G.R. No. L-61078 October 24, 1983
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Bartolome Jabuego, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On September 24, 1975, in Catbalogan, Samar, Valentin Niedo was walking along a street, followed by his sister Dominga Niedo Orral. As Valentin passed about ten meters from the house of appellant Bartolome Jabuego, the latter, positioned at a window, fired a single shotgun blast at him. Dominga, who was seven meters behind her brother, clearly saw appellant fire the weapon, with his co-accused Miguel Jabuego and Sofronio Latorre standing beside him. Valentin sustained fatal pellet wounds to his face, neck, and chest.
The wounded Valentin was approached by Barangay Councilman Ernesto Balasbas, who asked who shot him. Valentin identified “Tome Jabuego” before succumbing to his injuries en route to the hospital. Appellant interposed an alibi, claiming he was in a different location attending a town fiesta and was later apprehended by an armed man. The trial court convicted appellant of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the eyewitness account and the victim’s dying declaration, sufficiently established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the strength of positive identification and corroborative evidence. Eyewitness Dominga Orral provided a clear, consistent, and credible account. She was in close proximity, had an unobstructed view, and positively identified appellant as the shooter firing from his window. Her testimony on the single gunshot was deemed credible and not invalidated by the medical findings, as the nature of shotgun pellets could create multiple entry wounds from one discharge.
The Court upheld the trial court’s acceptance of Valentin’s statement to Balasbas as a valid dying declaration. The medico-legal expert confirmed the victim, with his brain intact, retained the capacity to speak after being shot, and his imminent death lent the statement the requisite solemnity and trustworthiness. Furthermore, appellant’s conduct after the incident—his immediate flight from the scene, evasion of police authorities, and attempted hiding—constituted evidence of guilt and a tacit admission of wrongdoing, which thoroughly undermined his alibi defense. This combination of positive eyewitness testimony, a competent dying declaration, and post-crime flight established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.