G.R. No. 168169 February 24, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALBERTO TABARNERO and GARY TABARNERO, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Late at night on October 23, 1999, Gary Tabarnero went to the house of Ernesto Canatoy, where Gary had previously resided as the live-in partner of Mary Jane Acibar, Ernesto’s stepdaughter. A confrontation occurred during which Ernesto was stabbed nine times, causing his death. On March 3, 2000, Gary and his father, Alberto Tabarnero, were charged with Murder. Gary surrendered on April 22, 2001, pleaded not guilty, and claimed self-defense, leading to an inverted trial. Alberto was apprehended later, on August 5, 2001, and also pleaded not guilty, with his defense being denial.
The prosecution’s eyewitness, Emerito Acibar (brother of Mary Jane), testified that on the night of the incident, he heard a noise and Ernesto’s plea for help. From the doorway of their house, he saw Ernesto being held by two persons while Gary and Alberto stabbed him with a fan knife. He shouted for help, and the assailants fled. Senior Police Officer 2 Ronnie Morales testified that at the hospital, the dying Ernesto identified his assailants as “the father and son, Gary and Alberto Tabarnero.”
Gary testified that he went to Ernesto’s house emotionally distressed over his separation from Mary Jane. After shouting pleas from outside, he was about to leave when Ernesto opened the gate and struck him with a lead pipe. A struggle ensued, Ernesto strangled him, Gary felt a bladed weapon at Ernesto’s back, took it, and stabbed Ernesto. He claimed he acted alone in self-defense and only saw his father Alberto after the stabbing, who then asked what happened before they both fled out of fear. Alberto testified he was visiting his children that night, noticed Gary was missing, went looking for him, and encountered Gary running who said, “Wag na kayong magtanong, umalis na tayo, napatay ko po yata si Kuya Erning.” They then ran in different directions.
The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused of Murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages awarded. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants Alberto Tabarnero and Gary Tabarnero for the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATIONS regarding the award of damages.
The Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of both accused beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by eyewitness Emerito Acibar, who had no motive to falsely testify, was credible and prevailed over the defenses of denial and self-defense. The testimony of SPO2 Morales regarding the dying declaration of Ernesto Canatoy, identifying the assailants as “the father and son, Gary and Alberto Tabarnero,” corroborated Emerito’s account. The claim of self-defense by Gary was rejected as he failed to prove the essential elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The number, location, and severity of the victim’s wounds (nine stab wounds) belied the claim of self-defense and indicated a determined effort to kill.
The Court found conspiracy between Alberto and Gary. Alberto’s presence at the scene, his immediate flight with Gary after the stabbing, and his failure to report the incident or help the victim demonstrated community of criminal design. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly appreciated due to the two accused jointly attacking the victim. However, the Court ruled that treachery was not established as the prosecution failed to prove how the attack was commenced.
The Court modified the awarded damages: civil indemnity was increased to P75,000; moral damages to P75,000; exemplary damages to P30,000 due to the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength; and temperate damages of P25,000 were awarded in lieu of actual damages. All damages were subject to 6% interest per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.