Tarapen v People (2008)

Petitioner: PETER TARAPEN y CHONGOY

Respondent: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Ponente: J. Chico-Nazario
Concept: Rule 131 Section 3
Tarapen was charged before the RTC of Baguio City with Frustrated Homicide for attacking and assaulting James
Lacbao Pangoden. The day after, the victim died from the injuries he sustained. Thus, the information was amended
charging him with Homicide.
Prosecutions version of the incident is based on the accounts of witnesses Patricia Pangoden (Wife), Molly
Linglingen, Silmana Linglingen, Virginia Costales, Dr. Lindo Mensalvas, Dr. Rizal Leo Cala and SPO2 Juanito
Meneses II. Their collective testimonies revealed:
At around 7:00 to 7:30 in the morning of 8 June 2000, a dump truck driven by Jimmy Pugoy, with Tarapen and
Edmond Ferrer as passengers, turned around as it reached the Hilltop Market in Baguio. The vendors, including
the victim James Pangoden, Molly Linglingen, Silmana Linglingen and Virginia Costales were peddling their
wares along said street. Tarapen alighted from the truck and signaled to the driver to move slowly. Despite
guiding the truck, said vehicle ran over the eggplants being sold by Costales. Tarapen picked up the vegetables
and threw them at James. This angered James because the flowers he was selling were soiled. An exchange of
words ensued between the two. Tarapen went to the back of the dump truck and got a shovel. While James was
facing downwards in front of the truck, Tarapen, coming from behind and holding the shovel with two hands,
struck James on the head with the same, causing him to fall to the ground in a squatting position. As soon as
James raised his head, Tarapen hit the formers head again with the shovel. Accused then ran away.
James was brought to the Baguio General Hospital & Medical Center, where Dr. Rizal Leo Cala refused to
operate saying that it was already hopeless. He was transferred to Saint Louis University Hospital by his wife
Patricia, who was again told that her husband had no more chance to live. Advised to bring home James,
otherwise, they would just be spending so much, Patricia brought her husband to his hometown in La Union,
where he died two days after.
The defense presented Jimmy Pugoy, petitioner Peter Tarapen, Edmond Ferrer and Dr. Maryjane Tipayno as
witnesses to arrive at its version of the incident:
Jimmy Pugoy, Tarapen and Edmond Ferrer are garbage collectors. At around 7:00 a.m., they arrived at
Zandueta St, the half of which was almost occupied by vendors. In order to collect garbage piled on said street,
the truck driven by Pugoy had to go up the street then go down. While going down the street, Pugoy kept on
honking the trucks horn, causing the vendors selling near the garbage pile to move away, but some of their
goods were left behind. Ferrer alighted and started filling up the garbage basket with the use of a shovel.
Tarapen saw a sack of eggplants pinned under the truck being removed by its owner. Tarapen helped the old
woman carry the sack to the side of the road when, all of a sudden, James punched him hard on the right ear,
causing him to fall and roll down the street. Tarapen ended up sitting on the ground. As he was getting up,
James punched him again. The accused protested, saying he did not do anything wrong. James answered: "You
people from the government are show-off[s]." Tarapen was then kicked by James on the left side of the body
and he fell on the road and rolled anew. Feeling very dizzy, the accused tried to pick up something to throw at
James to stop him, because he (Tarapen) thought James would kill him. At this moment, Edmond was coming
to his aid, carrying the shovel he used to collect garbage. Edmond tried to help Tarapen stand. While in a
sitting position, accused was able to get hold of the shovel and swing it, hitting James who was approaching
him and about to strike with a clenched fist. Tarapen stood up and tried to leave. When James followed him,
the accused hit him again with the shovel. Tarapen saw James boarding a taxi, before reporting the matter to
his supervisor at the office.
Tarapen accompanied by his supervisor, voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities. Per his request, he was
brought to the hospital where he met Jamess wife who hit him on the back. He was then brought to the City Jail to
avoid trouble. Upon posting bail, he went back to the hospital for treatment.

