G.R. No. 132324 . September 28, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORLITO TAN @ “NORLY” and JOSE TAN, accused-appellants.

FACTS

An Information was filed accusing Norlito Tan and Jose Tan of murder for the killing of Magdaleno Rudy Olos on September 6, 1993, in Ocampo, Camarines Sur. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of eyewitness Ramon Nueca, was that while Nueca was weeding his ricefield, he saw Jose Tan walking ahead of the victim. Norlito Tan suddenly emerged from tall grasses beside the road and stabbed Olos three times with a knife. Thereafter, Jose Tan threw a stone that hit Olos on the neck. The appellants fled when Nueca approached. The victim died from his wounds. The defense presented a different account. Norlito Tan claimed self-defense, alleging that the victim blocked his way, threatened him, and drew a knife first, forcing him to retaliate. Jose Tan, who was a minor below 16 at the time, claimed he was merely watching a basketball game and later ran away when the incident occurred. The Regional Trial Court convicted Norlito Tan of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. It found Jose Tan guilty as an accomplice to murder, imposing an indeterminate penalty. The appellants appealed.

ISSUE

The main issues resolved by the Court were: (1) the credibility of witnesses; (2) the validity of Norlito Tan’s claim of self-defense and the attendant burden of proof; and (3) the proper characterization of the crime and the applicable penalty, including the liability of Jose Tan.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. On credibility, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, giving weight to the straightforward testimony of prosecution eyewitness Ramon Nueca and finding no ill motive for him to falsely testify. On self-defense, the Court ruled that Norlito Tan failed to discharge his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the elements of self-defense, namely unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. His claim was negated by the number and location of the victim’s wounds and the witness account. The killing was qualified by treachery because the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim’s defenselessness. However, evident premeditation was not proven. The Court agreed with the trial court that conspiracy was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, criminal liability was individual. Jose Tan’s act of throwing a stone after the fatal stabbing constituted cooperation in the killing, but without prior conspiracy, he was properly liable only as an accomplice. Considering Jose Tan was a minor over 15 but under 18 at the time of the crime, the penalty next lower than that for an accomplice to murder was imposed. The Court modified his sentence to an indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum. The civil indemnity was affirmed.