Pana and Tiguman vs. People
Pana and Tiguman vs. People
Pana and Tiguman vs. People
*
G.R. No. 130144. May 24, 2001.
________________
* EN BANC.
200
201
BUENA, J.:
For a simple land dispute, father and son were sprayed with bullets
right in their own house by some goons for hire. The culprits were
Jose Bilboro Pomoy, Jr.,. alias “Robert Bayan,” accused-appellants
Emmanuel Tiguman, a.k.a. “Manny,” and Melecia Paña, alias
“Meling,” and a certain John Doe. Pomoy pleaded guilty to a lesser
offense of homicide. Appellants Tiguman and Paña, who were
convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the trial court, filed
with this Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, docketed as
G.R. No. 130144, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the lower
court in convicting them. Since their conviction is on automatic
review due to the penalty imposed, docketed as G.R. Nos. 130502- 1
03, this Court treated their petition for certiorari as an appeal.
On December 10, 1993, Jose Juanite, Sr. and his son Jose Juanite,
Jr. were in their residence in San Pedro, Alegria, Surigao del Norte
conversing with members of their family. When someone knocked
on the door, ten-year old Teotimo Questo, Jr. opened it. Upon
opening the door, a man suddenly burst in and fired at Jose Juanite,
Sr. His son, Jose Juanite, Jr., rushed towards the door to close it but
he was shot from the window by another man. The gunshot wounds
sustained by both father and son caused their instantaneous deaths.
This incident led to the filing of two (2) criminal informations for
murder against appellant Tiguman, accused
2
Pomoy, Jr. and one John
Doe. Subsequently, the informations were amended to in-
______________________
1Supreme Court Resolution dated September 8, 1997; See Rollo of G.R. 130144.
2The separate information reads:
“That at 6:30 o’clock in the evening of December 10, 1993 at San Pedro, Alegria, Surigao del
Norte, Philippines, the above named accused with full freedom, intelligence and criminal intent
to kill, conniving, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and feloni-ously shoot with a long arm JOSE JUANITE,
JR. just immediately
202
_____________________
after he had closed the door, by Robert Bayan who was stationed at the window
while Manny Tiguman was yet behind the front door and John Doe was outside the
house as guard and armed with a long arm, thus hitting Jose Juanite, Jr. thereby
inflicting the following injuries upon him to wit:
which resulted to his untimely instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs by
way of actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages in the total amount to be
established during trial.
“Accused Efren Paña and Melecia Paña alias Meling Paña are included as accused in this
case for being the mastermind and therefore principal by inducement because on Dec 8, 1993 at
11:00 o’clock in the evening they were the ones who proposed to Manny Tiguman, Robert
Bayan and two companions that Jose Juanite be killed for a prize.
“Contrary to law with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating
circumstance of superior strength, dwelling, nighttime crime committed with armed men to
insure impunity, evident premeditation and for a price, reward or promise. “Surigao City,
December 27, 1993.”
“That on or about December 10, 1993 at 6:30 o’clock in the evening more or less at Brgy.
San Pedro, Municipality of Alegria, Province of Surigao del Norte, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused with full freedom, intelligence,
and criminal intent to kill, conniving, con-
203
_____________________
spiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, criminally, feloniously shoot with his sidearm JOSE JUANITE, SR. by accused
Manny Tiguman while accused Robert Bayan stationed himself by the window and John Doe
was outside the house of said Jose Juanite, acting as guard, thereby hitting the latter on his face
and chest thus causing his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs by way
of actual, moral, compensatory and exemplary damages.
“Accused Efren Paña and Melecia Paña alias Meling Paña are included as accused in this
case for being the mastermind and therefore principal by inducement because on Dec 8, 1993 at
11:00 o’clock in the evening they were the ones who proposed to Manny Tiguman, Robert
Bayan and two companions that Jose Juanite be killed for a prize.
“Contrary to law with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and superior strength and the
aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed in the dwelling of offended party,
nighttime which facilitate the commission of the crime, with aid of armed men who insured
impunity, that the crime was committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise and
evident premeditation. “Surigao City, December 27, 1993. (records, p. 1)”
3 RTC Joint Judgment [Branch 30, Surigao City] dated November 14, 1996 penned
by Judge Melchor M. Libarnes, records, pp. 306-307.
204
evidence.