The trial court convicted Tarapen of the crime of homicide. This was affirmed with modification in the CA. Hence,
this petition for review filed before the SC.
Issue:
1. WON the Court should give credence to testimony of prosecution witnesses YES
2. WON the accused acted in self-defense and should be acquitted - NO
Ratio:
1. Credence should be given to prosecution witnesses testimony.
Tarapen: Testimonies of Molly and Silmana Linglingen that there was no prior quarrel or exchange of words
between Tarapen and James before the victim was hit by a shovel was contrary to human experience, because
Tarapen could not have taken the life of James for no reason at all.
SC: They never said that there was no quarrel or exchange. What they said was that they never witnessed
such. They, however, saw Tarapen get a shovel and strike James. Both Molly and Silmana Linglingen never
witnessed the events prior to Tarapens act of getting the shovel. This void was substantially filled up by the
testimony of Virginia Costales, who actually witnessed the altercation between the petitioner and the
victim. The defense cannot, therefore, claim that the prosecutions witnesses established that Tarapen took
the life of James for no reason.
Tarapen: Molly and Silmana Linglingen are biased witnesses, thus, unreliable, because they were town mates and
co-vendors of the victim.
SC: Mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair the witness credibility. On the contrary, a
witness relationship to a victim of a crime would even make his or her testimony more credible, as it
would be unnatural for a relative, or a friend as in this case, who is interested in vindicating the crime, to
accuse somebody other than the real culprit.
A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive
to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the truth, or to state what is
false. It must thus be clearly shown that, independently of the relationship, the testimony was inherently
improbable or defective, or that improper or evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate the accused
falsely. The defense failed to show any evidence that prosecution witnesses had improper or evil motives to
testify falsely against petitioner.
Tarapen: The prosecution witnesses deliberately suppressed material evidence favorable to Tarapen. It may
be safely presumed that such evidence, having been willfully suppressed, would be adverse if produced.
SC: The defense failed to specify which evidence was suppressed. It simply made a general
statement that the prosecution witnesses allegedly did not tell the truth and thus deliberately
suppressed material evidence favorable to the petitioner.
The adverse presumption of suppression of evidence is not applicable when (1) the suppression is
not willful; (2) the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) the
evidence is at the disposal of both parties; and (4) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. In the
case at bar, the prosecution witnesses who allegedly suppressed material evidence were presented in
court and were cross-examined by the defense counsel. How then can the defense claim there was
suppression?
(Digesters Note: No mention of Rule 131 Section 3 in the entire case but this is probably the issue thats
most relevant to the topic)

