People v. Tan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Fernando Tan and the victim Rey Buzon were childhood friends. Their friendship soured when Zenaida Hermosisima, Tan's girlfriend, eloped with Buzon. Sixteen years later, Buzon returned to the Philippines. On April 25, 1988, while Buzon was about to leave after visiting friends, Tan approached him, uttered threats, and shot him. Buzon attempted to escape and run towards his house, with Tan in pursuit, continuing to shoot him. Buzon was found kneeling on Halcon Street, pleading for his life, but Tan continued to assault him, hitting him with the gun and shooting him again, causing instant death. Procedural History: An Information was filed charging Fernando Tan with murder, alleging treachery and evident premeditation. The accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on appeal. The Petition: The accused-appellant raised several errors, including the lower court's reliance on the testimony of eyewitness Alicia Paras despite the judge who penned the decision not having heard all witnesses, the failure to list all prosecution witnesses in the information, the alleged suppression of evidence for not presenting Marcial Gavino and Francisco dela Rosa, conviction based on uncorroborated testimony contradicted by physical evidence, and the erroneous appreciation of treachery and evident premeditation.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in giving weight to the testimony of eyewitness Alicia Paras. Whether the prosecution committed suppression of evidence by not presenting Marcial Gavino and Francisco dela Rosa. Whether the accused-appellant was convicted based on uncorroborated testimony contradicted by physical evidence. Whether treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime. Whether the awards for damages were supported by evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with modifications to the awards for damages. The Court found treachery to be present but deleted the awards for actual damages, loss of earnings, and exemplary damages due to lack of evidence, while reducing the attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Alicia Paras and the failure to list witnesses in the Information: The Court found no reason to disturb the conclusions of the trial judge regarding the credibility of Alicia Paras, despite the judge who penned the decision not having heard all the witnesses. The Court held that mere relationship with a party does not disqualify a witness or automatically render them biased. Paras's testimony was found to be candid, straightforward, and categorical, and her identification of the accused as the lone perpetrator was clear. Any alleged inconsistency regarding the victim's address was deemed immaterial and inconsequential. The Court ruled that the mere fact that the names of Paras and Lacanlalay were not listed in the information does not invalidate their testimonies. The prosecution has the prerogative to determine its witnesses, and circumstances such as witnesses residing abroad or being incapacitated may necessitate presenting witnesses not listed in the information. There is no law mandating that witnesses must be listed in the information before they can testify. On suppression of evidence: The Court dismissed the claim of suppression of evidence for the prosecution's failure to present Marcial Gavino and Francisco dela Rosa. The Court stated that the failure to present witnesses does not amount to suppression unless their testimonies would be adverse to the prosecution. Furthermore, these witnesses were available to the defense, which could have subpoenaed them. On conviction based on uncorroborated testimony: The Court rejected the argument that the conviction was based solely on uncorroborated testimony. It emphasized that witnesses are weighed, not numbered, and a single credible witness can suffice for conviction. The testimony of Alicia Paras was corroborated by Anita Lacanlalay and the medico-legal officer. The Court found no contradiction between Paras's testimony and the physical evidence. On treachery and evident premeditation: The Court agreed with the defense that evident premeditation was not proven, as the elements of decision, overt act, and lapse of sufficient time were not established. However, the Court affirmed the trial court's appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The victim was already seated in the jeep, and the accused's actions ensured the commission of the crime without risk to himself. On damages: The Court found the award of P50,000.00 for actual damages unsupported by evidence, as no receipts were presented. The award for loss of earnings of P4,390,848.00 was also unsubstantiated, as no documentary evidence like payslips was presented to support the claimed monthly income. The award of exemplary damages was deleted for lack of aggravating circumstances. The award of attorney's fees was reduced from P50,000.00 to P25,000.00.
Main Doctrine
While evident premeditation was not proven, treachery was correctly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance in murder. Awards for actual damages, loss of earnings, and exemplary damages require substantiation by evidence, and attorney's fees may be reduced.