Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > March 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. 66474 March 7, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT TOMIMBANG:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 66474. March 7, 1984.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT TOMIMBANG, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Fernando B. Fuentes, Jr. for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; PROCEDURE WHERE COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT MURDER HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND THE PROPER PENALTY IS RECLUSION PERPETUA; CERTIFICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT. — When the Court of Appeals finds that murder has been committed, the case should be transferred to the Supreme Court on the ground that the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.

2. ID.; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS CREDIBLE IN THE CASE AT BAR. — There was no ulterior motive for Lina to testify against Tomimbang. She was not related to the victim. The fact was that she was at a higher elevation when she saw Tomimbang behind Romero (18-26, tsn Jan. 21, 1975). The photographs of the scene taken more than two years after the occurrence, which show some obstruction to Lina’s view, are not reliable evidence.

3. ID.; ID.; PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; POSITIVE TESTIMONY THAT ACCUSED INFLICTED THE FATAL WOUND IS DECISIVE. — What is decisive is the fatal wound inflicted by Tomimbang when he hit Romero with a stone. This was positively testified to by Lina. Hence, Tomimbang’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

4. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE; TREACHERY; PRESENT WHERE VICTIM WAS STONED FROM BEHIND. — The killing was qualified by treachery. Stoning the victim from behind with the intent to cause the victim to fall into the river was a form of attack which directly insured the killing without any risk to the offender.

5. ID.; MURDER WITH NO GENERIC MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; PENALTY IMPOSABLE; CASE AT BAR. — The trial court did not explain why it imposed an indeterminate penalty. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, the medium period of the penalty for murder, because there were no generic mitigating and aggravating circumstances.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This is a murder case. On March 7, 1974, Pablito Romero, 34, of Barrio Solinog, Calamba, Misamis Occidental, disappeared. His neighbors conducted a search. The next day his body was found in a deep portion of the Langaran River down-stream in Solinog with six lacerated wounds in the head, four abrasions and contusions in the cheeks and chest and a contusion on the right ear (Exh. A).

He had died of cerebral concussion and drowning. According to the municipal health officer, one lacerated wound near the right ear, two inches long, with contusion around it, was fatal. Who killed Romero?

The arrow of suspicion naturally pointed to Robert Tomimbang, 34, a farmer, who had a dispute with the Romero spouses regarding a parcel of coconut land. On February 11, 1974, he had threatened to kill them. Tomimbang did not join in the search for Romero’s body. While the search was going on, he was just pasturing his carabao.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Lina Abiero, 42, a neighbor, testified that at around five o’clock in the afternoon of March 7, 1974 while Romero was washing his clothes on the bank of the Langaran River, she saw Tomimbang, who was about three meters behind Romero, throwing a stone at the latter, hitting him on the right ear. The blow caused Romero to topple into the river. (See Sketch, Exh. 3.) Lina was about twenty meters from the edge of the river. Tomimbang picked up another stone but at that point Lina was already shocked and frightened. She went home.

Tomimbang at the trial denied that he had a land dispute with the Romeros. He claimed that in the afternoon in question he was in the vicinity of Sitio Napisik, Solinog, because he and his wife had just transferred to the new cottage in that place belonging to his father.

The trial court rejected Tomimbang’s alibi. His house was about two hundred meters away from the river. It convicted him of murder, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as mimimum to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay an indemnity of P12,000 to the heirs of Romero. He appealed to the Court of Appeals which transferred the case to this Court on the ground that the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Appellant assails the credibility of Lina Abiero. He contends that the trial court erred in presuming that Romero’s other lacerated wounds, abrasions and contusions were caused by the stones in the river when he fell into its bed.

There was no ulterior motive for Lina to testify against Tomimbang. She was not related to the victim. The fact was that she was at a higher elevation when she saw Tomimbang behind Romero (18-26, tsn Jan. 21, 1975). The photographs of the scene taken more than two years after the occurrence, which show some obstruction to Lina’s view, are not reliable evidence.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The presumption made by the trial court is of secondary importance. What is decisive is the fatal wound inflicted by Tomimbang when he hit Romero with a stone. This was positively testified to by Lina. Hence, Tomimbang’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The killing was qualified by treachery. Stoning the victim from behind with the intent to cause the victim to fall into the river was a form of attack which directly insured the killing without any risk to the offender.

