GR 104596; (November, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104596 November 23, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO ESPINOZA Y ALI, VICTOR ESPINOZA y ALI AND JULIAN MAGBARIL y OMBRADOR, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The accused-appellants were convicted of Murder for hacking Renato Salvar to death. Prosecution witness Lucresio Croda testified that on the evening of August 30, 1988, he heard cries for help from near his house. He saw the appellants drag the victim and, from a distance of about three fathoms, witnessed Rogelio and Victor Espinoza hack the victim with bolos while Julian Magbaril held him down. The area was illuminated by moonlight. After the incident, two other witnesses, Charlito Guevarra and the victim’s brother Simplicio Salvar, Jr., arrived at the scene. The still-conscious and coherent victim identified his three assailants by name to both witnesses, stating he was “betrayed” by them. The victim died while being transported for medical aid. The defense consisted of alibi, claiming they were elsewhere having supper at the time of the crime.
ISSUE
Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in convicting the accused-appellants based on the eyewitness account and the victim’s dying declarations.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitness Lucresio Croda was deemed credible and reliable. The Court emphasized that where conditions of visibility are favorable, as with sufficient moonlight, and the witness is unbiased, his identification should be accepted. The defense failed to impute any ill motive to Croda for testifying. Furthermore, the statements made by the victim to Guevarra and Salvar immediately after the attack constituted admissible dying declarations. The victim, conscious and coherent, explicitly named the three appellants as his assailants. These declarations, made under the consciousness of impending death, carried significant weight. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially as it failed to demonstrate the physical impossibility of the appellants’ presence at the crime scene. The collective strength of the eyewitness testimony and the corroborating dying declarations established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.