G.R. No. 120369 -70 February 27, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rex Bergante, Rodito Bergante, and Leo Bergante, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Rex, Rodito, and Leo Bergante were charged with murder and illegal possession of firearms. The prosecution evidence established that on February 14, 1986, in Barangay Bato, Taytay, Palawan, the victim Donato Genanda, Sr. was milling his palay. Appellant Rodito Bergante arrived to buy rice. After milling, the victim left on his carabao, followed by Rodito. Witness Renato Estrella saw them conversing about Rodito’s cow destroying the victim’s palay. After the conversation, the victim and Estrella left together. Rodito met his brothers Rex and Leo on the way. The victim and Estrella later saw the three appellants waiting in front of a house. Estrella warned the victim and hid. Appellant Rex suddenly shot the victim in the abdomen, causing him to fall. Appellant Rodito then hit the victim on the head with a mangrove branch, and appellant Leo grabbed the victim’s bolo and pierced his eyes. The appellants fled. The victim’s son, Donato Genanda, Jr., found his father wounded and was told by the victim that Rex shot him, Rodito clubbed him, and Leo pierced his eyes. The victim repeated this identification in the jeep and at the hospital before dying about 24 hours later. Sgt. Juan Oscillada arrested the appellants and recovered a .32 caliber revolver from Rex Bergante. Verification showed the appellants were not licensed firearms holders. The autopsy report confirmed gunshot and stab wounds. The appellants presented alibis and witnesses to discredit the prosecution witnesses.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellants were whether the trial court erred (1) in not finding that there existed no conspiracy, and (2) in considering the statement of the victim as a dying declaration.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but acquitted Rex Bergante for illegal possession of firearms. The Court held that conspiracy was established as the appellants acted in concert to waylay and suddenly attack the victim, with each performing specific acts that led to his death. The Court also ruled that the victim’s ante-mortem statements qualified as a dying declaration under Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as they concerned the cause and circumstances of his death, were made under consciousness of impending death, the declarant was competent, and the declaration was offered in a murder case. The Court found the declaration credible and not made under improper influence. The Court modified the damages awarded, ordering the appellants to pay jointly and severally P50,000 as indemnity, P25,000 as exemplary damages, and P25,000 as moral damages to the victim’s wife. The Court set aside the conviction for illegal possession of firearms, as the prosecution failed to prove that the firearm was not licensed, which is an essential element of the crime.