G.R. No. L-25016. March 27, 1971.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MODESTO BERACES, SILVINO BIACOLO, JIMMY NICOLAS and FELIPE VILLA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The defendants-appellants were convicted of murder for the killing of Miguel Lomontod on March 7, 1959, in Barrio Ilijan, Sto. Niño, Samar. The prosecution evidence established that the victim, while walking home with family members, was led by Pio Pomentera onto a narrow trail. Upon reaching a point, Pomentera stepped back, and a shot from a nearby banana grove struck Lomontod in the back. The victim’s wife, Sofia Gonzaga, witnessed four armed men—identified as all four appellants—emerge from the grove. Appellant Biacolo fired another shot, hitting the victim’s finger. The mortally wounded Lomontod was brought to a house, where, with death imminent, he identified the appellants as his assailants to his wife and mother before succumbing to his wounds. Motive was established through a prior dispute over harvest shares and land ownership involving appellants Beraces and Biacolo.
The defense relied solely on alibi, claiming they were in different barrios approximately three kilometers away during the incident. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the alibis insufficient to establish physical impossibility of their presence at the crime scene. The court convicted all appellants of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the credibility of the prosecution witnesses’ identification and the admissibility of the victim’s ante-mortem statement.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on two pillars: the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the admissibility of the dying declaration. First, the Court deferred to the trial court’s superior position to assess witness credibility, noting no compelling reason to overturn its findings. The positive identification by the victim’s wife, who knew the appellants and saw them clearly, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish their presence and participation.
Second, the Court upheld the trial court’s consideration of the victim’s deathbed identification as a valid dying declaration. The statement was made under a consciousness of impending death, as the victim, mortally wounded, spoke shortly before dying while seeking medical help. This circumstance satisfies the legal requirement for a dying declaration, as a person in such a condition is presumed to speak truthfully. The combination of the credible eyewitness account and the admissible dying declaration conclusively established the appellants’ guilt. The defense of alibi, being weak and unsubstantiated by proof of physical impossibility, was correctly rejected. The penalty was affirmed, with the indemnity increased to P12,000.00.