G.R. No. L-78794 November 21, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. FELIPE ELIZAGA and MARCOS ELIZAGA (deceased), accused-appellants.

FACTS

On October 8, 1967, policeman Wilson Stacy was found with a gunshot wound. While being treated, he gave a statement to another policeman, naming Marcos Elizaga, “Iping” Elizaga (appellant Felipe), and Pabling Molina as his assailants, and expressed his belief that he was going to die. He succumbed to his wounds two days later. An Information for Murder was filed in 1976 against Felipe and Marcos Elizaga. With Marcos deceased, only Felipe stood trial. The prosecution’s primary evidence was Stacy’s dying declaration. The defense presented alibi witnesses who testified that Felipe was playing pool at a store at the time of the incident.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the dying declaration of the victim, standing alone and without corroborative evidence, is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, Felipe Elizaga, for the crime of Murder, particularly in establishing conspiracy and his direct participation.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Felipe Elizaga. The Court first ruled that the victim’s statement was a valid dying declaration, admissible as it concerned the cause of his death and was made under a consciousness of impending death. However, admissibility does not equate to automatic sufficiency for conviction. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s burden is to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the conviction rested solely on the dying declaration. No eyewitness, including Pedro Tapuro who was present during the shooting, was presented. No evidence was offered to place appellant at the crime scene, to show he possessed a firearm, or to detail his specific actions. Conversely, the defense’s alibi was corroborated. Crucially, the declaration alone failed to establish conspiracy. There was no evidence of any prior agreement, planning, or concerted action among the named individuals. Conspiracy cannot be presumed; it must be proven as convincingly as the crime itself. With conspiracy unproven, individual criminal liability must be established, which the prosecution also failed to do. Therefore, the evidence did not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.