Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CASE DIGESTS
Testimony of Molly and Silamana Linglingen (mother and daughter, co- 3. Half of said street was almost occupied by vendors who were
vendors of James): selling various goods.
Tarapen got a shovel from the rear of garbage truck, 4. Ferrer alighted and started filling up the garbage basket with
approached James from behind, and hit him twice on the head. the use of a shovel. Peter saw a sack of eggplants pinned under
the truck being removed by its owner.
Testimony of Virginia Costales: 5. Peter helped the old woman carry the sack to the side of the
1. When the garbage truck was going down to Zandueta St, road when, all of a sudden, James punched him hard on the
Tarapen got off from the truck and guided it. right ear, causing him to fall and roll down the street. P
2. Truck ran over the eggplants she was selling. 6. eter ended up sitting on the ground. As he was getting up with
3. Tarapen picked them up and threw then towards James. his hands raised, James punched him again. Peter protested,
4. James got angry because the flowers he was selling was soiled. saying he did not do anything wrong. James answered: "You
5. Tarapen and James exchanged words. While such was people from the government are show-off[s]."
happening, she transferred her sacks of eggplants to a nearby 7. Tarapen, still dizzy while getting up and still with hands raised,
place. was kicked by James on the left side of the body. Peter fell on
6. Subsequently, she heard people shouting. When she turned the road and rolled anew.
around, James was already slumped on the ground, oozing with 8. Feeling very dizzy, Tarapen tried to pick up something to throw
blood. at James to stop him, because he thought James would kill him.
9. Ferrer was coming to the aid of Tarapen, who was in front of
Dr. Lindo Mensalvas (SLU Hospital) and Dr. Rizal Leo Cala (BGHMC): the truck. Edmond carried with him the shovel he used to
Attended to the victim; issued medico-legal certificates collect garbage. Edmond tried to help Peter stand. He put down
the shovel on the ground.
SPO2 Juanito Meneses II: 10. While in a sitting position, Tarapen was able to get hold of the
Investigator of Tarapen’cs case shovel and swing it, hitting James who was approaching him
Tarapen admitted to having inflicted injuries on James. and about to strike with a clenched fist.
There were no injuries on Tarapen’s body or face. 11. With the help of the shovel, Tarapen stood up and tried to
Tarapen did not request any medical treatment that morning. leave. When James followed Peter, the latter hit him again with
James was still unconscious when SPO2 Meneses went to the shovel. Tarapen saw James boarding a taxi.
BGHMC for identification. 12. After feeling a little better, Peter walked to his office and
Identified steel shovel allegedly used in killing. reported the matter to his supervisor.
13. Peter voluntarily surrendered to the police. He was brought to
For the defense, the following were theire witnesses: (1) Jimmy Pugoy, the hospital where he met James’s wife who hit him on the
(2) Peter Tarapen himself, (3) Edmond ferrer, (4) Dr. Maryjane Tipayno. back.
14. Tarapen received treatment at the hospital after he posted bail.
Collective testimonies of witnesses for the defense:
1. Pugoy, Tarapen and Ferrer are garbage collectors employed by Testimony of Jimmy Pugoy:
the General Services Office of the City of Baguio. 1. Tarapen went down the truck to hep an old woman, who was in
2. At around 3:00 a.m. of June 8, 2000, they started collecting front of a truck, to carry a sack of eggplants.
garbage. At around 7:00 a.m., they arrived at Zandueta St. 2. James went near Tarapen and suddenly punched him on the
face, causing the latter to roll down the street.
EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
3. When Tarapen stood up, James punched him again, making the 6. Tarapen said he got up to run away, but James followed him. It
former fall and roll again. was then that Tarapen hit him again with the shovel.
4. The next time Tarapen stood up, James delivered a flying kick 7. He went to their office and he was accompanied by his
to Tarapen’s stomach. supervisor in surrendering to the police.
5. Pugoy no longer saw what happened when the people had 8. He added that he asked the policemen to bring him to the
gathered. He only saw a man lying down on the ground after he hospital, because his ear was aching. It was on July 16 2000
parked his vehicle. that he was able to have a medical examination of his ears.
evasive looks when they testified for the petitioner who was a shovel and strike Peter. The void is filled by Costales,
co-employee. who actually witnessed the altercation.
5. The trial court did not appreciate self-defense in favor of
Tarapen. Tarapen: Molly and Silmana Linglingen are biased witnesses,
thus, unreliable, because they were town mates and co-vendors
Tarapen filed an MR, which was denied. The CA affirmed with of the victim.
modification the decision of the TC [from fourteen (14) years as SC: The fact that these two witnesses were the victim’s
minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum to eight (8) years of town mates and co-vendors did not necessarily make
prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion them biased witnesses. It is well-settled that the mere
temporal, as maximum]. CA also denied the MR. relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair
the witness’ credibility.
