2. People v.

Malibiran
G.R. No 178301 April 24, 2009

CA affirmed the Joint Decision dated September 23, 2003 of RTC finding Rolando "Botong"
Malibiran (Rolando) and Beverly Tibo-Tan (appellant) guilty of Murder and Parricide,
respectively, and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, hence this
petition

Facts:
 Reynaldo Tan (Reynaldo) died on February 5, 1995, allegedly by his wife Beverly and
her lover a certain Rolando Malibiran.
 Back in the 70's, Reynaldo left his common-law wife, Rosalinda Fuerzas (Rosalinda),
and their two (2) children, Jessie and Reynalin, in Davao, and went to Manila to seek
greener pastures.
 While in Manila, Reynaldo met and had a relationship with appellant Beverly. They
eventually married in 1981. Reynaldo and appellant begot three (3) children - Renevie,
Jag-Carlo and Jay R.
 In 1984, Reynaldo's and Rosalinda's paths crossed again and they resumed their
relationship. This led to the "souring" of Reynaldo's relationship with appellant; and in
1991, Reynaldo moved out of the conjugal house and started living again with
Rosalinda, although Reynaldo maintained support of and paternal ties with his children.
 On that fateful day of February 5, 1995, Reynaldo and appellant were in Greenhills with
their children for their usual Sunday gallivant. After finishing lunch at the Kimpura
restaurant, the family separated at around 2:00 pm to do some shopping. Later, they
regrouped and purchased groceries at Unimart.
 At around 4:00 pm, the family stepped out of the shopping mall and Reynaldo
proceeded to the parking lot to get his red Honda Accord, while the rest of his family
stayed behind and waited.
 Immediately thereafter, the family heard an explosion coming from the direction where
Reynaldo parked his car.
 Appellant and daughter, Renevie got curious and proceeded to the parking lot. There,
they saw the Honda Accord burning, with Reynaldo lying beside the driver's seat,
burning, charred and bleeding profusely.
 A taxi driver named Elmer Paug (Elmer) appeared and pulled Reynaldo out of the car.
Reynaldo was then rushed to the Cardinal Santos Medical Hospital where he eventually
died because of the severe injuries he sustained. The underlying cause of his death was
Multiple Fracture & Multiple Vascular Injuries Secondary to Blast Injury.
 Thereafter, an investigation was conducted by the police which two separate
Informations for Murder and Parricide, dated September 10, 1997, were filed against
appellant, Rolando and one Oswaldo Banaag (Oswaldo).
 Rolando and appellant pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Their co-accused, Oswaldo,
was later discharged and utilized as one of the prosecution witnesses.
  Prosecution presented 8 witnesses namely: Jessie Tan, Inspector Silverio Dollesin,
Elmer Paug, Police Inspector Wilson Lachica, Supervising Investigating Agent
Reynaldo Olasco, Rosalinda Fuerzas, Janet Pascual (Janet), and Oswaldo.
 While defense presented 8 witness namedly: Renevie Tan, Romulo Bruzo (Romulo),
Tessie Luba, Emily Cuevas, Jose Ong Santos, Victorino Feliz, Virgilio Dacalanio and
accused Rolando. Appellant did not testify in her behalf.
 RTC summed up the he testimonies.
 RTC found Rolando guilty of Murder and appellant, of Parricide.
 Appellant appealed, but the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
 Rolando did not file any MR or appeal, hence the decision was final and executory.
 Hence, this appeal from the appellant.

ISSUE:
1. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT
BEVERLY TIBO TAN GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF PARRICIDE BASED MERELY ON
CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE, THE REQUISITES THEREOF NOT HAVING BEEN
SUBSTANTIALLY ESTABLISHED
2. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE NOT APPRECIATED THE TESTIMONY OF
PROSECUTION WITNESS OSWALDO BANAAG AS ITS BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN ACCUSED-APPELLANT MALIBIRAN AND ACCUSED-APPELLANT
BEVERLY TAN, SUCH TESTIMONY BEING HEARSAY ON SOME PARTS AND REPLETE
WITH INCONSISTENCIES;

Ruling:
1.
2.
 The hearsay rule states that a witness may not testify as to what he merely
learned from others either because he was told, or he read or heard the same.
This is derived from Section 36, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, which requires
that a witness can testify only to those facts that he knows of or comes from his
personal knowledge, that is, that are derived from his perception. Hearsay
testimony may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned.

 The law, however, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One is the
doctrine of independently relevant statements, where only the fact that such
statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial.
The hearsay rule does not apply; hence, the statements are admissible as
evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but
primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. The witness who
testifies thereto is competent because he heard the same, as this is a matter of
 fact derived from his own perception, and the purpose is to prove either that the
statement was made or the tenor thereof.

 In this case, Oswaldo's testimony that he overhead a conversation between

Rolando and appellant that they would fetch a man in Bulacan who knew how to
place a bomb in a vehicle is admissible, if only to establish the fact that such
statement was made and the tenor thereof. Likewise, Janet may testify on
matters not only uttered in her presence, since these may be considered as
independently relevant statements, but also personally conveyed to her by
appellant and Rolando.

 Appellant further argues that Oswaldo's testimony to the effect that he drove the
L300 van of the Tan family and brought Rolando to the parking lot where
Reynaldo’s Honda Accord was parked, was refuted by defense witness Romulo,
the security guard of the Tan family. Romulo testified that the L300 van never
left White Plains on the day of the incident.

 While the defense may have presented Security Guard Romulo to refute the
testimony of Oswaldo, it is settled that when credibility is in issue, the Supreme
Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court, considering that it was in
a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves
and observed their deportment during trial. Thus, in the absence of any palpable
error, this Court defers to the trials court's impression and conclusion that, as
between Oswaldo and Romulo, the former's testimony deserved more weight
and credence.

 There is nothing on record to convince the Court to depart from the findings of
the RTC. On the contrary, the testimony of Janet as corroborated by Oswaldo,
though circumstantial, leaves no doubt that appellant had in fact conspired with
Rolando in bringing about the death of her husband Reynaldo. As a rule of
ancient respectability now molded into tradition, circumstantial evidence
suffices to convict, only if the following requisites concur: (a) there is more than
one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

 The case of the prosecution was primarily built around the strength of the
testimonies of Janet and Oswaldo.