Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > June 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-35247 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROMENCIO TOME

208 Phil. 85:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-35247. June 28, 1983.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PROMENCIO TOME, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Uldarico Mejorada for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; TESTIMONIAL MISNOMER ON WEAPON USED, NOT A MINOR INCONSISTENCY. — It is argued that at one point Labiano testified the gunman pointed his pistol but subsequently he said that the same gunman held a metal plated revolver. It is claimed that there is a difference between a pistol and a revolver which a military man should have known. Wrong. A revolver is a type of pistol. Pistol is the generic name for a handgun which can he a revolver (de bola), automatic (actually only semi-automatic), a derringer, etc. Hence no mistake was committed by Labiano; not even a minor one.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; IDENTITY OF OFFENDER; IMMEDIATE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION NOT CALLED FOR. — The appellant disputes the identification made by Labiano that Promencio Tome was the assailant because he could not name him immediately. This contention is without merit. He could not name Promencio immediately because he had not known the latter before the shooting. It was only when he later met Promencio who fitted the description of the gunman that he was able to name him.

3. ID.; ID.; DEFENSE OF ALIBI; FALLS IN CASE OF POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION AND IMPOSSIBILITY OF PHYSICAL PRESENCE NOT SHOWN. — The appellant interposed the defense of alibi. He claimed that at the time of the shooting he was at the Virginia Ranch situated 16 kilometers from Labason. The alibi must fail for the following reason: (1) the appellant has been sufficiently identified by Labiano as the gunman; (2) The scene of the crime us not so far from the ranch that it was not impossible for the appellant to be in the former place; (3) Cosme Paunan a guard at Gate No. 1 of Virginia Ranch testified that according to his logbook Promencio Tome entered at 1:40 p.m. on April 6, 1969, and exited at 4:30 p.m. on the same day with a .22 caliber revolver tucked by his waist.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


In Criminal Case No. 5256 of the defunct Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, PROMENCIO TOME, BELARMINO TOME and RENERIO TOME were accused of murder said to have been committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That in the evening on or about the 16th day of April, 1969, in the municipality of Labason, Zamboanga del Norte within the jurisdiction of this honorable court the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and working together, one of whom was armed with a firearm, with intent to kill by means of treachery and evident pre-meditation did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot one Antonio Tee thereby inflicting upon him a gunshot wound on the forehead which caused his death shortly thereafter.

"CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation." (Expediente, p. 39.)

In Criminal Case No. 5257 of the same court, the same persons were also accused of frustrated murder in an information which is quoted herewith, mistakes included, as follows:chanrobles law library

"That in the evening on or about the 16th day of April, 1969, in the municipality of Labason, Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this honorable court the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and working together, one of whom was armed with a firearm and with the intent to kill by means of treachery and evident premeditation did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot one Eduardo Yap thereby inflicting upon him a gunshot wound on the vital part of his body; thus performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of murder as a consequence but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will, namely, the timely and able medical assistance rendered to the victim which saved his life.

"CONTRARY TO LAW without qualifying circumstance of alivosia and the aggravating circumstance of known premeditation." (Expediente, p. 33.)

Except for the medical proof concerning the victims which necessarily had to be different, there was common evidence for the prosecution and the defense in both cases. The trial judge wrote separate decisions albeit they are similarly worded except for the names of the victims and the dispositive portions.

After the prosecution had closed its evidence, Belarmino Tome and Renerio Tome moved to dismiss insofar as they were concerned on the ground that there was no prima facie case against them. The motion was granted.

In Criminal Case No. 5256, the trial court rendered the following judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty of the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt hereby sentence the accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law, with cost." (Expediente, p. 205.)

And in Criminal Case No. 5257, the following judgment was rendered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, finding the accused Promencio Tome guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder, hereby sentence the accused to suffer imprisonment of an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correccional Maximum as Minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of Reclusion Temporal Minimum as Maximum, and to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law, with cost." (Expediente, p. 44)

Promencio Tome appealed both cases and they are now before this Court. In his appeal the following errors are assigned:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

"I. That the Lower Court erred in crediting the testimony of Venancio Labiano, Jr., and

II. That the Lower Court erred in convicting the Accused-appellant of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder." (Brief, p. 5.)

The People’s version of the facts is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the evening of April 16, 1969, Venancio Labiano, Jr., a 22 year old PC Soldier on furlough, was celebrating at a store of Mirabueno, at Labason, Zamboanga del Norte, because a friend of his had just graduated. It was about 8:00 o’clock in the evening and they were about 16 in all, some of whom were the injured Eduardo Yap and the deceased Antonio Tee, Mario Gatso, Tony Sanchez, Nonoy Mirabueno and Bambin Sanchez. They were then waiting for the fish to be roasted. On the table of the store, there were two (2) gas lamps, and there was a bonfire beyond, where they were roasting the fish, which added light to the place. Venancio Labiano was leaning on the wall of the store when he saw the appellant Promencio Tome aiming his pistol and immediately firing two times. The shots hit Antonio Tee and Eduardo Yap on their heads. The former died as a result thereof while the latter was seriously injured (pp. 8-16, t.s.n., Part I)." (Brief, pp. 2-3.)

The prosecution presented only one witness who testified directly concerning the shooting of Antonio Tee and Eduardo Yap. He was Venancio Labiano, Jr. Accordingly, the first assignment of error deals with his testimony.

Venancio Labiano, Jr. was 22 years old when he testified on December 21, 1971. He was an enlisted man in the Philippine Constabulary assigned in Camp Crame. He was on furlough in April, 1969, and he spent his furlough in Labason, Zamboanga del Norte, where he resided before his enlistment in 1967.

On April 16, 1969, he was invited to a party by a friend who had just graduated. The party was held in the store of one Mirabueno. There were 16 persons in the party which included Eduardo Yap, Antonio Tee, Mario Gatso, Tony Sanchez, Nonoy Mirabueno and Bambin Sanchez.

While they were waiting for the fish to be roasted, Eduardo Yap and Antonio Tee were shot at about 8:00 p.m. He had a good look at the man who fired two shots. He was about 5’8" or 5’9" in height, with an athletic build and who wore long sleeves and black pants. He was able to see the man because of the bonfire where the fish was roasting and two gas lamps.

He started to chase the man who fired the shots which hit Antonio Tee and Eduardo Yap but his way was blocked by a rope. After the injured had been taken to the hospital, he went back to the scene of the crime to investigate. He found out from Tony Sanchez that the enemy of the group were the Tome brothers because one of them was boxed by Mario Gatso. When he later saw Promencio Tome he "identified him immediately to be the gunman."cralaw virtua1aw library

Since Labiano was the only witness who identified Promencio Tome as the assailant, it is Labiano’s credibility which is assailed in this appeal. The appellant claims that "a close scrutiny of the testimony of Venancio Labiano, Jr. reveals some material inconsistencies which renders his entire testimony unworthy of credence."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is argued that at one point Labiano testified the gunman pointed his pistol but subsequently he said that the same gunman held a metal plated revolver. It is claimed that there is a difference between a pistol and a revolver which a military man should have known. The Solicitor General says that "this contention is without merit, because that minor mistake, far from affecting Labiano’s credibility, shows he was not rehearsed." It is thus impliedly admitted that there is indeed a difference between a pistol and a revolver. Wrong. A revolver is a type of pistol. Pistol is the generic name for a handgun which can be a revolver (de bola), automatic (actually only semi-automatic), a derringer, etc. Hence no mistake was committed by Labiano; not even a minor one.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The appellant disputes the identification made by Labiano that Promencio Tome was the assailant because he could not name him immediately. This contention is without merit. He could not name Promencio immediately because he had not known the latter before the shooting. It was only when he later met Promencio who fitted the description of the gunman that he was able to name him.

Finally, the appellant asks: Why was Mario Gatso not shot since he was the one who boxed one of the Tome brothers? Why were Antonio Tee and Eduardo Yap shot instead? The answer could be that Promencio was a poor shooter. It could be he intended to shoot Gatso but his aim was so bad that he could not hit his target even after he had fired two shots.

The appellant interposed the defense of alibi. He claimed that at the time of the shooting he was at the Virginia Ranch situated 16 kilometers from Labason. The alibi must fail for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The appellant has been sufficiently identified by Labiano as the gunman.

2. The scene of the crime is not so far from the ranch that it was not impossible for the appellant to be in the former place.

3. Cosme Paunan a guard at Gate No. 1 of Virginia Ranch testified that according to his logbook Promencio Tome entered at 1:40 p.m. on April 16, 1969, and exited at 4:30 p.m. on the same day with a .22 caliber revolver tucked by his waist.

The crimes committed by the appellant are murder and frustrated murder qualified by treachery or alevosia. We agree with the trial court that evident premeditation has not been proved.

WHEREFORE, the judgments of the trial court being in accord with both the evidence and the law, the same are hereby affirmed in all respects. Costs against the Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, 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

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47331 June 21, 1983 - PABLO DE LOS REYES v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

    207 Phil. 574

  • G.R. No. L-46131 June 22, 1983 - EPIFANIA V. LAVILLA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    207 Phil. 578

  • G.R. No. L-47739 June 22, 1983 - SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD. v. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO

    207 Phil. 585

  • G.R. No. L-49069 June 22, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROTACIO AMONCIO

    207 Phil. 591

  • G.R. No. L-52133 June 23, 1983 - NORMA B. NAJERA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    207 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-60364 June 23, 1983 - BRITTA B. QUISUMBING v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 607

  • G.R. No. L-28841 June 24, 1983 - RAFAEL YAPDIANGCO v. CONCEPCION B. BUENCAMINO

    207 Phil. 615

  • G.R. No. L-31442 June 24, 1983 - BHAGWANDAS GIDWANI v. DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

