PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SARIO TAHAO, JOHN DOE, ACCUSED, AND EDGAR TAHAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Tahao

The Case

This is People versus Tahao, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Edgar Tahao, together with Sario Tahao and a certain John Doe, for the killing of Police Officer Eduardo Joya in Tanza, Cavite, on the evening of February 23, 2000. The trial court convicted Edgar Tahao of murder and sentenced him to death; on reconsideration the sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The case matters to the reviewee because it is a compact lesson in the elements of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in the qualifying circumstance of treachery, and in the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt as applied to eyewitness testimony.

Procedural History

An Information for murder was filed against Edgar Tahao, Sario Tahao and John Doe before the Regional Trial Court of the City of Trece Martires, Branch 23. Edgar Tahao pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. On July 27, 2009, the trial court rendered its Decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and imposing the maximum penalty of death, with an award of civil indemnity, actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, temperate damages and attorney's fees.

Edgar Tahao filed a motion for reconsideration. On February 8, 2010, the trial court issued an Order upholding his conviction but reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua, with the same awards of damages. He then brought the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, assigning a single error: that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

On February 23, 2000, at about half past nine in the evening, Jennylyn Mendoza, the caretaker of the Venice Aira Videoke House, was talking with Police Officer Eduardo Joya in front of the establishment. Sario Tahao came out, and Joya noticed a gun tucked in his waist and disarmed him. Edgar Tahao also came out, and Joya asked for his gun as well; Edgar refused, and an altercation ensued. Joya went to his car to get his long firearm, but Edgar followed him, pointed a gun at his head, and took the gun tucked at Joya's waist. When Edgar let his guard down, Joya pushed him away and ran toward the direction of McDonald's, but Edgar fired at him and he fell.

Three prosecution witnesses placed Edgar at the scene. Francisco Bolante, at his outpost some twenty feet away, saw Joya running while being chased and shot at by Edgar, saw Joya fall, and saw Edgar shoot him on the head together with two others who also shot him. Romy Padernilla, on his bicycle near McDonald's, heard a shot, stopped, and saw two persons shooting a man lying on the pavement; he identified Edgar in court as one of them, and saw Edgar take the firearm of the man on the ground before they fired again and left. Jennylyn Mendoza testified that Edgar took Joya's firearm, that Joya tried to fight back and ran, and that Edgar shot him; when Joya was on the ground, Sario Tahao came out, Edgar gave him a firearm, and they shot Joya together.

Doctor Regalado Sosa, the City Health Officer of Cavite City, conducted the autopsy and found two gunshot wounds on the head and eight others on different parts of the body, and issued a death certificate stating that Joya died of hypovolemic shock due to multiple gunshot wounds. Soledad Joya incurred expenses in connection with the death of her son. For the defense, Edgar testified that Joya, who was in civilian clothes and visibly drunk, accosted Sario, pushed him, and later pistol-whipped Edgar; that a struggle caused a gun to go off; and that outside, he saw Sario and a companion shooting at Joya with the policeman's long firearm. He surrendered to the police regional office in Canlubang. The trial court convicted him, and he appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused killed Eduardo Joya, despite the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing so as to raise it from homicide to murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes murder, provides:

Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

The Court uses this provision to identify the elements of murder and to test whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was proved, since the Information charged treachery and evident premeditation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal is partly meritorious, but sustained the finding that the accused killed the victim. To successfully prosecute murder, the following elements must be proved: first, that a person was killed; second, that the accused killed that person; third, that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and fourth, that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The first and fourth requisites were not in dispute. As to the second, the Court found it satisfactorily proved by the positive identification of the three eyewitnesses, who knew Edgar since childhood as a neighbor, who saw him at close range under bright light, and who consistently testified that he shot Joya and took his firearm. The Court rejected the claim of inconsistencies as minor and insufficient to overturn the conviction.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery was not sufficiently established. The killing began with a confrontation in which Joya was armed and able to fight back, and the evidence showed that Joya ran and was chased before he was fired upon. The qualifying circumstance that would raise the killing to murder was therefore not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the crime was homicide, not murder. The Court thus affirmed the conviction for the killing but corrected the crime and the penalty accordingly.

Doctrine

First, the elements of murder are: that a person was killed; that the accused killed that person; that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The prosecution must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt.

Second, treachery is a qualifying circumstance that must be proved as clearly as the killing itself; where the evidence shows a confrontation in which the victim was armed and able to resist, and the attack was not sudden and unexpected so as to render the victim defenseless, treachery cannot be appreciated, and the killing is homicide, not murder.

Third, positive identification by eyewitnesses who knew the accused and saw him under adequate lighting is entitled to weight, and minor inconsistencies in their testimonies do not destroy their credibility.

Disposition

The appeal is partly meritorious: the Court affirmed the conviction of Edgar Tahao for the killing of Eduardo Joya but held that treachery was not proved, so the crime is homicide rather than murder, with the penalty and damages adjusted accordingly.

Remember This

Memorize the four elements of murder and the rule that treachery must be proved as clearly as the killing itself; where the victim was armed and able to fight back, the killing is homicide, not murder. Examiners use this case to test the elements of murder, the appreciation of treachery, and the weight of eyewitness identification.