G.R. No. 178301; April 24, 2009
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rolando “Botong” Malibiran, Accused, and Beverly Tibo-Tan, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the death of Reynaldo Tan on February 5, 1995. Reynaldo had left his common-law wife, Rosalinda Fuerzas, and their children in Davao to work in Manila, where he met and married appellant Beverly Tibo-Tan in 1981, with whom he had three children. In 1984, Reynaldo resumed his relationship with Rosalinda, causing his relationship with appellant to sour. By 1991, Reynaldo moved out of the conjugal home to live with Rosalinda but continued to support his children. On February 5, 1995, Reynaldo and his family (appellant and their children) were in Greenhills for a Sunday outing. After lunch and shopping, the family regrouped at Unimart. Around 4:00 p.m., Reynaldo went to the parking lot to retrieve his red Honda Accord while the family waited. An explosion was heard from the parking lot. Appellant and her daughter Renevie went to investigate and found the car burning, with Reynaldo lying beside the driver’s seat, charred and bleeding. A taxi driver, Elmer Paug, pulled Reynaldo from the car, and he was rushed to the hospital where he died from multiple fractures and vascular injuries secondary to a blast injury. Separate Informations for Murder (against Rolando Malibiran and Oswaldo Banaag) and Parricide (against appellant Beverly Tibo-Tan) were filed, alleging conspiracy in planting an explosive device on the driver’s side of Reynaldo’s car. Both accused pleaded not guilty. Oswaldo Banaag was discharged and became a prosecution witness.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant Beverly Tibo-Tan for the crime of Parricide and accused Rolando Malibiran for Murder, based on conspiracy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Regional Trial Court’s conviction of appellant Beverly Tibo-Tan for Parricide and Rolando Malibiran for Murder, sentencing both to reclusion perpetua. The Court found that the prosecution established conspiracy between appellant and Rolando. The evidence showed motive arising from the estranged marital relationship and financial disputes. The testimony of Oswaldo Banaag, the discharged co-accused, was deemed credible and corroborated by other evidence, detailing how appellant and Rolando planned the killing, with Rolando planting the explosive device. Appellant’s conduct after the explosion, described as not showing alarm or rendering aid, was considered indicative of guilt. The defense of alibi by Rolando was rejected for being weak and not physically impossible to be at the crime scene. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, as the evidence sufficiently proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.