G.R. No. L-29569 October 30, 1972
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE “Pitong” TIONGSON and PAQUITO LAGUNSAD, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of March 21, 1966, Juana Valmonte returned to Gapan, Nueva Ecija, after selling rice in Manila. Her truck parked in front of her father Ricardo’s rice mill. Ricardo witnessed the events: after the truck stopped, its lights were turned off and on. As Juana alighted and walked towards the rear, the lights extinguished again, followed by her shouts of “Ay! Ay!” and the sound of a gunshot. Ricardo delayed to fetch a rifle, and upon his return, he found Juana bleeding. Before being rushed to the hospital, the still-conscious Juana identified appellants Jose Tiongson and Paquito Lagunsad as two of her assailants. She died the following night from a gunshot wound and a stab wound.
Appellants were convicted of robbery with homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They appealed, contending the trial court erred in crediting Ricardo’s allegedly contradictory testimony, in admitting Juana’s identification as part of the res gestae, and in finding conspiracy. Their defense was alibi: Tiongson claimed he was asleep at home, and Lagunsad asserted he was in Bulacan at the time.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the evidence presented, specifically regarding the credibility of the principal witness, the admissibility of the victim’s dying declaration as part of the res gestae, and the sufficiency of proof of conspiracy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the alleged contradiction in Ricardo Valmonte’s testimony, the Court found none. His direct testimony recounted his daughter’s identification of the appellants. His cross-examination, where he stated he saw Tiongson and another running away, did not contradict this but merely supplemented the narrative, as he never claimed those two were the sole assailants. The testimony was coherent and credible.
The Court upheld the admissibility of Juana’s identification of the appellants as part of the res gestae. The statement was made immediately after the startling occurrence, while she was still under the stress of the event and writhing in pain, satisfying the requisites for spontaneity. It was thus admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Conspiracy was sufficiently established by the appellants’ concerted actions. The evidence showed they acted together with a common purpose to rob the victim, which culminated in her homicide. The defense of alibi was properly rejected, as it was weak against the positive identification and the fact that both appellants, having previously worked at the Valmonte rice mill, had knowledge of the business and the likely proceeds from the rice sale. The collective evidence overwhelmingly pointed to their guilt.