G.R. No. L-18659, June 29, 1965
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTIPAS SAGARIO, ET AL., defendants, ANTIPAS SAGARIO and LUIS GUI-E, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Antipas Sagario, Luis Gui-e, and ten others were charged with double murder for the killings of Patrolmen Paulino Ursais and Jose Gomez. The trial court convicted Sagario and Gui-e, imposing the death penalty. Sagario died during appeal, so the case proceeded only against Gui-e. The evidence established that on the afternoon of September 3, 1956, Gui-e was seen with Sagario and others drinking. Later, twelve men gathered in Sagario’s bodega. That evening, the group, led by Gui-e carrying a carbine, proceeded in a jeep and a car towards the Molave municipal building. At midnight, while Patrolman Gomez was on duty after relieving Patrolman Ursais, the group arrived. Gomez recognized Sagario driving the jeep and was surrounded. Gui-e pointed his carbine at Gomez, and a man speaking Waray ordered Gomez to kneel and then shot him with a Tommy gun. Ursais, hearing the shot, came to help and was also shot. The assailants fled in the vehicles. Gomez, though wounded, managed to hide and later gave a dying declaration to the Chief of Police and an ante-mortem affidavit to the Provincial Governor, identifying Sagario and Gui-e as participants. Gomez died from his wounds.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the conviction of appellant Luis Gui-e for the crime of double murder is proper based on the evidence presented, including the admissibility and credibility of the dying declarations.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Luis Gui-e. The dying declaration and ante-mortem statement of Patrolman Gomez were admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule, having been made under a consciousness of impending death and with voluntariness and clarity established. The statements positively identified Gui-e as one of the assailants. The attack on the policemen was characterized by treachery, as the victims were suddenly assaulted without opportunity to defend themselves, qualifying the killings as murder. The circumstance of evident premeditation was present, as shown by the planning and gathering of armed men in vehicles. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and use of motor vehicles were also present, with no mitigating circumstances to offset them. The Court found no merit in the appellant’s claim of newly discovered evidence, as such evidence could have been presented at trial with due diligence and was merely impeaching. The penalty of death imposed by the trial court was affirmed.