Tarapen filed a petition for review before the SC. o On the contrary, a witness’ relationship to a
victim of a crime would even make his or her
ISSUES: testimony more credible, as it would be
1. WON the CA and TC erred in giving credence to the prosecution unnatural for a relative, or a friend as in this
witnesses, despite the grave inconsistencies in their case, who is interested in vindicating the
testimonies and not considering the testimonies of the crime, to accuse somebody other than the real
witnesses for the defense showing manifest bias against the culprit.
accused. o A witness is said to be biased when his
2. WON the CA and TC erred in not acquitting the accused when relation to the cause or to the parties is such
the defense had sufficiently proved the existence of facts that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give
proving that indeed the accused was defending himself from false color to his statements, or to suppress or
James Pangoden. to pervert the truth, or to state what is false.
o To warrant rejection of the testimony of a
RULING: relative or friend, it must be clearly shown
1. NO. The TC and CA were correct in giving credence to the that, independently of the relationship, the
prosecution witnesses as against the defense witnesses. testimony was inherently improbable or
2. NO. The defense failed to prove self-defense. defective, or that improper or evil motives had
moved the witness to incriminate the accused
RATIO: falsely.
1. Tarapen: Testimonies of Molly and Silmana Linglingen that o The friendship of Molly and Silmana
there was no prior quarrel or exchange of words between Linglingen with the victim, per se, did not
Tarapen and James before the latter was hit by a shovel was impair their credibility.
contrary to human experience, because Tarapen could not have o Defense failed to show that the two witnesses
taken the life of James for no reason at all. were had improper or evil motives.
SC: They never said that there was no quarrel or
exchange. What they said was that they never Tarapen: The prosecution witnesses of deliberately
witnessed such, They, however, saw Tarapen get a suppressing material evidence favorable to the petitioner. It
EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
may be safely presumed that such evidence, having been o The alleged inconsistencies between the
willfully suppressed, would be adverse if produced. testimony of a witness in open court and his
SC: No evidence of suppression. The defense failed to sworn statement before the investigators are
specify which evidence was suppressed. not fatal defects that would justify the reversal
o Adverse presumption or suppression is not of a judgment of conviction.
applicable when (1) the suppression is not o Alleged inconsistencies between the
willful; (2) the evidence suppressed or testimony of a witness in open court and his
withheld is merely corroborative or sown statement are not fatal defects.
cumulative; (3) the evidence is at the disposal When Mrs. Costales was confronted
of both parties; and (4) the suppression is an with this contradiction, she explained
exercise of a privilege. that she never told the police that the
No suppression could have happened petitioner and the victim had a
since the prosecution witnesses were fistfight. What she said was they had
cross-examined by defense counsel. a quarrel; that is, they faced each
other and exchanged words.
Tarapen: The credibility of Virginia Costales is questionable,
considering that her testimony in court, which says that she did Tarapen: Molly and Silmana Linglingen’s version that the
not see petitioner and the victim engage in a fistfight, victim was hit from behind is not tenable, considering that it is
contradicts her declaration in her sworn statement that that not corroborated by medical findings. Molly and Silmana
two engaged in a fistfight. Linglingen’s claim that James was hit on the right side of the
SC: Such inconsistency will not discredit her. It is head was, according to the defense, negated by the findings of
settled that certain discrepancies between Dr. Mensalvas that James suffered injuries on the "left
declarations made in an affidavit and those made on frontoparietal and left frontotemporo parietal" areas of his
the witness stand seldom could discredit the head. The findings of Dr. Mensalvas mean that James was facing
declarant. Sworn statements, being taken ex parte, are Peter when hit by the shovel contrary to the prosecution’s
almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for claim that James was hit by Peter from behind.
various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or SC: The defense relies too much on the findings made
for want of suggestion and inquiries. They are by Dr. Lindo Mensalvas and completely omits the
generally inferior to the testimony of the witness given findings made by Dr. Rizal Leo Cala. It must not be
in open court. forgotten that the victim was brought to two hospitals
o The testimony of a witness prevails over an where the attending doctors issued separate medico-
affidavit. In short, affidavits are generally legal certificates.
subordinated in importance to open-court o From the medico-legal certificate issued by Dr.
declarations; or, more bluntly stated, Cala and with his testimony in court, it is clear
whenever there is inconsistency between an that the victim suffered injuries on the right
affidavit and the testimony of a witness in side of his head. Thus, the claim of Molly and
court, the testimony commands greater Silmana Linglingen that the victim was struck
weight. from behind on the right side of his head is
consistent with the findings of Dr. Cala.
EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS