People v. Tome
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the evening of April 16, 1969, in Labason, Zamboanga del Norte, two separate criminal informations were filed. In Criminal Case No. 5256, Promencio Tome, Belarmino Tome, and Renerio Tome were accused of murder for allegedly conspiring, confederating, and willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shooting Antonio Tee with intent to kill, by means of treachery and evident premeditation, inflicting a gunshot wound on the forehead which caused his death. In Criminal Case No. 5257, the same accused were charged with frustrated murder for allegedly conspiring, confederating, and willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shooting Eduardo Yap with intent to kill, by means of treachery and evident premeditation, inflicting a gunshot wound on a vital part of his body, which would have resulted in death but for timely medical assistance. Procedural History: After the prosecution presented its evidence, Belarmino Tome and Renerio Tome moved for dismissal concerning them, which was granted due to a lack of prima facie case. Promencio Tome was found guilty in both cases by the trial court. In Criminal Case No. 5256, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay P12,000.00 to the heirs of the victim. In Criminal Case No. 5257, he was sentenced to 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. Promencio Tome appealed both judgments to the Supreme Court. The Appeal: Promencio Tome assigned two errors in his appeal: (1) the trial court erred in crediting the testimony of Venancio Labiano, Jr., and (2) the trial court erred in convicting him of murder and frustrated murder. The People's version of the facts, based on the testimony of Venancio Labiano, Jr., stated that on the night of April 16, 1969, while attending a party, he saw the appellant Promencio Tome aim and fire his pistol twice, hitting Antonio Tee and Eduardo Yap. The former died, and the latter was seriously injured. Labiano identified Promencio Tome as the gunman after seeing him later and fitting the description. The defense interposed the alibi that Promencio Tome was at the Virginia Ranch, 16 kilometers away.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in crediting the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Venancio Labiano, Jr. Whether the accused-appellant was correctly convicted of murder and frustrated murder.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court in both cases, finding them in accord with both the evidence and the law. The conviction of Promencio Tome for murder and frustrated murder was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found no error in crediting the testimony of Venancio Labiano, Jr. The alleged inconsistency between "pistol" and "revolver" was dismissed, as a revolver is a type of pistol, and any minor mistake could indicate the witness was not rehearsed. The appellant's contention that Labiano could not immediately name the assailant was also rejected, as Labiano had not known Promencio Tome prior to the incident and identified him later when he fit the description of the gunman. The Court emphasized that Labiano's testimony was direct and credible, establishing the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that Mario Gatso, who had allegedly boxed one of the Tome brothers, was not shot was explained by the possibility that Promencio Tome was a poor shooter or missed his intended target. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed the conviction for murder and frustrated murder, finding that the elements of these crimes were sufficiently established by the evidence. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was found to be present, as the victims were shot without any warning and had no opportunity to defend themselves. The Court agreed with the trial court that evident premeditation had not been sufficiently proven. The defense of alibi interposed by the appellant was found to be weak and unconvailing. The Court noted that the appellant had been sufficiently identified by Labiano, the scene of the crime was not impossibly far from the Virginia Ranch where he claimed to be, and his logbook entry at the ranch indicated he exited hours before the shooting, rendering his alibi improbable. Therefore, the conviction was sustained based on the credible eyewitness testimony and the established facts.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that the credibility of a witness is not diminished by minor inconsistencies in their testimony, as these can indicate a lack of rehearsal and enhance their trustworthiness. Furthermore, the defense of alibi is weak and cannot prevail over positive identification by a credible eyewitness, especially when the claimed alibi location is not impossibly far from the crime scene and lacks corroboration. The elements of murder and frustrated murder, particularly the presence of treachery, were affirmed as correctly applied by the trial court.