Case Digest: People vs Combate GR No 189301

People vs Combate

GR No 189301                                                 December 15, 2010

Facts:

Jose Pepito Combate (Combate) was charged for killing Edmundo O. Prayco and Leopoldo P. Guiro, Jr. The prosecution’s version of the facts was that on March 16, 1995, Tomaro parked hiss passenger jeepney at the garage of Leopoldo’s mother, at the house of Leopoldo. Upon entering the gate of Leopoldo’s house he met Leopoldo and Edmundo who was on their way out and also invited him to join then in drinking liquor which he decline for he was already tired. As he was about to went up the stairs he heard a gunshot. He rushed back to the road and saw Combate pointing a gun at the fallen Leopoldo. Edmund was about to intervene, but Combate also shot him at a very close range. Thereafter he fired another shot against Leopoldo. Tomaro rushed to help them and pleaded for his life, but, Combate pointed his gun at Tomaro and pulled the trigger but the gun did not fire. TOmaro then jumped on Combate and was able to get the gun, which thereafter he tried to shoot Combate but it did not fire. Combate then fled to the direction of Bacolod City.

In Combate’s defense he averred that he was drinking liquor in his house when Montinola fetched him to report to the barangay hall and to render duty as tanod. When they were traversing the house of Leopoldo. They saw Tomaro, Edmund and someone else whom he cannot identify. That Leopoldo and his company followed them and he saw Leopoldo pull something out from his waist. Then he heard a gunshot and saw Leopoldo fall to the ground. He pushed Montinola aside an they ran away. That thereafter they heared more gunshots from the direction where Leopoldo and his company were situated. Thereafter, he learned that he was the suspect of the killing of Leopoldo and Edmundo.

Combate was convicted of the crime of Murder and Homicide by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.

Combate appealed and averred that there are inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses and that he is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue:

Whether or not Combate is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

Yes, the court ruled that time-tested is the doctrine that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometime even with finality. The SC will not interfere with that assessment, absent any indication that the lower court has overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion.

Considering the above doctrine is the equally established rule that minor and insignificant inconsistencies in the testimony tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses, for they show that the testimony is not contrived or rehearsed.

In the case of Pp v. Osias “It is not required that the whole of their uncorroborated testimony be rejected but such portions thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited. The primordial consideration is that the witness was presented at the scene of the crime and that he positively identified the accused as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.”

Combate is convicted of the above-stated crimes as charged for defense of denial did not persuade the court and it cannot prevail over positive identification.