People vs tan

Facts:

The case involves the murder of Jessie Dionesio in the Municipality of Tibiao, Province of Antique, Philippines. The
accused, Jemuel Tan and Charlie Amar, were charged with murder for attacking and stabbing Jessie with a knife,
causing his death. The accused pleaded not guilty and a trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that they saw the accused attacking and stabbing Jessie. Rogelio
Cumla testified that he witnessed Mercedes Amar wrapping her arms around Jessie's neck while Jemuel Tan held his
arms at the back. Charlie Amar then stabbed Jessie on the left side of the breast. Celedonia Dionesio, the victim's
mother, testified that Mercedes informed her about the stabbing and she saw Jessie lying on the ground near Mercedes'
house. Dr. Emilia Monicimpo, the Municipal Health Officer, conducted an autopsy on the victim's body and found a
fatal stab wound on his chest.

The defense presented witnesses who testified that they did not witness the stabbing and denied any involvement in
the crime. Mercedes Amar claimed that she saw the victim wounded and called for help. Charlie Amar and Jemuel
Tan claimed that they found the victim already wounded and moved his body to the roadside to avoid being run over
by passing vehicles.

The trial court acquitted Mercedes Amar but found Charlie Amar guilty as a principal by direct participation and
Jemuel Tan guilty as an accomplice for the crime of murder. The court found the testimony of Rogelio Cumla credible
and believed that Charlie stabbed the victim with the help of Jemuel. The court also found that the aggravating
circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were present.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but modified it to also convict Jemuel Tan as a
principal by direct participation. The appellate court agreed with the trial court's findings and noted that there was
unity of purpose between the appellants.

Issue:

1. Whether the appellants should be held liable for murder or homicide.

2. Whether there was conspiracy between the appellants in the commission of the crime.
3. Whether treachery was present as an aggravating circumstance.
4. Whether abuse of superior strength was present as an aggravating circumstance.
5. Whether the award of damages was proper.

Ruling:

1. The Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts, finding the appellants guilty of murder.
2. The Court agreed with the lower courts that there was conspiracy between the appellants in the commission of
the crime. Conspiracy can be implied from the concerted action of the assailants in confronting the victim.
3. The Court agreed with the lower courts that treachery was present as an aggravating circumstance. The sudden
and unexpected stabbing of the victim while being held by one of the appellants insured the killing without
risk to the assailants.
4. The Court disagreed with the lower courts' finding that abuse of superior strength was present as an
aggravating circumstance. It was not established that the appellants deliberately took advantage of their
superior strength.
5. The Court deleted the award of funeral expenses due to lack of receipts, but awarded nominal damages since
the heirs of the victim clearly incurred funeral expenses. The Court also awarded moral damages based on the
mental anguish suffered by the victim's mother.

Ratio:

1. Conspiracy can be implied from the concerted action of the assailants in confronting the victim.
2. Treachery is present as an aggravating circumstance when the killing is sudden and unexpected, ensuring the
killing without risk to the assailants.
 3. Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent on the part of the accused to take advantage of such
superiority, and it must be shown that the accused purposely used excessive force that was manifestly out of
proportion to the means available to the victim's defense.
4. To be awarded actual damages, competent proof or the best evidence obtainable must be presented to justify
such award. Only substantiated and proven expenses incurred in connection with the death, wake, or burial of
the victim will be recognized in court.
5. Nominal damages can be awarded even without proof of actual damages, and moral damages can be awarded
based on the mental anguish suffered by the victim's family.

Summary:

The case involves the appellants, Charlie Amar and Jemuel Tan, who were found guilty of murder for the stabbing of
the victim, Jessie Dionesio. The Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts, finding the appellants guilty of
murder based on conspiracy and treachery. However, the Court disagreed with the lower courts' finding of abuse of
superior strength as an aggravating circumstance. The Court also deleted the award of funeral expenses due to lack of
receipts, but awarded nominal damages and moral damages to the heirs of the victim.