The trial court did not explain why it imposed an indeterminate penalty. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, the medium period of the penalty for murder, because there were no generic mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment of conviction is affirmed with the modification that the penalty should be reclusion perpetua and the indemnity is increased to P30,000. Costs against the Appellant.

SO ORDERED

Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-32422 March 2, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CRISOLA

  • G.R. No. 55628 March 2, 1984 - ZOSIMO J. PAREDES, ET AL. v. EXEC. SEC. TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37146 March 5, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWARD VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-39211 March 5, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUFROCINO ATANACIO

  • G.R. Nos. L-39960-61 March 5, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORIANO T. BUYNAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44775 March 5, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRISCILLANO BADO

  • G.R. No. 54952 March 5, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. IGLESIA NI CRISTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57257 & Adm. Matter Nos. 1337-Ret & 10468-CFI March 5, 1984 - ILUMINADA PONCE BERCILES, ET AL. v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59840 March 5, 1984 - AMELIA C. CASIBANG v. PHILIPPINE TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38062 March 6, 1984 - ALTO SALES CORPORATION v. GUARDSON R. LOOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54000 March 6, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESPERIDION RECIMIENTO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64499 March 6, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO L. MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-33886 March 7, 1984 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. LEONOR ARELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46771 March 7, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. MARCELINO M. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56965 March 7, 1984 - PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

  • G.R. No. 66474 March 7, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT TOMIMBANG

  • G.R. No. L-36443 March 8, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CERILO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 50669 March 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GRACIANO OLALIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 56356 March 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO R. TEAÑO

  • G.R. No. 61128 March 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE DUMALAG

  • G.R. No. 61686 March 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONIR AKBARI

  • G.R. No. 63216 March 12, 1984 - EXPEDITO B. PILAR v. SANGUNIANG BAYAN OF DASOL, PANGASINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50321 March 13, 1984 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63265 March 13, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE MARZAN

  • G.R. No. L-33957 March 15, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME SOLIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48746 March 15, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO CABANLIG

  • G.R. No. 53838 March 15, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO P. MAGBANUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63227 March 15, 1984 - A. MARQUEZ, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37922 March 16, 1984 - ALBA PATIO DE MAKATI, ET AL. v. ALBA PATIO DE MAKATI EMPLOYEES ASS’N., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50450 March 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS M. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-26970 March 19, 1984 - BUAYAN CATTLE CO., INC. v. JESUS QUINTILLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28741 March 20, 1984 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

  • G.R. No. L-47793 March 20, 1984 - PEDRO P. CLEMENTE v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 50151 March 21, 1984 - CO CHUAN SENG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51337 March 22, 1984 - UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56384 March 22, 1984 - FRANCISCO LECAROZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. Nos. 62295-96 March 22, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. PACOT

  • G.R. No. 62354 March 22, 1984 - ROSALINDA GODIZANO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62406 March 22, 1984 - GREGORIO MEDINA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1806 March 23, 1984 - LYDIA JAMERO GESUDEN v. EDWIN Z. FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-34986 March 23, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LUDOVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58176 March 23, 1984 - RUTH JIMENEZ v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 61776 to 61861 March 23, 1984 - REYNALDO R. BAYOT v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50720 March 26, 1984 - SORIANO MATA v. JOSEPHINE K. BAYONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55381 March 26, 1984 - JULIETA SALGADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60050 March 26, 1984 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29577 March 27, 1984 - PASTORA ANDAL MANIGBAS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-45366-68 March 27, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO SOMONTAO

  • G.R. No. 60210 March 27, 1984 - ARTURO P. SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28676 March 29, 1984 - BIBIANO G. MADERAZO, JR. v. RAFAEL BAYLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39889 March 29, 1984 - UNION OF SUPERVISORS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51921 March 29, 1984 - PATROCINIA OBAÑANA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO R. BONCAROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57623 March 29, 1984 - FELIPE JUALA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64519 March 29, 1984 - MANUELA U. VDA. DE MARAUG v. ALEJANDRO C. SILAPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64802 March 29, 1984 - VENUSTO PANOTES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.