    207 Phil. 623

  • G.R. No. L-32244 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO SORIANO

    207 Phil. 630

  • G.R. No. L-33522 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO LOJO

    207 Phil. 643

  • G.R. No. L-34915 June 24, 1983 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY v. VICENTE G. ERICTA

    207 Phil. 648

  • G.R. No. L-35171 June 24, 1983 - FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA v. ALEJANDRO ESPIRITU

    207 Phil. 658

  • G.R. No. L-35853 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBRADO CARIAS

    207 Phil. 664

  • G.R. No. L-37483 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO OQUIÑO

    207 Phil. 676

  • G.R. No. L-37792 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO MAALA

    207 Phil. 690

  • G.R. No. L-39049 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS ALVIS

    207 Phil. 693

  • G.R. No. L-40103 June 24, 1983 - ARCADIO DUAY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    207 Phil. 710

  • G.R. No. L-46495 June 24, 1983 - ANDREA C. DECOLONGON v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 718

  • G.R. No. L-46894 June 24, 1983 - TERESA M. ARMEÑA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    207 Phil. 726

  • G.R. No. L-47686 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN BALBAS

    207 Phil. 734

  • G.R. No. L-49781 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO CASTAÑEDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-52709 June 24, 1983 - MANILA PRESS, INC. v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    207 Phil. 747

  • G.R. No. L-54753 June 24, 1983 - MARIETTA E. DAKUDAO v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION

    207 Phil. 750

  • G.R. No. L-56340 June 24, 1983 - ALVARO PASTOR, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 758

  • G.R. No. L-58414 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO HERMOSILLA

    207 Phil. 775

  • G.R. No. L-58613 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO RHODA

    207 Phil. 780

  • G.R. No. L-58635 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO VALMORES

    207 Phil. 792

  • G.R. No. L-59951 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO AQUINO

    207 Phil. 800

  • G.R. No. L-60151 June 24, 1983 - SALVADOR L. BUDLONG v. AQUILES T. APALISOK

    207 Phil. 804

  • G.R. No. L-61438 June 24, 1983 - ERDULFO C. BOISER v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 814

  • G.R. No. L-63135 June 24, 1983 - GLORIA DARROCHA DE CALISTON v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 827

  • A.C. No. 1596 June 28, 1983 - MAXIMA MURILLO VDA. DE GARBE v. RODRIGO A. LIPORADA

    208 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-27294 June 28, 1983 - ALFREDO ROA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 2

  • G.R. No. L-29141 June 28, 1983 - MANUEL L. LIMSICO v. JOSE G. BAUTISTA

    208 Phil. 49

  • G.R. No. L-29141 June 28, 1983 - MANUEL L. LIMSICO v. JOSE G. BAUTISTA

    208 Phil. 16

  • G.R. No. L-33216 June 28, 1983 - TAN CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    208 Phil. 57

  • G.R. No. L-33305 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO LAMPITAO

    208 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-33431 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS LOBATON

    208 Phil. 70

  • G.R. No. L-33899 June 28, 1983 - MUNICIPALITY OF LA TRINIDAD v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BAGUIO-BENGUET

    208 Phil. 78

  • G.R. No. L-35247 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROMENCIO TOME

    208 Phil. 85

  • G.R. No. L-38278 June 28, 1983 - GREGORIO LOBETE v. CARLOS SUNDIAM

    208 Phil. 90

  • G.R. No. L-45645 June 28, 1983 - FRANCISCO A. TONGOY v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 95

  • G.R. No. L-48424 June 28, 1983 - CONSTANCIO MANZANO v. MEYNARDO A. TIRO

    208 Phil. 124

  • G.R. No. L-51304 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN MANDOLADO

    208 Phil. 125

  • G.R. No. L-54114 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO BORJA

    208 Phil. 146

  • G.R. No. L-58961 June 28, 1983 - SOLEDAD SOCO v. FRANCIS MILITANTE

    208 Phil. 151

  • G.R. No. L-59330 June 28, 1983 - MANUEL GUANZON v. PATERNO D. MONTESCLAROS

    208 Phil. 171

  • G.R. No. L-63130 June 28, 1983 - GUILLERMO ROBES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    208 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-63372 June 28, 1983 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT

    208 Phil. 188

  • G.R. No. L-31330 June 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR REMOLLO

    208 Phil. 196

  • G.R. No. L-37518 June 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERONIMO SURBAN

    208 Phil. 203

  • G.R. No. L-38002 June 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO VEGA

    208 Phil. 221

  • G.R. No. L-49439 June 29, 1983 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. PASTOR P. REYES

    208 Phil. 227

  • G.R. No. L-62737 June 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-63398 June 29, 1983 - LEONCIO P. VILORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 193

  • G.R. No. L-34202 June 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON BARCENA

    208 Phil. 239