View full case

PEOPLE v. JEMUEL TAN

FACTS:

Mercedes Amar, Jemuel Tan, and Charlie Amar were charged with murder for the death of Jessie Dionesio. According to the Information, on June 3, 1992, in Tibiao, Antique, the accused, armed with a knife, conspired and attacked Jessie, causing him a fatal stab wound which led to his instantaneous death. The accused pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits followed.

The prosecution presented Rogelio Cumla, Dr. Emilia Monicimpo, and Celedonia Dionesio as witnesses. Rogelio testified that he witnessed the incident where Mercedes held Jessie while Jemuel restrained him, and Charlie stabbed him with a knife. Celedonia, the victim's mother, testified that Mercedes informed her about her son's death and that she saw Jessie lying on the ground near Mercedes' house. Dr. Monicimpo conducted the autopsy and found that Jessie suffered a fatal stab wound to his chest.

The defense presented testimonies from PO2 Victoriano Songcayawon, Mercedes, Charlie, Jemuel, SPO3 Orlando Julian, and Antonio Dalumpines. Songcayawon testified that Mercedes reported the incident to the police but could not identify the assailant. Mercedes, Charlie, and Jemuel testified on their version of the events, denying responsibility for the death of Jessie and claiming that they actually rendered assistance to him when they found him wounded.

The pertinent facts of the case are as follows:

One month prior to the incident, Jessie had been staying in the house of Mercedes and her husband, Carlito Amar, because he had a fight with his twin brother, Jaime. On the morning of June 3, 1992, Jessie and Jaime had a fight, and Jaime allegedly chased Jessie with a knife. As a result, Jessie sought refuge in Amar's house.

On the night of the incident, Jemuel Tan went to Mercedes' house to buy kerosene and was invited for dinner. While eating, Mercedes shouted for help, and Jemuel, along with Charlie, ran towards the gate where they saw Jessie lying bloodied on the ground. They carried his body to the roadside and borrowed a petromax from their neighbor, Pedro Cumla, to provide light near the body. Jemuel denied any participation in the stabbing incident.

PO3 Julian testified that Mercedes, Carlito, and Ana Dionesio arrived at the police station at around 8:50 in the evening of June 3, 1992, to report the stabbing incident. Ana Dionesio allegedly informed him that they did not know the identity of the assailant. PO3 Julian then went to the crime scene and later brought Mercedes, Guillermo Dionesio, and Ninfa Dionesio to the house of Bernardo Cumla, upon Celedonia’s request.

Antonio Dalumpines, another witness for the defense, claimed that he saw a person stab another on June 3, 1992, but he was unable to identify the assailant due to the darkness. He informed Mercedes about what he had witnessed one week after the incident.

On May 19, 1998, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment, acquitting Mercedes and convicting Charlie as the principal by direct participation and Jemuel as an accomplice for the crime of murder.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting Mercedes Amar based on alleged contradictory statements of a prosecution witness.

  2. Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength in convicting Charlie Amar and Jemuel Tan.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting Jemuel Tan as a principal by direct participation instead of as an accomplice.

  4. Can the appellants be held liable for murder?

  5. Did the appellants demonstrate abuse of superior strength?

  6. Whether the claim for funeral expenses is substantiated and proven.

  7. Whether the claim for actual damages should be awarded.

RULING:

  1. The trial court did not err in acquitting Mercedes Amar. Although the court found unity of purpose between Charlie Amar and Jemuel Tan, it disbelieved the account of Rogelio Cumla that Mercedes tied a rope around the victim's neck. It is settled that a witness' testimony may be believed in part and disbelieved in another part, depending on the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.

  2. The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength. It found that Charlie Amar and Jemuel Tan committed the crime in such a manner as to deprive the victim any chance to defend himself. Moreover, there was a notorious inequality of forces between the malefactors and the victim.

  3. The Court of Appeals did not err in convicting Jemuel Tan as a principal by direct participation instead of as an accomplice. The trial court inadvertently convicted Jemuel Tan merely as an accomplice in the dispositive portion of its decision, despite discussing in the body of the decision that both Charlie Amar and Jemuel Tan should be found guilty of murder as principals by direct participation.

  4. Yes, the appellants can be held liable for murder. Conspiracy was established, as evidenced by the concerted efforts and close coordination between the accused in inflicting injury on the victim. Even if the actual agreement or preconceived plan was not proven, conspiracy can still be implied from the concerted action of the assailants. In this case, one accused held the victim's hands while the other delivered the fatal blow. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly found one of the accused liable as a principal by direct participation and not merely as an accomplice.

  5. No, there is no basis for the finding of abuse of superior strength. It was not established that the accused purposely used excessive force that was manifestly out of proportion to the means available to the victim's defense. The prosecution failed to establish the physical condition of the protagonists and that the appellants deliberately took advantage of their superior strength.

  6. The claim for funeral expenses is not substantiated and proven, therefore it must be deleted.

  7. The claim for actual damages is not awarded. However, nominal damages in the amount of P10,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are awarded.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in another part, depending on the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.

  • Aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength may be appreciated when the crime is committed in a manner that deprives the victim any chance to defend himself and there is a notorious inequality of forces between the malefactors and the victim.

  • Conspiracy may be implied from the concerted action of the assailants in confronting the victim.

  • In a conspiracy, each conspirator is equally responsible for the acts of the other conspirators.

  • The qualifying circumstance of treachery can be appreciated when the killing is sudden and unexpected, ensuring the killing without risk to the assailants.

  • Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent on the part of the accused to take advantage of such superiority, and the use of excessive force out of proportion to the means available to the victim's defense.

  • Receipts must be presented to substantiate claims for funeral expenses.

  • It is necessary for a party seeking the award of actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award.

  • Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake, or burial of the victim will be recognized in court.

  • Nominal damages may be awarded even if there is no actual loss or injury suffered, as a recognition of a technical violation of a person's rights.

  • Moral damages may be awarded for mental anguish suffered as a consequence of the death of a loved one.