THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FLORENCIO ODENCIO AND GUIAMELON MAMA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Florencio Odencio
and Guiamelon Mama appealed from the decision of the
Court of First Instance of North Cotabato, finding
them guilty of two separate crimes of murder, sentencing each of them to two reclusion
perpetuas, and ordering them to pay P12,000 to the heirs of Prowa Talib and P12,000 to the heirs of Kadir
Oranen (Criminal Case No. 5276).

According to the prosecution, at about seven o’clock in the
evening of June 29, 1968, while Prowa Talib (Palua Talip),
a forty-year old farmer, was in the yard of his house located at Barrio Simsiman, Pigcawayan, North Cotabato, handing a pot of rice to his wife, Setie Mamalintao, who was near
the stairs, he was felled down by a volley of shots.

Setie rushed to the aid of her
husband.  When she looked in the direction
where the gunshots emanated, she saw Guiamelon Mama
holding a gun near a coconut tree around six brazas
away.  Then, she heard another volley of
shots.  She saw Florencio
Odencio (Poren), also
holding a gun near another coconut tree around ten
meters away in the yard of the house of her neighbor, Daongan
Karaing.  She
noticed that Kadir Oranen,
who was nearby, had fallen to the ground around three arms’ length from Daongan’s house.  Kadir died instantly.

Setie had known for a long time Florencio and Guiamelon who were
friends and neighbors also residing in Barrio Simsiman.  Setie and Guiamelon had cultivated adjacent farmlands.

While Setie was comforting her husband,
he allegedly told her that he was going to die. 
He directed her to remember what had happened to him and that they had
seen Guiamelon Mama and Poren
armed with guns.  Prior to that shooting
incident, Prowa Talib had
reported to the barrio captain that Florencio Odencio had stolen his lumber.

The two assailants fled westward. 
At the time the incident occurred, Japal Rongot was on his way to Talib’s
house.  He encountered Guiamelon and Joseph Odencio with
both of whom he was well acquainted.  He
asked Guiamelon why there were gunshots but the
latter did not make any reply.  Upon
reaching Talib’s house, Rongot
saw Setie crying and holding Talib
on her lap.  Setie
told him that Talib was shot by Guiamelon
and she pointed to him Oranen’s corpse which was
about two arms’ length from Talib.

Ngelam Towa (Nilan
Tuwa), another neighbor and the uncle of Setie, heard the gunshots on the occasion in question.  He hastened to Talib’s
house.  Setie
told him that Guiamelon Mama had shot Talib.  She advised
her uncle not to use his flashlight because Guiamelon
was still in the vicinity.  Setie also told Towa that Florencio
Odencio had shot Oranen.  Towa left Talib’s
house in order to get assistance from his father-in-law.  While crossing the trail, his flashlight focussed on Florencio Odencio with two companions leaving the scene of the crime.

Policemen arrived at Talib’s
house.  Setie
informed them that Guiamelon was the gunwielder.  They
brought Talib to a medical clinic where he was
interrogated by Patrolman Joaquin Sanada.  Talib told Sañada that his assailants were Guiamelon,
Florencio Odencio and Florencio’s father, Joseph Odencio.  Due to the critical condition of Talib (nagaagonto), he was
not able to sign his dying declaration (Exh. B) as taken down by Patrolman Sañada.  Talib was brought
to the hospital.  He died on the
following day.

In that unsigned antemortem
declaration, Talib revealed that Florencio
Odencio suspected that he and Oranen
had masterminded the theft of Joseph Odencio’s two carabaos, and that, on the other hand, Guiamelon
suspected Talib of having stolen the carabao of Damiog, the father-in-law
of Guiamelon. 
It was stated further in the same dying declaration that Talib had told Patrolman Sañada
that he wanted to sign it but that he could not do so because of the wound in
his arm.  Talib
also articulated his belief that he was going to die because he could hardly
breathe and his wound was painful.

On July 1, 1968 or within forty-eight hours after taking Talib’s unsigned antemortem
statement, Sañada executed an affidavit reciting the
circumstances surrounding the taking thereof. 
Sañada testified in court on Talib’s dying declaration.

The autopsy disclosed that Talib
sustained eight gunshot wounds in the back or posterior chest wall.  No autopsy was performed on the body of Oranen who, as noted above, died at the scene of the crime.

On July 1, 1968,
a complaint for double murder was filed in the municipal court against Guiamelon, Florencio Odencio, Joseph Odencio and Angelico Aposaga, Poren’s father-in-law. 
They waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation.  On September
19, 1968, an information was filed in the
Court of First Instance against Guiamelon, Florencio Odencio and Joseph Odencio.  The trial
court acquitted Joseph and convicted only Florencio
and Guiamelon.

