G.R. No. L-17921-22; June 29, 1962
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO TELAN, CANUTO TELAN, and AMANDO MACABALLUG, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the moonlit evening of September 21, 1958, Ramon Soriano, Severino Paguirigan, and Victoriano Malabug were ambushed while walking home in Cabagan, Isabela. Soriano was fatally shot, and Malabug was wounded in the thigh. Paguirigan escaped injury by ducking. After the shooting, the assailants approached the fallen victims, believing them dead, and made remarks in the Ibanag dialect. They then withdrew, passing close to Paguirigan’s hiding place. Both Malabug and Paguirigan claimed to have recognized the three accused—Domingo Telan, Canuto Telan, and Amando Macaballug. The critically wounded Soriano was later found by his wife, Emilia Tagufa. Before he died, Soriano twice identified the same three accused as his assailants.
A motive was established: bad blood existed between the parties due to a prior conviction of Soriano and Paguirigan for malicious mischief for killing carabaos belonging to the Telans and Macaballug’s sister. The defense centered on disputing the identification of the appellants, arguing the victims’ physical condition and the witnesses’ emotional state precluded reliable recognition. The appellants also presented alibis, which were supported primarily by relatives.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the murder and frustrated murder was established beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. The Court found the positive identification by the eyewitnesses, Malabug and Paguirigan, to be credible and convincing. They were familiar with the appellants as barriomates and recognized them during the moonlit incident when the assailants approached closely. The dying declaration of Soriano, as testified to by his wife, consistently named the same three assailants, adding corroborative weight. The Court rejected the defense’s theories as mere surmise, noting that it was not impossible for Paguirigan to observe the appellants from his hiding place or for the wounded Malabug to see them. The witnesses’ initial failure to coherently report the incident that same night was deemed understandable due to emotional shock. The appellants’ alibis were found unpersuasive, being uncorroborated by disinterested witnesses and failing to overcome the positive identification. The Court modified the judgment only by increasing the civil indemnity for Soriano’s death to P6,000.00.