GR L 48556; (April, 1944) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-48556; April 14, 1944
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO P. BAJUYO and CRISANTO PALASOL, defendants. CRISANTO PALASOL, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of April 25, 1941, in Barrio Mulugan, Cagayan, Oriental Misamis, Apolinar Galagnara was shot and killed. He was standing face to face with his friend Alfredo Bajuyo, with his hands on Bajuyo’s shoulders, while Bajuyo had his arms crossed on his breast. The bullet entered Galagnara’s abdomen three inches above the navel, perforating his stomach and duodenum, and lodged near the base of his diaphragm. After being shot, the victim fell and initially identified Alfredo Bajuyo as his assailant when asked by Ignacio Galagnara. However, Jose Galagnara immediately corrected this, stating it was Crisanto Palasol who fired the shot. Palasol and Bajuyo then fled the scene. The two were charged with murder. The trial court found that Crisanto Palasol fired the fatal shot, with no proof of conspiracy with Alfredo Bajuyo, leading to Bajuyo’s acquittal and Palasol’s conviction for murder, sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to indemnify the heirs.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted Crisanto Palasol of murder based on the evidence, notwithstanding the victim’s ante-mortem statement initially identifying Alfredo Bajuyo as the assailant.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s findings were fully supported by the evidence. Two eyewitnesses, Jose Galagnara and Ramona Jamblan, testified that Palasol approached Bajuyo from behind while Bajuyo was facing the victim, placed his hand close to Bajuyo’s right side below the elbow, and shot Galagnara at close range. This testimony was corroborated by Numeriano Mercado, who overheard a conversation between Palasol and Bajuyo after the shooting where Palasol told Bajuyo not to tell the truth, and by the physical evidence of the wound’s location and trajectory. The direction of the wound (horizontal and slightly to the right, entering the abdomen) was inconsistent with a shot fired by Bajuyo, who was directly in front of the victim with his arms folded. The Court held that the victim’s ante-mortem statement, while admissible, was not entitled to greater weight than other competent testimony and was effectively disproven. The crime was murder qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The sentence was affirmed.