People v. Nabor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 22, 1983, at approximately 8:00 PM, while walking along P. Burgos St. in Agno, Pangasinan, a group including Jean Tandoc and Harry Nicanor were fired upon by Ambrocio Nabor and Amando Rosete. Jean Tandoc sustained fatal gunshot wounds and died on November 23, 1983. Harry Nicanor, also hit, was able to reach his house but later died on November 29, 1983, from his gunshot wounds. Procedural History: The accused-appellants, Ambrocio Nabor and Amando Rosete, were charged with murder in two separate informations before the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 39, Lingayen, Pangasinan. The RTC rendered a joint decision finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing them to suffer reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victims. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed the RTC decision, assigning errors concerning the lower court's reliance on the dying declarations of the victims, its failure to give due weight to their alibi defense, and the existence of grave reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in acquitting both accused for the crime of double murder based on the dying declarations of both victims and eyewitness testimony, and whether the defense of alibi should have been given more weight. Whether the lower court erred in failing to give due weight and credit to the defense of alibi, specifically regarding the physical impossibility of the accused being at the scene of the crime. Whether the lower court erred in convicting both accused due to grave reasonable doubt, and whether the prosecution successfully proved treachery and evident premeditation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in both cases. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld, along with the civil indemnities awarded to the heirs of the victims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conviction based on dying declarations and eyewitness testimony versus alibi: The Court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in giving more weight to the dying declaration of Harry Nicanor, corroborated by the positive testimony of Janette Tandoc, an eyewitness, over the defense of alibi and a conflicting dying declaration. The prosecution's evidence, particularly the ante-mortem statement of Harry Nicanor taken by Patrolman Paragas, which identified the accused-appellants, was found to be more credible. The trial court's observations regarding the inconsistencies and incredibility of the dying declaration taken by T/Sgt. Acerit, due to the victim's serious condition and the manner in which it was taken and signed, were given due respect. The rule that the credibility of witnesses is best assessed by the trial court, which has the advantage of observing their demeanor, was applied. The Court reiterated that dying declarations, when meeting the requisites of admissibility, are potent evidence. The positive identification by Janette Tandoc, who knew the accused-appellants well and saw them fire their guns, further strengthened the prosecution's case. The defense of alibi, which requires proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime, was found to be unsubstantiated and thus failed against positive identification. On the issue of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi to be without merit. For alibi to prosper, it must be established not only that the accused were in another place but also that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. In this case, the accused-appellants failed to present proof of such physical impossibility. Furthermore, their presence at the scene was contradicted by positive identification by an eyewitness and the dying declarations of the victims. The Court emphasized that alibi is a weak defense, especially when contradicted by credible evidence. On the issue of reasonable doubt and the presence of treachery and evident premeditation: The Court found that the records supported the conclusion that the accused-appellants acted in concert in the perpetration of the double murder. The killings were qualified by treachery because the shooting was sudden, ensuring the commission of the offense without risk to the assailants from any defense the victims might have mounted. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the element of evident premeditation. Despite this, the presence of conspiracy and treachery, coupled with the positive identification of the assailants, was sufficient to sustain the conviction for murder.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder, giving more weight to the dying declaration of a victim corroborated by eyewitness testimony over the defense of alibi and a conflicting dying declaration, finding that the prosecution sufficiently proved conspiracy, treachery, and the identities of the assailants.