G.R. No. 110872 - People vs. Garma

On December 2, 1987, at around 8:00 p.m. in Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, two shots were fired, which were immediately followed by a cry from Sixto Selma—“Remy, will you come to my rescue”—indicating that he had been shot.
Herminigildo Isidro, who was nearby gathering hay, heard the shots and Sixto’s cry; he then rushed toward their house to alert his relatives.
Maria Isidro, Sixto’s sister, also heard both the gunshots and the cry. She promptly awakened Gil Morales, her son-in-law, and along with Perlita Gazmen-Selma, they sought help from Councilor Jose Ardesani.
Councilor Ardesani, despite being present nearby, refused assistance out of fear of the assailants.

Unable to secure help from the councilor, Gil Morales, Perlita Gazmen-Selma, Herminigildo, and Maria Isidro proceeded with determination toward the source of the cry and found the area deserted.
They discovered Sixto Selma wounded on the ground. When asked about his attackers, Sixto stated, “They were three but I recognize[d] only Alex Garma.”
Despite being rushed to the Pura Clinic and later transferred to Gabriela Silang General Hospital, Sixto succumbed to his injuries at around midnight on the same day.
The autopsy revealed that the cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest due to hypovolemic shock from massive hemorrhage associated with multiple gunshot wounds.

Based largely on the dying declaration of Sixto—supported by the testimonies of four prosecution witnesses (Herminigildo Aquino, Gil Morales, Maria Isidro, and Perlita Gazmen-Selma)—the accused Alex Garma and an unidentified co-accused were charged with murder.
The Information alleged that the accused, in company and with treachery and evident premeditation, shot Sixto, causing wounds that led to his death.
At arraignment, Alex Garma pleaded not guilty.
The trial court found Garma guilty, imposing a sentence ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor (minimum) to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal (maximum), along with a civil indemnity obligation of P30,000 to the heirs of Sixto.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings except for modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000.
The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court under Rule 124, Section 13 of the Rules of Court, particularly in reference to Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph (2), subparagraph (d) of the 1987 Constitution.

Central to the prosecution’s case was the dying declaration of Sixto, which was corroborated by witness testimonies as part of both the res gestae and dying declaration doctrines.
Alex Garma sought to advance an alibi by claiming that during the time of the incident (7:00 to 10:00 p.m.), he was watching television at his grandfather Sotero Garma’s house—a claim corroborated by multiple witnesses.
Additionally, the appellant questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, citing minor inconsistencies in their testimonies regarding specific statements by the victim and the motive for the shooting.
The court, however, found these inconsistencies minor and attributable to occasional lapses in human memory.

Whether Sixto’s statement identifying Alex Garma qualifies as both a dying declaration and part of the res gestae, thereby being admissible in evidence.
Whether the four requisite elements for a valid dying declaration are satisfied in this case.

Whether the victim’s positive identification of Garma as one of the assailants outweighs the alibi provided by Garma and his witnesses.
The pertinence of the rule that an alibi defense cannot prevail when there is positive identification by the victim.

The impact, if any, of the alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements on their credibility.
How these discrepancies, given the context of a traumatic event, affect the overall evidentiary value.

Whether the assessment of treachery, based on the nature and location of the fatal wounds, is supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether treachery can be presumed from the circumstances or requires positive and conclusive demonstration.