G.R. No. L-31245 March 25, 1988
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Claro Laureta, Jr., alias Titus, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on the evening of June 28, 1968, in Gingoog, Misamis Oriental, Aparicio Albuera, Jr. was fatally shot. His widow, Dedicacion Albuera, testified that she witnessed the shooting from her doorway. She saw a jeep stop, heard someone call “Jun-Jun,” and observed her husband approach the vehicle. She then saw the appellant, Claro Laureta, Jr., seated beside the driver, extend his arm and fire a gun at her husband. After the shots, the jeep sped away. The victim was rushed to a clinic where, before his death, he identified his assailant as “Titus” in response to a question from a witness, Guillermo Ababon. This statement was recorded by a patrolman as an antemortem declaration.

ISSUE

The core issues on appeal were: (1) the credibility of the eyewitness testimony of the widow; (2) the admissibility and validity of the victim’s alleged antemortem statement; and (3) the viability of the appellant’s defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the widow’s credibility, applying the doctrine that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and respect on appeal, absent any showing that material facts were overlooked. The widow’s positive identification of the appellant as the gunman was deemed credible and sufficient.
Regarding the antemortem statement, the Court ruled it was admissible as a dying declaration. The legal logic is that for a statement to qualify as such, it is not necessary for the declarant to explicitly state his consciousness of impending death. The seriousness of the victim’s mortal wounds, from which he died shortly after making the statement, justified the conclusion that he was under that consciousness. The testimonies of witnesses confirmed he was alive and able to speak at the clinic.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. The appellant claimed he was at home asleep, but his house was only about 500 meters from the crime scene. The Court held that such a short distance did not make it impossible for him to have committed the crime. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible eyewitness. The Court also found no voluntary surrender, as the appellant only presented himself after a warrant was issued. With no modifying circumstances, the penalty was adjusted under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The civil indemnity was also increased.