GR 77822 23; (May, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 77822-23 May 21, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMBROCIO NABOR and AMANDO ROSETE, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of November 22, 1983, during a town fiesta in Agno, Pangasinan, victims Jean Tandoc and Harry Nicanor, along with companions including Janette Tandoc, were walking home. Accused-appellants Ambrocio Nabor and Amando Rosete, positioned near an acacia tree, fired upon the group. Jean Tandoc was fatally shot at the scene, while Harry Nicanor, though wounded, managed to flee before succumbing to his injuries days later. Both victims provided ante-mortem statements identifying their assailants. Harry Nicanor specifically named Nabor and Rosete to a patrolman and warned his family about them. Jean Tandoc described two assailants, one taller than the other, matching the appellants’ statures. Eyewitness Janette Tandoc positively identified both appellants as the gunmen.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The ruling is anchored on the strength of the admissible dying declarations and the positive eyewitness identification, which collectively overcome the defense of alibi. The dying declarations of both victims, given under a consciousness of impending death, were correctly admitted as evidence. Harry Nicanor’s statements directly named the appellants, and Jean Tandoc’s description corroborated their physical characteristics. Crucially, eyewitness Janette Tandoc provided clear and positive testimony identifying Nabor and Rosete as the perpetrators. Given this direct evidence, the defense of alibi must fail, as the appellants failed to demonstrate the physical impossibility of their presence at the crime scene. The Court agreed with the trial court’s finding of treachery, as the sudden and unexpected attack ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants. However, it modified the ruling by finding that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven. Consequently, the penalties of reclusion perpetua for each count of murder and the awarded indemnities and damages were upheld.