Tarapen: The credibility of Virginia Costales is questionable, considering that her testimony in court, which says
that she did not see petitioner and the victim engage in a fistfight, contradicts her declaration in her sworn statement
that that two engaged in a fistfight.
SC: Certain discrepancies between declarations made in an affidavit and those made on the witness stand
seldom could discredit the declarant. Sworn statements, being taken ex parte, are almost always
incomplete and often inaccurate for various reasons, sometimes from partial suggestion or for want of
suggestion and inquiries. They are generally inferior to the testimony of the witness given in open court.
o Affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open-court declarations; or, more bluntly
stated, whenever there is inconsistency between an affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court,
the testimony commands greater weight.
o The alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn
statement before the investigators are not fatal defects that would justify the reversal of a judgment
of conviction.
o When Mrs.Costales was confronted with this contradiction, she explained that she never told the
police that the petitioner and the victim had a fistfight. What she said was they had a quarrel; that is,
they faced each other and exchanged words.
Tarapen: Molly and Silmana Linglingens version that the victim was hit from behind, on the right side of the head
is not tenable, considering that it is not corroborated by medical findings. Molly and Silmana Linglingens claim was
negated by the findings of Dr. Mensalvas that James suffered injuries on the "left fronto parietal and left fronto
temporo parietal" areas of his head. The findings mean that James was facing Tarapen when hit by the shovel.
SC: The defense relies too much on the findings made by Dr.Lindo Mensalvas and completely omits the
findings made by Dr. Rizal Leo Cala. It must not be forgotten that the victim was brought to two hospitals
where the attending doctors issued separate medico-legal certificates.
o From the medico-legal certificate issued by Dr.Cala and with his testimony in court, it is clear that
the victim suffered injuries on the right side of his head. Thus, the claim of Molly and Silmana
Linglingen that the victim was struck from behind on the right side of his head is consistent with that
of Dr.Cala.
o More weight to this medical certificate is given by the SC, because the same was issued by a
government doctor. Under Section 44, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records
made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
o Even assuming arguendo that we give more weight to the medical certificate issued by Dr.
Mensalvas, this does not mean that the testimonies of Molly and Silmana Linglingen shall be
disbelieved. It is noted that Dr. Mensalvas testified that the victim sustained a wound on the right
side of his head, possibly caused by a steel shovel.
o Where a part of the testimony of a witness runs counter to the medical evidence submitted, it is
within the sound discretion of the court to determine which portions of the testimony to reject as
false and which to consider worthy of belief.
Tarapen: The trial court judge was not able to observe the demeanor of the prosecution witnesses, because they were
looking at the court interpreter when they were testifying.
SC: The trial court judge was emphatic in saying that he had the chance to see the face of the witness while
she testified.
2. Tarapen failed to clearly and convincingly prove self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.
o Article 11, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code, provides for the elements and/or requisites in order
that a plea of self-defense may be validly considered in absolving a person from criminal liability, viz:
1. First. Unlawful aggression;
2. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
o The burden of evidence that one acted in self-defense shifted to Tarapen. Like an alibi, self-defense is
inherently weak, for it is easy to fabricate. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the

weakness of the prosecutions evidence, for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after
his open admission of responsibility for the killing.
The SC confirms the observations of the trial court:
1. Tarapen claim that the victim James Pangoden, suddenly and without provocation, boxed him on
his right ear is simply unbelievable. By his own account, he was at that moment helping a road
vendor carry her sack of eggplants away from the path of the truck. If this is true, then his
testimony that James attacked and boxed him for no reason at all loses credibility. Testimonies to
be believed must not only come from the mouth of credible witnesses but should by themselves be
credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.
2. It is likewise inconceivable how accused-appellant could have hit the victim twice in the head
while he (accused) was allegedly in a sitting position and holding the shovel by the middle part of
its shaft. He also made a contradicting account, showing that he was kneeling down, when asked
during cross-examination to demonstrate how he hit the victim.
3. It simply goes against the grain of human experience for the victim to persist in his attack against
Tarapen after getting hit in the head with a steel shovel, considering that he is unarmed and had
nothing to match the accused weapon on hand. That James till had the resolution and power for a
second assault on Tarapen, after getting hit with a steel shovel in the head, flouts ordinary human
capacity and nature. In contrast, Tarapen claims that he "fell down" and "felt dizzy" after getting
boxed on the right side of his head by James with his bare fist.
4. Tarapen himself admitted walking away from the crime scene immediately after the incident, an
actuation contrary to his assertion of self-defense. Flight strongly indicates a guilty mind and
betrays the existence of a guilty conscience, for a righteous individual will not cower in fear and
unabashedly admit the killing at the earliest possible opportunity if he were morally justified in
doing so.
5. The nature and number of the fatal injuries inflicted negate Tarapens claim of self-defense. Said
victim suffered cerebral contusion, epidural hematoma, scalp laceration and skull fracture, which
directly caused his death. If he hit the victim just to defend himself, it certainly defies reason why
he had to aim for the head and do it twice.
o

Even assuming arguendo that accused-appellant was able to establish the element of unlawful
aggression, this Court will rule out self-defense. James was unarmed while Tarapen was armed with a
steel shovel. There was no reasonable necessity for him to use a steel shovel to repel the attack of an
unarmed man. Moreover, the eyewitnesses account of how Tarapen uncaringly threw the soiled
eggplants towards the direction of James goods would negate the absence of sufficient provocation on
the accuseds part. Thus, the second and third requisites for self-defense are not present in this case.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 26636, dated 31 January 2006, is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the petitioner.