G.R. No. 97319 - Swan vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 97319)
Standard Advanced

Facts:

Initiation of the Case and Charges

An information dated November 6, 1956, was filed before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur, charging Antipas Sagario, Luis Gui-e, and several others with the crime of double murder.
The trial court rendered a judgment against Sagario and Gui-e, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder—each qualified by evident premeditation, treachery, use of motor vehicles, and the element of nighttime.
The judgment imposed the death penalty on both accused, ordered joint and several indemnification to the heirs of the slain policemen, and mandated the confiscation of specific evidence (a .38-caliber Star pistol and a jeep).

Sequence of Events Leading Up to the Crime

On September 3, 1956, at about 2:00 p.m., Luis Gui-e was observed in the company of Antipas Sagario and others at Leonisa Mercado's store in Mahayag, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, where they were seen drinking tuba.
Later that afternoon, vehicles associated with Sagario—a jeep and a light-cream-colored car—were seen parked together near a bridge at barrio Mahayag and near Sagario’s bodega, where a group of twelve men gathered.
At approximately 9:00 p.m., the assembled group, now visibly armed (one carrying a carbine and another a tommy gun), proceeded from the store; five men boarded the car and seven rode in the jeep, heading toward the poblacion.

The Raid on the Municipal Building and the Shooting Incident

At the Molave municipal building, only two policemen were on guard duty during the change of shift—from Policeman Paulino Ursais to Policeman Jose Gomez—around midnight on September 3, 1956.
The raiding group of about twelve armed men, which immediately included identified figures such as Sagario and Gui-e, encircled the building.
Key moments during the raid:

Luis Gui-e was seen pointing a carbine at Policeman Gomez, ordering him not to move.
An assailant, speaking in the local dialect, ordered Gomez to kneel down and then proceeded with the attack.
Gomez was shot—first with a shot that made him fall unconscious and again as he regained consciousness—while Policeman Ursais, who had attempted to intervene, was also shot fatally.

The Dying Declarations of Policeman Jose Gomez

After sustaining injuries during the attack, Gomez managed to escape briefly and eventually gave a dying declaration:

His initial statement was recorded under the supervision of the Chief of Police at a nearby house belonging to Nazario Acapulco.
A subsequent ante-mortem statement was given at the Provincial Hospital before Governor Bienvenido A. Ebarle, in which he detailed the sequence of events, including the arrival of the armed men and the roles of Sagario and Gui-e.

Core components of the declarations:

Identification of the presence of two vehicles (a jeep and a car/automobile similar to that of Villasis) carrying a total of twelve men.
Testimony that Luis Gui-e, among others, pointed his carbine at him and explicitly ordered him not to move.
Clear indication that both Antipas Sagario and Luis Gui-e were participants in the violent raid.

Evidence and Corroborative Circumstances

Physical evidence at the scene included:

Gunshot holes, empty shells, and marks on the wall of the municipal building.
Recovery of a firearm and ammunition from Antipas Sagario’s possession.

Eyewitness testimonies further corroborated the timeline and involvement of the accused:

Observations of the group’s movements prior to the raid—from a gathering at the store and bodega, to the roadway near Camp VII.
Testimonies that linked the presence of the raiding party to both vehicles and the subsequent attack on the police.

Defense and Alibi of Luis Gui-e

Gui-e offered a defense based on an alibi, claiming that on the night of September 3, 1956:

He was residing in Camp VII, Molave, and had left his residence only after completing personal errands, including a trip to Misamis and visiting his master, Atty. Villanueva-Benedicto.
He maintained that he returned to Camp VII, rested due to a headache, and only later went about his routine activities, which supposedly kept him away from the scene of the raid.

The defense was weakened by:

Contradictory evidence that placed Gui-e near the scene, including eyewitness identifications (e.g., at Sagario’s bodega and near the municipal building).
The impracticality of his alleged timeline and the ease of transit between Camp VII and the municipal building.
Additional motive-related factors, including established personal grievances against the police force and the Chief of Police.

Issues:

Admissibility and Credibility of the Dying Declarations

Whether Policeman Jose Gomez’s dying declarations were rendered voluntarily, with full cognizance of impending death, and accurately identified the perpetrators.
The evidentiary weight of these declarations in linking the accused directly to the crime.

Evaluation of Luis Gui-e’s Alibi and Defense

Whether Gui-e’s claimed alibi—stating that he was at Camp VII during the incident—is plausible given the timeline and geographic proximity to the municipal building.
The reliability of the evidence rebutting his alibi versus the direct identification by the dying declaration.

Establishment of Conspiracy and Premeditation

Whether the physical evidence and circumstantial facts sufficiently demonstrate a concerted conspiracy among the accused, characterized by evident premeditation and treachery.
How the coordinated movements and actions of the group support the charge of double murder under aggravated circumstances.

Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence

Whether the blend of eyewitness testimony, physical evidence at the crime scene, and recorded statements provides a compelling basis for sustaining the conviction and death penalty.
The challenge of reconciling discrepancies in alternative testimonies with the core evidence.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 97319) Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 97319) Standard Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 97319)
Concise

Case Digest (G.R. No. 97319)
Standard Advanced