Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

EVIDENCE | B2015

CASE DIGESTS

TARAPEN V. PEOPLE Collective testimonies of witnesses for the prosecution:


August 28, 2008 1. 7:00 – 7:30 AM, June 8, 2000 – The dump truck driven by
Chico-Nazario, J. Jimmy Pugoy arrived at Zandueta St. Baguio City to collect
Rañeses, Roberto Miguel O. garbage. He was accompanied by Tarapen and Edmond Ferrer.
(Apologies for the length. Highly-detailed digest, though the discussion on the 2. At around the abovementioned time, vendors, including the
penalty and damages has been omitted.)
victim James Pangoden, along with fellow vendors Molly and
Silmana Linglingen and Virginia Costales were peddling their
SUMMARY: Tarapen was charged with frustrated homicide, but was
goods along Zandueta St.
later charged with homicide instead when the victim, James
3. Tarapen got off from the truck and guided the truck. However,
Pangoden, died. According to the version of the prosecution, Tarapen
despite being guided, the truck still ran over some eggplants
struck James twice on the head with a shovel after an exchange of
being sold by Costales.
words. According to the version of the defense. Tarapen only struck
4. Tarapen picked up the vegetables and threw them towards
James with a shovel when the latter attacked him without provocation
where James was. This angered James as the flowers he was
on Tarapen’s part. The TC and CA both upheld the prosecution’s
selling were soiled.
version. The SC affirmed.
5. An exchange of words ensued, which led to Tarapen going to
the back of his truck, getting a shovel, and hitting James from
DOCTRINE: [A] witness’ relationship to a victim of a crime would
behind on the back of his head.
even make his or her testimony more credible, as it would be
6. As soon as James raised his head after having fallen to the
unnatural for a relative, or a friend as in this case, who is interested in
ground, Tarapen hit him again on the head with a shovel before
vindicating the crime, to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.
running away.
A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the
7. James was brought to the Baguio General Hospital & Medical
parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false
Center (BGHMC).
color to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the truth, or to
8. The wife of James, Patricia, arrived at BGHMC and saw her
state what is false. To warrant rejection of the testimony of a relative
husband. Dr. Cala refused to operate on her husband, saying
or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of the
that it was hopeless. Patricia then requested that her husband
relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or
be transferred to Saint Louis University (SLU) Hospital. The
that improper or evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate
request was approved.
the accused falsely.
9. James was operated on SLU, but Patricia was told that he had
no more chance to live. Patricia then brought her husband to
FACTS: On June 9, 2000 Peter Tarapen was charged before the RTC of his hometown in Namatugan, Sudipen, La Union where he
Baguio with Frustrated Homicide for attacking and assaulting James finally denied.
Lacbao Pangoden. The day after, the victim died from the his injuries.
An amended information was subsequently filed on June 13, 2000 Testimony of Patricia S. Pangoden (wife):
charging Tarapen with homicide.
 Testified to the events that happened to her husband from the
time he was brought to the hospital until the time he died.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Patricia S.
 She also testified on expenses.
Pangoden, (2) Molly J. Linglingen, (3) Silmana Linglingen, (4) Virginia
Costales, (5) Dr. Lindo Mensalvas, (6) Dr. Rizal Leo Cala, and (7) SPO2
Juanito Menseses II
EVIDENCE | B2015
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.

