G.R. No. 55488 - Dapin vs. Dionaldo

On October 1, 1990, at around 7:00 p.m., in Purok Liberty Hills, Barangay Mabigo, Canlaon City, Wilson Vergara was shot by accused Edelciano Amaca @ "Eddie" and an unknown companion "John Doe" @ "Ogang."
The prosecution charged the accused with murder qualified by evident premeditation, alleging willful, unlawful, and felonious attack with use of a firearm resulting in the victim’s death.
A warrant of arrest was issued on January 16, 1991 but returned unserved twice as the accused had changed addresses and his whereabouts were unknown.

The accused was arrested on July 1, 1991, thus the trial court acquired jurisdiction.
The accused was arraigned on September 25, 1991, pleaded not guilty, and trial ensued.
The Regional Trial Court of Bais City found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua on November 19, 1992, without pronouncement on civil liability and damages.

Dr. Edgar P. Pialago testified: victim had multiple organ failure due to two gunshot wounds at the back, with bullets inside the body and no exit wounds.
Victim was admitted on October 1 at 10:45 p.m. and died the next day at 7:00 p.m.

Police Investigator Bernardo Mangubat was informed of the incident around 7:00 p.m. on October 1 and found victim at Dr. Cardenas’s clinic.
Victim identified accused Amaca and "Ogang" as his assailants and provided an ante mortem statement, which was reduced into writing and authenticated by his own thumbmark in blood, witnessed by Wagner Cardenas.

Felix Ponting and Alfredo Gabucero, both CAFGU members, testified the accused was on duty at Barangay Lumapao from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., then slept at the detachment afterward, providing an alibi.

Segundina Vergara, mother of the victim, and her son-in-law Jose Lapera desisted from further prosecution due to financial help from accused and desire for amicable settlement.
Department of Justice still found prima facie case based on the victim's ante mortem statement.

The court considered the victim’s dying declaration a sufficient positive identification to overcome alibi.
Due to desistance of complainants, court did not impose civil liability or award damages.

Whether the dying declaration of the victim is sufficient to identify the assailant and overcome the accused’s defense of alibi.
Whether the accused can be convicted of murder qualified by treachery or whether the lesser charge of homicide is appropriate.
Whether the non-award of civil indemnity is proper due to the desistance of the victim’s heirs.