4
The dispositive portion of the court a quo’s decision
reads:
____________________
4 RTC Decision [Branch 30, Surigao City] dated July 9, 1997 penned by Judge
Floripinas C. Buyser, records, pp. 434-459, pp. 458-459.
205
___________________
206
__________________
(a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in the proper
case, the civil liability.
(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and damages, if any,
arising from the issuance of any provisional remedy in the case.
(c) The parties may then respectively present rebutting evidence only, unless the
court, in furtherance of justice, permits them to present additional evidence
bearing upon the main issue.
(d) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for
decision unless the court directs the parties to argue orally or to submit
memoranda.
(e) However, when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the
complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial
may be modified accordingly.
207
10
State no less than to the accused. The rules of evidence permit the
use of considerable discretion by the trial courts in the admission of
rebuttal evidence. It cannot be said that the trial court abused its
discretion in this respect, where the defendant is not taken by
surprise and 11
is not prevented from introducing evidence in
surrebuttal.
In any case, assuming that the testimonies of prosecution witness
Maria Elena Juanite and rebuttal witness Pomoy, Jr., are
inadmissible in evidence, the culpability of appellant Tiguman was
clearly established by the positive identification of other prosecution
witnesses.
Testifying for the prosecution, the 10-year old Questo, Jr., was
actually present with the Juanites at the time the shooting happened.
He testified that prior to the shooting, he saw appellants Tiguman,
Pomoy, Jr. and an unidentified person on December 10, 1993,
between 6:00 to 6:30 in the evening, in the waiting shed of Purok 5,
Barangay San Pedro, Alegria, Surigao del Norte, carrying a sack
from where the muzzles of firearms were protruding. The young
boy, on the witness stand declared and positively identified appellant
Tiguman as the person who suddenly shot Juanite, Sr. in the latter’s
12
house. Another prosecution witness, Arturo Balesteros, testified
that moments after he heard gunshots coming from the residence of
the Juanites, he saw Manny Tiguman pass by, coming from the
direction of the Juanite house.
Against such overwhelming evidence, appellant Tiguman could
only offer denial and alibi as his defenses which are inherently weak
13
and unreliable. He claims that at the time of the incident on that
fatal night, he was in Camp Evangelista, Cagayan de Oro City,
which is a neighboring city of the province of Surigao del Norte.
Appellant Tiguman’s
14
alibi is worthless in the face of his positive
identification by prosecution witnesses who have no mo-
__________________________
208
_____________________
15 People vs. Ranido, 351 Phil. 610; 288 SCRA 369 (1998).
16 People vs. Merza, 238 SCRA 283 (1994); People vs. Lorenzo, 240 SCRA 624
(1995); People vs. Hubilla, Jr., 252 SCRA 471 (1996).
17 The other respondents in the agrarian case were Edilberto Romero, Felisa
Mercado, Macario Sanchez, and Pio Yonson (Department of Agrarian Reform
Decision dated October 28, 1993, records, pp. 513-516).
209
VOL. 358, MAY 24, 2001 209
Paña vs. Buyser
appellant Tiguman could not have known the victims, a picture was
necessary to identify the targets.
Andy Acebedo, neighbor of spouses Paña likewise testified in
court that on December 8, 1993 he saw Pomoy, Jr., accused-
appellant Tiguman, pass by and proceed to the house of the Pañas.
When he followed them, he overheard accused-appellant Paña
telling accused-appellant Tiguman, Pomoy, Jr., and two persons
unknown to him, to kill Jose Juanite, Sr. and Jr.
Prosecution witness Gemma Bacor, whose house is located just
across the house of the Juanites, testified that on that fateful night,
while watching television, she heard gunfire. She opened the door of
her house and saw two persons in the street carrying firearms. Bacor
further testified that on January 2, 1994, the Paña spouses invited her
to their residence and asked her to execute an affidavit to the effect
that what she saw on that night were only children and not adults.
Such invitation to execute a misleading statement is an indicia of
guilt to silence a living witness to their horrible deed, and perpetrate
an injustice to the poor victims of their greed.
Testimonies of prosecution witnesses are given weight and
credence absent proof of ill will, or motive, to testify against the
accused. Prosecution witnesses, Andy Acebedo, Elena Siaboc,
Gemma Bacor are not maliciously motivated to testify against
appellant Paña. The latter herself testified that there exists no
misunderstanding between her and the witnesses mentioned.
