G.R. No. L-53834 November 24, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL TAN, JR. y EBLAGAS alias “Boy Tan,” and HECTOR SELMO Y FLORES, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The case stems from the robbery and killing of jeepney driver Mariano de Guzman, Jr. on May 13, 1977. Appellants Manuel Tan, Jr. and Hector Selmo, together with co-accused Nestor Navarro, spent the day with the victim, drinking and traveling around Pampanga. The state’s case relied heavily on the testimony of Navarro, who turned state witness after pleading guilty. Navarro testified that during the return trip to San Fernando, the group diverted to a secluded area near Sindalan Elementary School. There, Selmo alighted and handed a .45 caliber pistol to Tan, Jr., who then repeatedly struck the victim’s head with it. After the victim fell, Tan, Jr. and Navarro dragged him to a sugarcane field. Navarro heard Selmo shout, “Pare, shoot him,” to which Tan, Jr. replied he would indeed shoot him. Tan, Jr. then shot the prostrate victim in the head, killing him instantly. The trio fled with the victim’s Ford Fiera jeepney, later selling three of its tires in Naga City.
The autopsy report confirmed the victim died from a gunshot wound to the head, with additional injuries consistent with being struck by a hard object. At trial, both Tan, Jr. and Selmo denied involvement, claiming Navarro was the sole perpetrator. The trial court convicted them of Robbery with Homicide and imposed the death penalty, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the testimony of co-accused Nestor Navarro, as a state witness, is sufficiently credible and corroborated to sustain the conviction of appellants Tan, Jr. and Selmo for Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court upheld the credibility of Navarro’s testimony, which provided a detailed, natural, and coherent account of the crime. Appellants’ argument that Navarro’s testimony came from a “polluted source” was rejected. The Court emphasized that the testimony of an accomplice, if credible and corroborated by other evidence, is admissible and can sustain a conviction. Here, Navarro’s narration was corroborated by the physical evidence, particularly the necropsy report showing injuries from blows and a gunshot wound, and the recovery of the stolen vehicle.
The Court also found the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility, which favored the prosecution’s version, to be entitled to great respect. The appellants’ defenses of denial and alibi were weak and could not prevail over Navarro’s positive identification. Furthermore, the Court clarified that proof of motive is not essential when the identities of the perpetrators are established, as in this case. The collective actions of Tan, Jr. in directly inflicting the fatal blows and gunshot, and Selmo in providing the weapon and instigating the killing, established their conspiracy and direct participation in the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).