You are on page 1of 2

PEOPLE vs. SERENAS 4.

As stated in Dianne’s affidavit, she was informed that there was a


G.R. No. 188124; 29 June 2010 commotion at the bridge, and upon reaching the bridge, she met with a
Topic: Dying Declaration | Ponente: J. Perez | Author: MINA friend who told her that Nino was stabbed and brought to the hospital.
However, during trial, she stated that she actually saw Joe-An stab Nino.
5. Joe-An and Joel offered alibi and denial as their defense. Joe-An claims
Doctrine: that he was having late dinner when he was arrested, while Joel claims that
he was actually sleeping when the police went to his house to invite him to
As an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence, a dying declaration the police station.
or ante mortem statement is evidence of the highest order and is entitled 6. RTC convicted both Joe-An and Joel for the crime of murder, giving
to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would credence to the dying declaration of Nino to his brother Cesar, and Dianne’s
make a careless and false accusation. testimony.
7. CA affirmed this conviction, reiterating the dying declaration of Nino and
Dianne’s statement. Respondents filed an appeal.
8. Respondents claim that the inconsistency of Dianne’s affidavit and
Emergency Recit:
statement during trial should not convict them of the crime of murder.
Nino Ramos was murdered, but before he died, he was able to tell his
ISSUE:
brother his assailant. Respondent was arrested and was convicted by the
lower court due to his positive identification by Nino during his dying
WON the dying declaration of Nino to his brother Cesar is sufficient to
declaration to his brother. The SC affirmed this finding, and held that “[a]s
establish the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. – YES, as regards Joe-
an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence, a dying declaration
An, because he was positively identified by Nino, but Joel is acquitted for
or ante mortem statement is evidence of the highest order and is entitled
failure to establish his identity.
to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would
make a careless and false accusation.” Further, all the requisites for the
RATIO:
dying declaration to be admitted as evidence were met in this case, thus,
enough to convict the respondent. However, as regards the culpability of
1. As regards Joel, Dianne’s testimony is doubtful to say the least. The Court
Joel, the SC acquitted him on the ground that he was not positively
was mindful of the rule that if there is an inconsistency between the
identified and because of Dianne’s inconsistencies on material points.
affidavit and the testimony of a witness, the latter should be given more
weight since affidavits being taken ex-parte are usually incomplete and
inaccurate. Corollary to this is the doctrine that, where the discrepancies
FACTS:
are irreconcilable and unexplained and they dwell on material points, such
inconsistencies necessarily discredit the veracity of the witness’ claim. The
1. Nino Ramos just brought home his girlfriend Dianne Gavino on December
second rule is apt to the case at bar.
8, 2002, at around 10PM, when while passing a bridge, he was stabbed and
mauled.
2. Nowhere in her affidavit did Dianne point to appellants as the
2. Cesar Ramos, Nino’s brother, proceeded to the bridge after hearing a
perpetrators of the crime. From the tenor of her affidavit, Dianne’s
commotion. He met with Nino and noticed that he was soaked in his own
suspicion that appellants committed the crime merely arose from the
blood. Nino relayed that it was Joe-An who stabbed him. Cesar brought Nino
alleged threats made by appellants on the victim the day before the
in the hospital, but died 30 minutes later.
incident.
3. Dianne reported to the police the incident. After arriving at the scene,
the police saw 2 men scampering away upon notice of their arrival. They
3. The Court held that while Dianne pointed to the persons who threatened
eventually caught these men hiding under their Bangka under the bridge.
to do harm on the victim, she failed to identify who the perpetrators of the
These men were identified to be Joe-An Serenas and Joel Labad. Both were
crime are. To the mind of the Court, this omission in Dianne’s affidavit is so
charged with murder.
glaring on a material point, i.e., the failure to attribute authorship to the
crime. Therefore, the testimony of Dianne altogether becomes suspect.

4. As regards Joe-An, Nino’s dying declaration is a most telling evidence


identifying Joe-an. As an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence, a
dying declaration or ante mortem statement is evidence of the highest order
and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending
death would make a careless and false accusation.

5. In order for a dying declaration to be held admissible, four requisites must


concur: first, the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant's death; second, at the time the declaration
was made, the declarant must be under the consciousness of an impending
death; third, the declarant is competent as a witness; and fourth, the
declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or
parricide, in which the declarant is the victim.

6. All requisites for a dying declaration were sufficiently met by the


statement of the victim communicated to Cesar. First, the statement
pertained to Niño being stabbed, particularly pin-pointing Joe-An as the
perpetrator. Second, Niño must have been fully aware that he was on the
brink of death considering his bloodied condition when Cesar met him near
the bridge. Third, the competence of Niño is unquestionable had he survived
the stabbing incident. Fourth, Niño’s statement was being offered in a
criminal prosecution for his murder.

You might also like