G.R. No. L-22474 November 26, 1970
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BIENVENIDO DOMINGUEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Around midnight of July 24, 1956, in the ground floor of Pedro Camerino’s house in Imus, Cavite, a person entered and fired several shots at close range at Eduardo Lacson, who was playing a game (mahjong or monte) with others. Lacson was seriously injured, suffering multiple gunshot wounds, including a spinal cord injury that caused paralysis. He was treated at the Philippine General Hospital and discharged on September 16, 1956, permanently disabled. He remained bedridden until his death on June 5, 1957, due to heart failure caused by the paralysis from his injuries. The accused-appellant, Bienvenido Dominguez, was convicted of Murder by the Court of First Instance of Cavite and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and indemnity. The prosecution’s case rested on: (1) the deceased’s statement in the hospital pointing to Dominguez as his assailant; (2) the accused’s silence when pointed to by the victim at the hospital; (3) the testimony of eyewitness Pedro Camerino identifying Dominguez as the gunman; (4) the presence of gunpowder residue on Dominguez’s hands; and (5) the weakness of the defense of alibi. A motive was established as Lacson had previously been charged (and later acquitted) for mauling Dominguez months before the shooting. During trial, witness Camerino retracted his direct testimony on cross-examination, stating he did not actually see the shooting and only identified Dominguez based on what others told him, but the trial court credited his original positive identification. The trial court admitted Lacson’s hospital statement as a dying declaration, but the Supreme Court found this erroneous.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Bienvenido Dominguez of Murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the indemnity. The trial court erred in admitting the victim’s hospital statement (Exhibit “D”) as a dying declaration because the declarant’s phrase “I don’t know if I can make it” showed doubt, not a conscious belief of impending death, and there was a long interval (over ten months) between the statement and death. However, this error did not warrant reversal because other sufficient evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This evidence included: the positive identification by witness Pedro Camerino (despite retraction, his original statement to investigators was credible); the testimony of peace officers that the victim identified Dominguez at the hospital without denial from the accused; the paraffin test showing gunpowder residue on Dominguez’s hands; the existence of motive from a previous mauling incident; and the inherent weakness of the defense of alibi, which was not credible given the proximity (about one kilometer) of the alibi location to the crime scene and the unreliable testimonies of defense witnesses. The indemnity to the heirs was increased to P12,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.