G.R. No.

L-32914 August 30, 1974

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LAUREANO SANGALANG, accused-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Octavio R. Ramirez and
Solicitor Ma. Rosario Quetulio Losa for plaintiff-appellee.

Narciso V. Cruz, Jr. for accused-appellant.

AQUINO, J.:p

FACTS: Accdg to FLORA SARNO (wife of victim)  6 AM, 09-June-1968: Ricardo

Cortez left his nipa hut to gather tuba from a nearby coconut tree. His wife Flora Sarno-
Cortez was left inside the nipa hut  While on top of the tree he was struck by a volley of
shots and fell to the ground  Flora the wife heard the shots and ran outside, and saw
five armed men firing at her wounded husband who was lying at the foot of the tree.
(Men were around 5 meters away from husband. Flora was around 25 meters away
from the scene)  She recognized Laureano Sangalang as one of the five men. (She
and her brother had known Sangalang since their childhood). She also recognized the
other four: Conrado Gonzales, Irineo Canuel, Perino Canuel and Eleuterio Cuyom 
Flora ran towards her husband but the five men fired shots at her, so she had to retreat
back to the hut for cover. She heard more shots. The men left after five minutes. When
Flora went outside again she found her husband lying prostrate, already dead. Accdg to
RICARDO SARNO (Flora’s brother)  He was inside his nipa hut (10 meters away from
Flora and Ricardo’s hut) drinking coffee when he heard the shots. He ran outside and
saw his brother-in-law being shot by the five men. Sangalang was using a Garand
carbine.  He saw his sister run towards her husband. He tried to join her but both he
and his sister were fired at by the men so they had to run back to their own huts.  



Cortez sustained 23 gunshot wounds on different parts of his body. He died from his
injuries. Flora and Ricardo executed sworn statements. Complaint was filed against the
5 men. Only Sangalang was arrested. CFI: convicted Sangalang of murder; sentence:
reclusion perpetua Sangalang appealed o Alibi: He was at Sampaloc, Manila with
Crispulo Mendoza the day before the murder to borrow money from Julian Gatdula.
They spent the night at Gatdula’s house and ate breakfast there the next morning (June
9, the day of murder). o Impugned the credibility of Flora Cortez and Ricardo Sarno

ISSUES 1. WON eyewitness testimonies of Flora and Ricardo (that Sangalang, one of
the 5 men, riddled Cortez with 14 gunshot wounds) are sufficient to overcome alibi of
Sangalang (positive identification v. alibi). YES 2. WON qualifying AC of treachery
(alevosia) should be appreciated. YES RATIO:

1. POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION ENOUGH. ALIBI INADMISSIBLE o Sangalang failed to

immediately interpose defense of alibi during investigation o Discrepancies in the
testimonies of Flora Cortez and Ricardo Sarno NOT glaring, and instead strengthen
their credibility  testimonies not coached nor rehearsed  Both clearly and consistenly
identified Sangalang as one of the 5 men. Unwavering identification negates alibi. 
Although motive for killing not proven, it was not shown either that the two were
impelled by a malicious desire to incriminate Sangalang 2. QUAL. AC of TREACHERY
appreciated. o Victim:  Was on top of a coconut tree  Was unarmed and defenseless
 Did not expect to be assaulted  Did not give any immediate provocation o The
deliberate, surprise attack shows that Sangalang and his companions employed a mode
of execution which insured the killing without any risk to them arising from any defense
which the victim could have made.  Treachery (alevosia) duly established. [Art. 14(16)
RPC]. o Offense is murder o Treachery absorbs AC of band o Evident premeditation,
although alleged, not proven CONCLUSION  TC judgment of imposing RP as penalty
correct. Judgment AFFIRMED.