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.
Alfonso, The Principal Witness, Positively Narrated in Court: The Appellant Held The Hand of The Victim and Led Him Towards The Other Side of The Road Porpirio Hit The Victim On The Head With A