G.R. No. 66474 . March 7, 1984.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROBERT TOMIMBANG, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On March 7, 1974, Pablito Romero disappeared in Barrio Solinog, Calamba, Misamis Occidental. His body was discovered the following day in the Langaran River, bearing multiple injuries including six lacerated wounds on the head. The municipal health officer determined the cause of death to be cerebral concussion and drowning, identifying one particular laceration near the right ear as fatal. Suspicion fell upon the appellant, Robert Tomimbang, due to a pre-existing land dispute with the Romero spouses, during which he had previously threatened to kill them.
The prosecution’s case hinged on the eyewitness account of Lina Abiero, a neighbor. She testified that on the afternoon of March 7, 1974, she saw Romero washing clothes by the riverbank. She witnessed Tomimbang, positioned about three meters behind Romero, throw a stone that struck Romero on the right ear, causing him to topple into the river. Tomimbang denied the accusation and presented an alibi, claiming he was at a new cottage approximately two hundred meters away. The trial court convicted him of murder.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the credibility of the lone eyewitness, Lina Abiero. It found no ill motive for her to falsely testify against the appellant, as she was unrelated to the victim. The Court dismissed challenges to her vantage point, noting that photographs taken years later were unreliable for assessing her line of sight at the time of the incident. The appellant’s alibi was correctly rejected, as the distance of two hundred meters did not preclude his presence at the crime scene.
The fatal wound was directly and positively attributed to the appellant’s act of stoning the victim from behind. This manner of attack constituted treachery (alevosia), qualifying the killing as murder. The attack was executed in a way that ensured the victim’s defenselessness, as he was struck from behind without any opportunity to defend himself, directly and specifically insuring the execution of the crime without risk to the offender.
Regarding the penalty, the trial court erred in imposing an indeterminate sentence. For murder under the Revised Penal Code, the proper penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. With no generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime, the penalty imposed should be the medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. The Court thus modified the judgment, sentencing the appellant to reclusion perpetua and increasing the civil indemnity to P30,000.