustrated homicide. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the trial court's assessment of credibility, his liability for murder and homicide/frustrated homicide, and the court's failure to give credence to his defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder in connection with the deaths of Oscar Tabulog, Jorge Arreola, Felicito Rigunan, and Romeo Regunton, and whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of the accused-appellant regarding these charges. Whether the trial court erred in holding the accused-appellant liable for homicide on the death of Jorge Siriban and the injury sustained by Benito Raquepo, and whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of the accused-appellant regarding these charges. Whether the trial court erred in applying Article 48 (Complex Crimes) and in the imposition of penalties for the four murders.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of murder and one count of homicide with frustrated homicide. However, the Court modified the imposition of penalties, ruling that the four murders constituted separate crimes and thus required four separate sentences of reclusion perpetua, instead of a single penalty for a complex crime. The conviction for homicide and frustrated homicide was affirmed with the imposed indeterminate penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for murder and the credibility of witnesses: The Court held that the trial court did not err in convicting the accused-appellant of murder. The Court reiterated the principle that findings of fact by the trial court, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses, are generally given great weight and are not disturbed on appeal, unless there are overlooked facts or circumstances of weight and influence. The testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses, Antonio Villasin, Rosario Peneyra, and Rogelio Guimmayen, were found to be positive, categorical, and credible. They positively identified the accused-appellant as the assailant who fired his M-14 rifle at the victims. The Court found no evidence of ill motive on the part of these witnesses, thus their testimonies were presumed to be truthful. The accused-appellant's bare denial was insufficient to overcome the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The Court also addressed the defense's contention regarding the trajectory of the bullets, explaining that the eyewitness accounts of the accused-appellant standing up and firing at the victims, coupled with the possibility of ricocheting bullets from cemented surfaces, sufficiently explained the wounds, even if the assailant and victims were not on the exact same level. On the conviction for homicide and frustrated homicide: The Court found no error in holding the accused-appellant liable for the death of Jorge Siriban, Jr. and the wounding of Sgt. Benito Raquepo. The testimonies of Sgt. Benito Raquepo and Pat. Mariano Retreta corroborated each other. They testified that the accused-appellant, after coming from inside the cockpit arena, pointed his gun at Sgt. Raquepo. In the ensuing struggle for the firearm, the gun discharged, hitting both Sgt. Raquepo and Jorge Siriban. The Court rejected the accused-appellant's claim of lack of criminal intent, stating that his act of firing the gun in disregard of the consequences was sufficient to establish criminal intent. Furthermore, under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred even if the wrongful act done is different from that which was intended. On the application of Article 48 (Complex Crimes) and the imposition of penalties: The Court clarified that the trial court erred in considering the four murders as a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code and imposing a single penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court distinguished this case from precedents like People vs. Pama where a single bullet killed two persons, or People vs. Lawas where it was impossible to ascertain individual killers. In this case, the evidence showed that multiple shots were fired from an automatic weapon, and each death was the result of a distinct shot or burst of fire, not a single act producing multiple felonies. Citing People vs. Desierto and People vs. Pineda, the Court held that when multiple victims are killed by separate shots from an automatic firearm, each killing constitutes a separate and distinct crime. Therefore, the accused-appellant should be held liable for each murder individually and sentenced accordingly to four separate penalties of reclusion perpetua. The Court affirmed the indeterminate sentence for the homicide and frustrated homicide charge.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for four counts of murder and one count of homicide with frustrated homicide, holding that the trial court correctly assessed the credibility of prosecution witnesses and that the evidence, including circumstantial evidence, proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court clarified the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code regarding complex crimes, holding that when multiple deaths result from separate shots fired from an automatic weapon, each death constitutes a distinct crime, thus requiring separate penalties.