In this case, no reason appears for the Court to disregard the trial
court’s assessments, to wit:
210
accused Melecia Paña handed the money to Manny Tiguman, saying: ‘Here
is the money. This is one-half of the total price, “bahala na nimo”(it is up to
you)’; and that, on January 2, 1994, the accused Melecia Paña and her
husband, Efren Paña, invited prosecution witness Gemma Bacor to the
former’s residence and there, the Paña spouses convinced the latter to
execute an affidavit that would declare that the persons, whom Gemma
Bacor saw passing by her residence in the evening of December 10, 1993,
after she heard gunshots, were children and not adults, contrary to what
Gemma Bacor had actually seen.
“From the facts thus proven, there is no doubt that the accused Melecia
Paña induced her co-accused Emmanuel [Manny] Tiguman and Jose
Bilboro Pomoy, Jr. (Robert Bayan) to kill Jose Juanite, Sr. and Jose Juanite,
Jr. in the evening of December 10, 1993, at San Pedro, Alegria, Surigao del
18
Norte.”
The trial court ruled that the crime committed was murder after
finding that the killings were attended by treachery, evident
premeditation, dwelling and price or reward. Only one aggravating
circumstance is enough to qualify the killing to murder, the rest
constitute generic aggravating circumstances. We agree with the trial
court that treachery was proven since the “attack was sudden,
unexpected, without warning, and without giving the victims an
opportunity to defend themselves or repel the aggression, as in fact
the deceased did not sense any danger that they would be shot by the
assailants
19
as there was no grudge and misunderstanding between
them.” Dwelling is also aggravating considering that the assailants
were in the sanctity of their own home—which is perhaps the last
bulwark of their safety. An unsuspecting knock on the door betrayed
that trust of peace in the family who were only conversing.
Dwelling, or morada, is aggravating when crime is committed in the
20
dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given
21
provocation. Provocation in dwelling must be: (a) given by the
offended party, (b) sufficient, and (c) immediate to the com-
_______________________
211
22
mission of the crime. No such provocation concurs herein. With
respect to evident premeditation, the hiring of Tiguman to kill the
victims for a price, providing the victims’ picture and the meeting to
carry out the killing provide more than sufficient evidence to
appreciate the same. As to the circumstance of price or reward, it
can only be appreciated against appellant Tiguman since it was he
who committed the felonious act for money. The same evidence on
price established conspiracy 23between the appellants. Consequently
the act of one is the act of all.
The fact that the husband of appellant Paña, one of the alleged
conspirators or inducers in the killing, was acquitted of the charges
does not put to doubt appellant’s culpability. Though conspiracy is a
joint act, there is nothing irregular if the supposed co-conspirator is
acquitted and others convicted. Generally, conspiracy is only a
means by which a crime is committed as the mere act of conspiring
is not by itself punishable, Hence, it does not follow that one person
alone cannot be convicted when there is conspiracy. As long as the
acquittal of a co-conspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of
24
conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty of the offense.
Murder committed 25
in 1993 is penalized with reclusion temporal
maximum to death. Under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code,
when only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission
of the act, the maximum period shall be imposed, and whatever may
be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the
courts may not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law
in its maximum period. Considering however, the proscription in the
1987 Constitution on the imposition of death penalty as well as the
non-retroactive application of the restored death penalty, the trial
court erred in imposing on appellants Tiguman and Paña the death
penalty. The crimes in this case were
___________________
22 People vs. Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000, 333 SCRA 823.
23 People vs. Ordoño, G.R. No 132154, June 29, 2000, 334 SCRA 673.
24 People vs. Arlalejo, G.R. No. 127841, June 16, 2000, 333 SCRA 604, citing US
vs. Remegio, 37 Phil. 599 (1918).
25 People vs. Mindanao, G.R. No. 123095, July 6, 2000, 335 SCRA 2000.
212
____________________
26 Effectivity of Death Penalty Law (R.A. 7659) December 31, 1993; People vs.
Medina, 300 SCRA 98 (1998), citing People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 (1994).
27 People vs. Pedroso, G.R. No. 125128, July 19, 2000, 336 SCRA 163.
28 People vs. Sanchez, 308 SCRA 264 (1999).
29 People vs. De la Tongga, G.R. No. 133246, July 31, 2000, 336 SCRA 687 citing
Article 2224 of the Civil Code that temperate damages may be recovered when the
court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the
nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
30 People vs. Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000, 333 SCRA 823; People vs.
Tañeza, G.R. No. 121668, June 20, 2000, 334 SCRA 30.
213
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——