G.R. Nos. L-676901-91 January 21, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO HERNANDEZ, MERLITO HERNANDEZ and MAXIMO HERNANDEZ alias “Putol”, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the night of May 28, 1979, in Candelaria, Quezon, Buenaventura and Narciso Mendoza were fatally shot inside their family home after a voice outside claimed to be law enforcement. Before expiring, Buenaventura identified the assailants to his wife, Elena, as brothers Eduardo and Merlito Hernandez, with their uncle Maximo Hernandez as the gunman. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on this dying declaration and the testimony of Gelacio Mendoza, another brother, who claimed he saw two men he identified by build as Eduardo and Merlito walking toward the crime scene minutes before the shooting.
The defense consisted of alibis. Maximo asserted he was judging a singing contest in another barangay at the time, supported by witness testimony. Eduardo and Merlito similarly claimed they were elsewhere. The prosecution posited revenge as the motive, citing a prior incident where a Mendoza brother had killed a Hernandez brother, which was allegedly settled amicably.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted all accused-appellants. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dying declaration, while admissible, was deemed unreliable. Buenaventura made the identification only after being asked a leading question by his wife, and the circumstances—being asked if he recognized the shooters—did not inherently guarantee veracity as it was not a spontaneous utterance. The Court emphasized that for a dying declaration to carry full weight, it must be made under a consciousness of impending death and without any prompting.
Furthermore, the corroborative testimony of Gelacio Mendoza was rejected. His identification of the appellants by their build or general appearance under moonlight, without seeing their faces, was deemed unsatisfactory and unreliable. With the primary evidence of identification fatally flawed, the prosecution’s case collapsed. The alibis presented by the defense, which the Court noted had adequate evidentiary support, therefore assumed significance. Consequently, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevailed, and the appellants were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.