In his defense, Florencio, a thirty-two
year-old farmer, denied that he shot Talib and that
he had a misunderstanding with Oranen and Talib with both of whom he was acquainted.  Florencio testified
that he was in his house when the shooting occurred.  He was arrested on the following day, June 30, 1968.  He surmised that he was implicated in the
case because he did not support Mayor Doruelo, the
incumbent mayor, and, instead, he voted for Estañol,
the candidate of the Liberal Party.  Florencio’s alibi was corroborated by his wife and his
brother-in-law, Antonio Cesar.

The other accused, Guiamelon Mama, a
thirty-year-old farmer, adopted the same line of defense.  He declared that he was also in his house
when Talib was shot; that he had no misunderstanding
with Talib, who is his father’s brother-in-law, being
the brother of his stepmother, his father’s second wife; that he was arrested
while he was attending Talib’s funeral, and that he
came to know his co-accused Florencio Odencio only in jail.

The accused presented Samuel Jubilan, a
Constabulary sergeant, who testified that he was present when Patrolman Sañada interrogated Talib and
that the latter declared that he was not able to recognize his assailant
because it was dark.  Sañada
said he did not know of that interrogation made by Jubilan.

In disbelieving the alibis of Florencio
and Guiamelon, the trial court observed that the
accused were indubitably identified as the assailants in Talib’s
dying declarations to his wife and Patrolman Sañada.  Setie Mamalintao in her statement to the police declared that she
was able to recognize Florencio and Guiamelon because there was a “big torch” in
front of her house and Karaing’s house (No. 19, Exh. 1, p. 11, Record).

The trial court noted that there “was a good amount of
lighting in the yard of Prowa Talib
because he was preparing” supper when he was shot and that Setie was able to recognize the accused because she had
been acquainted with them for a long time. 
As stated above, two witnesses saw the accused in the vicinity of Talib’s house shortly after the shooting.  Therefore, the contention of appellants’
counsel de oficio that they had not
been sufficiently identified as the killers cannot be sustained.

Another contention of counsel de oficio
is that the trial court erred in finding that Guiamelon
and Odencio conspired to kill Talib
and Oranen. 
That contention is belied by the evidence.  Guiamelon and Odencio were seen pacing back and forth near Talib’s house on the day of the incident (No. 27, Exh. 1).  They shot
the two victims in the same place and almost simultaneously, thus showing a
coordination of efforts and community of design.

On leaving the scene of the crime, they proceeded in the same
direction (westward).  They were animated
by the same motive, which was to liquidate the victims because the latter
allegedly stole the carabaos of the relatives of the
accused.  The record does not disclose
any reason why Setie Mamalintao
and Patrolman Sañada would frame up the appellants.

The manner in which they shot the victims shows treachery.  The shooting was not the product of momentary
impulse.  There was alevosia
because the two malefactors, taking advantage of the cover of night,
stationed themselves in a place where they could shoot the victims with
impunity without any risk to themselves or without exposing themselves to any
retaliation since the victims did not expect to be assaulted at that time and
place.

Appellants’ counsel further contends that they were convicted on
the basis of the wife’s uncorroborated testimony “which is open to
suspicion due to inherent improbabilities” and “motives to falsify
the truth”.  That contention is not
correct.  Talib’s
antemortem statement fortifies the testimony of his
widow, an eyewitness.  We have stressed
that two other witnesses saw the appellants leaving the scene of the crime.

Moreover, Talib’s dying declaration was
sufficiently proven.  The rule is that a
dying declaration may be oral or written. 
If oral, the witness, who heard it, may testify thereto without the necessity,
of course, of reproducing exactly the words of the decedent, if he is able to
give the substance thereof.  An unsigned
dying declaration may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it
down.  (See 5 Moran’s Comments on the Rules
of Court, 1970 Ed., pp. 315-316.)

We are satisfied that the guilt of the appellants was proven
beyond reasonable doubt.  As they were
co-conspirators, they are each liable for the two murders.  There being no modifying circumstances
concomitant with the commission of the two assassinations, the trial court
properly penalized each murder with reclusion perpetua
(Arts. 64[1] and 248, Revised Penal Code).

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed with the sole modification
that the two appellants should be held solidarily
liable for the two indemnities of P12,000 each.  In the
service of the two reclusion perpetuas,
the forty-year limit fixed in article 70 of the Revised Penal Code should be
observed.  Costs
against the appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., and Santos, JJ., concur.