Testimony of Edmond Ferrer: Testimony of Dr. Maryjane Tipayno:


1. He was with Tarapen hanging at the back of the truck.  She performed an audio logic test on Tarapen.
2. When the vehicle stopped, Peter went down the vehicle. Pugoy  She found mild hearing loss on the left ear and severe hearing
also went down, taking with him the shovel and the garbage loss on the right ear.
basket.  Hearing loss could not have been self-inflicted; hearing loss on
3. After filling up the basket, and before he could load it into the both ears could have started years before.
truck, he heard people shouting.  It was Dr. Vinluan who interviewed Tarapen, and that it was
4. He proceeded to the front vehicle carrying the shovel he was Tarapen who told Dr. Vinluan that his hearing loss on right ear
using to investigate the commotion. was due to blunt trauma.
5. He saw Tarapen sitting on the ground shaking his head. He put
down the shovel and tried to help Tarapen up. As rebuttal witness, the prosecution presented Molly Linglingen, who
6. A person approached was about to hit Tarapen, when the latter said that Tarapen was standing up when he hit James twice with a
got hold of the shovel, swung it and hit this person. shovel. She explained that James was standing with his back turned
7. Tarapen was able to stand and was turning around to leave, but when Tarapen came from behind and hit him.
the person whom he hit with the shovel was about to follow
him in order to punch him. The trial court convicted the petitioner of homicide.
8. Tarapen hit the person one more time. 1. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses as against the testimonies of defense
Testimony of Peter Tarapen: witnesses.
1. He went down the truck and saw a sack of eggplants under the 2. The trial court found the prosecution’s version of the incident
vehicle. credible.
2. The owner of the sack asked him to help her. He obliged. 3. The trial court said Virginia Costales saw the first part of the
3. After that, someone (James) punched him at the right side of incident, which was the heated argument between petitioner
the head. and the victim involving the victim’s soiled goods, while Molly
4. As he was getting up with his hands raised, James said, Linglingen and Silmana Linglingen witnessed the second part
"Nalastog kayo nga taga-gobierno," and then punched him for of the incident when petitioner went to the back portion of the
the second time. garbage truck and got a shovel with which he hit the victim
5. He was a little dizzy and was again getting up when he was from the back, twice on the head, resulting in his death.
kicked on the left side of his body. Feeling very dizzy, he tried to 4. Having had the opportunity to observe them, it was convinced
pick up something to throw at James. While sitting, he got hold that they were telling the truth vis-aà -vis the defense witnesses
of a shovel which he swung, hitting James. who were lying, as can be seen from their hesitant answers and
EVIDENCE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

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

o The findings made by Dr. Cala as contained in which portions of the


the medico-legal certificate he issued showing testimony to reject as false
that the victim suffered injuries on the right and which to consider
side of his head, consistent with the worthy of belief.
declarations of prosecution witnesses that the Tarapen: The trial court judge was not able to observe the
victim was, from behind, struck with a shovel demeanor of the prosecution witnesses, because they were
twice on the right side of the head. looking at the court interpreter when they were testifying.
o More weight to this medical certificate is given  SC: The trial court judge was emphatic in saying
by the SC, because the same was issued by a that he had the chance to see the face of the
government doctor. witness while she testified.
 Under Section 44, Rule 130, Revised
Rules of Court, entries in official 2. Having admitted that he killed James, the burden of evidence
records made in the performance of that one acted in self-defense shifted to petitioner. Like an alibi,
official duty are prima facie evidence self-defense1 is inherently weak, for it is easy to fabricate.
of the facts therein stated. a. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the
 Even assuming arguendo that we give justifying circumstance of self-defense, whether
more weight to the medical certificate complete or incomplete.
issued by Dr. Mensalvas, this does not i. Tarapen failed to prove self-defense.
mean that the testimonies of Molly
and Silmana Linglingen shall be DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the decision
disbelieved. It is noted that Dr. of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26636, dated 31 January 2006,
Mensalvas testified that the victim is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the petitioner.
sustained a wound on the right side
of his head, possibly caused by a steel
shovel.
 Well-settled is the rule that
the testimony of a witness
may be believed in part and
disbelieved in another,
depending on the 1
corroborative evidence or ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal
the probabilities and liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
improbabilities of the case.
following circumstances concur;
 Where a part of the
testimony of a witness runs First. Unlawful aggression;
counter to the medical
evidence submitted, it is Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
within the sound discretion
of the court to determine Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen