GR 105583; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 105583 July 5, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELEUTERIO TAMPON, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Eleuterio Tampon was charged with the murder of Entellano Gonesto. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Herman Tambacan, who testified that on the evening of September 1, 1990, he saw Tampon emerge from behind a cotton tree and stab Gonesto once in the left breast. Tambacan stated the victim ran approximately 30 meters before collapsing, after which Tampon pulled the weapon from the body, confronted Tambacan, and fled. The defense, however, presented a different version. Tampon claimed self-defense, alleging that Gonesto initially attacked him with a “flamingo” knife. He testified that during a struggle, he was able to seize the weapon and stab Gonesto. Defense witness William Campugan corroborated that Gonesto was the first aggressor.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting Tampon of murder by giving credence to the prosecution’s eyewitness and rejecting the claim of self-defense.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The ruling hinged on the credibility of witnesses and the inherent weakness of the defense of self-defense. The trial court found the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Herman Tambacan to be straightforward, spontaneous, and consistent with the physical evidence. In contrast, the Court noted material inconsistencies between Tampon’s sworn affidavit and his court testimony regarding the details of the alleged aggression and struggle, casting serious doubt on his narrative. When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish its elements by clear and convincing evidence. Tampon failed to discharge this burden.
Furthermore, the Court found no basis to support the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The prosecution evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the mode of attack was deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. Consequently, while the conviction was upheld, the crime was properly categorized as homicide, not murder. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence, and the civil indemnity was affirmed. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility was accorded great respect, as it was in a better position to observe demeanor.