G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO MAROLLANO @ “JUN,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

A Criminal Complaint was filed charging appellant Dionisio Marollano alias “Jun,” Consorcio Molleno, and one “John Doe” with the murder of Domingo Guadamor. After preliminary investigation, an Information was filed. During arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, Accused Molleno was acquitted while appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The defense admitted during pre-trial: (1) the existence and authenticity of the Certificate of Death of Domingo Guadamor; (2) that both accused were present at the scene of the incident; and (3) that the incident occurred between midnight of May 12, 1989, and 1:00 a.m. of May 14, 1989, at Barangay Sta. Fe, Pilar, Sorsogon. The prosecution admitted the incident occurred outside but near a dance hall during a dance, and both accused were arrested in their houses.
The prosecution evidence, as narrated by the trial court, established that in the evening of May 13, 1989, prosecution witness Cesar Mapa was with the victim, Domingo Guadamor, near a dance pavilion. While Guadamor was urinating, he suddenly shouted, “Manoy Cesar, I was stabbed. I was stabbed by Jun Marollano.” Mapa saw three persons, two of whom he recognized as appellant Jun Marollano and Consorcio Molleno, standing side by side with the wounded victim, holding bladed weapons, before they fled. Mapa demonstrated that appellant, while behind the victim, swung his right hand hitting Guadamor on the right waist. Other prosecution witnesses, Nildo Madronio and Jose Favia, testified that while aiding the victim after the stabbing, Guadamor told them it was appellant Jun Marollano who stabbed him. The victim’s widow, Belleza Favia Guadamor, confirmed that right after he was stabbed and while dying at the hospital, the victim told her he was stabbed by appellant Jun Marollano. Patrolman Andeo Somalinog testified that when appellant was arrested, he had a drop of dry blood on his big toe, which he claimed came from a pimple, and he later washed it off. While in jail, appellant became emotionally upset and told Somalinog that it was his co-accused “Consoy” (Consorcio Molleno) who killed the victim.
The defense presented alibi. Appellant testified that on the night of the incident, he was at his house in Lumbang, about four kilometers from the crime scene, sleeping beside his wife, who corroborated his testimony. He claimed he learned of the stabbing the next morning and went to the victim’s wake, where he was subsequently arrested.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant Dionisio Marollano for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that inconsistencies and contradictions in minor and trivial matters do not impair the credibility of a witness, especially after the trial court has accorded it full faith and credence. The defenses of alibi and denial cannot prevail over the victim’s ante mortem statement, which, as a dying declaration and/or part of the res gestae, points to the accused as the assailant. The victim’s immediate statements to witnesses Cesar Mapa, Nildo Madronio, Jose Favia, and his wife, identifying appellant as his assailant, were made under circumstances of seriousness and certainty of impending death, qualifying them as dying declarations, and as spontaneous statements made immediately after a startling occurrence, qualifying them as part of the res gestae. These statements were consistent and constituted strong evidence of appellant’s guilt. The positive identification by eyewitness Cesar Mapa, who saw appellant at the scene with a bladed weapon, further corroborated the dying declarations. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification. The Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery present, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards for civil indemnity, actual damages, and loss of earning capacity, with modifications to the computation of unearned income.