G.R. No. L-31961. January 9, 1979.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENCIO ODENCIO and GUIAMELON MAMA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on the evening of June 29, 1968, in Barrio Simsiman, Pigcawayan, North Cotabato, Prowa Talib was shot while in the yard of his house. His wife, Setie Mamalintao, an eyewitness, saw accused Guiamelon Mama firing from near a coconut tree. She then heard another volley and saw co-accused Florencio Odencio, also armed, near another tree, after which she noticed their neighbor Kadir Oranen had fallen dead. The victims and accused were known to each other, with prior disputes over alleged thefts of carabaos and lumber. A mortally wounded Talib was brought to a clinic where he gave a dying declaration to Patrolman Sañada, naming the appellants and a motive, but could not sign it due to his injuries. He died the next day.
The defense of both appellants was alibi, claiming they were in their respective homes during the shooting. They suggested political motives for their implication. The trial court convicted Florencio Odencio and Guiamelon Mama of two counts of murder, sentencing each to two reclusion perpetuas and ordering indemnity. Joseph Odencio was acquitted. The appellants challenged the verdict, questioning the identification, the credibility of the widow’s testimony, the use of the unsigned dying declaration, and the finding of conspiracy.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of appellants Florencio Odencio and Guiamelon Mama for the double murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the credibility of the prosecution evidence and the establishment of conspiracy. The positive identification by eyewitness Setie Mamalintao, who knew both appellants well and observed them under adequate lighting from a torch and household preparations, was deemed credible and reliable. Her testimony was corroborated by the dying declaration of victim Talib to Patrolman Sañada. The Court ruled that an unsigned dying declaration is admissible; the witness who recorded it may testify to its substance, and the circumstances—Talib’s belief in impending death and his physical inability to sign—satisfied the requisites for its admissibility. This declaration fortified the widow’s account.
Furthermore, the Court found conspiracy was sufficiently proven. The appellants were seen together before the incident, fired almost simultaneously at the victims in the same location, fled together westward, and shared a common motive linked to disputes over stolen carabaos. This coordinated execution demonstrated a community of design. The attack, carried out with the cover of night against unsuspecting victims, constituted treachery. The defenses of alibi and alleged political framing were rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated. Consequently, as co-conspirators, each appellant is liable for both murders. The penalties were affirmed, with modification for solidary liability for the indemnities.