G.R. No. 100199 January 18, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PRUDENCIO DOMINGUEZ and RODOLFO MACALISANG, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Prudencio Dominguez (then Mayor of Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental) and Rodolfo Macalisang, along with Roger C. Dominguez, were charged with the murders of Regional Trial Court Judge Purita A. Boligor and her brother Luther Avanceña. The trial court found Prudencio Dominguez and Rodolfo Macalisang guilty and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity to the victims’ heirs. The charges against Roger C. Dominguez were dismissed for lack of evidence. The prosecution’s case rested mainly on the testimony of Oscar Cagod, who witnessed the events from a store across the street. The facts as found by the trial court show that on the evening of February 6, 1986, Mayor Dominguez and his brother Roger visited Judge Boligor, who was promoting the candidacy of Corazon Aquino, while the Mayor was affiliated with the KBL supporting President Marcos. Rodolfo Macalisang, the Mayor’s brother-in-law, initially stayed outside. After the Mayor and Roger entered the house and met with Judge Boligor and Luther Avanceña, Macalisang entered with an M-16 armalite rifle, and bursts of gunfire were heard. Mayor Dominguez and Roger then ran out, got into a waiting jeep, and sped away. Macalisang also left. Judge Boligor and Luther were found dead inside from multiple gunshot wounds. After testifying, Oscar Cagod was slain, and another prosecution witness, Diosdado Avanceña, mysteriously disappeared.

ISSUE

The issues, as assigned by accused-appellants, are whether the trial court gravely erred in: 1) giving credence to the prosecution’s evidence, particularly Oscar Cagod’s testimony; 2) refusing to give credence to the evidence of the accused-appellants; and 3) not acquitting the accused-appellants.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding no merit in the assigned errors. The Court addressed the defense’s attack on Oscar Cagod’s credibility point by point:
1. Relationship to the Victim: Cagod’s relationship with Judge Boligor (having lived in her house for 18-19 years and treating her like a mother) does not impair his credibility. On the contrary, it adds weight as he would be interested in seeing the real killers brought to justice.
2. Delay in Reporting: Cagod’s delay of four months before executing a sworn statement was satisfactorily explained by his fear of the accused, who were powerful and influential figures in the municipality (Mayor Dominguez, PC Sergeant/CHDF Supervisor Macalisang). He had been warned by associates of the accused not to talk.
3. “Polluted Source” Claim: The defense’s claim that Cagod’s testimony came from a “polluted source” because he was arrested and promised immunity was unsupported by the record. There was no showing he was a participant or was promised immunity. Even if immunity had been granted, it does not automatically discredit testimony.
4. Prior Conviction: Cagod’s conviction for murder at age twelve, involving moral turpitude, does not automatically render his testimony unworthy of belief. The conviction must be considered with other circumstances, and here, his testimony was clear, consistent, and corroborated.
5. Incredibility of Testimony: The Court found Cagod’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. His account was corroborated by other evidence, including the recovery of M-16 shell casings at the scene matching the weapon Macalisang was seen with, and the testimony of another witness who saw Macalisang with an armalite after the shooting.
The Court also found the defense of alibi unavailing, as it was not physically impossible for the appellants to have been at the crime scene. The positive identification by the eyewitness prevailed over the alibi. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, with costs against appellants.