18) Fuentes v.

CA 253 SCRA 430 (1996)

Facts:

Malaspina, the victim in this case, was at a benefit dance. Fuentes, the petitioner in this case, called
Malaspina and placed his right arm on the latter’s shoulder saying, "Before, I saw you with a long hair but
now you have a short hair." Suddenly petitioner stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife.
Malaspina fell to the ground and his companions rushed to his side. Petitioner fled. Before the victim
succumbed to the gaping wound on his abdomen he muttered that Alejandro Fuentes, Jr., stabbed him.
Fuentes was charged with murder, and both the RTC and CA adjudged him as guilty of the crime.

Fuentes claims that it was his cousin Zoilo Fuentes, Jr., alias "Jonie" who knifed Malaspina; and not him.
He also claims that “Jonie” admitted to him that he spontaneously stabbed Malaspina. Zoilo was later on
claimed to have fled. Fuentes contends that the appellate court erred when it held that petitioner was
positively and categorically identified as the killer of Malaspina, in affirming the judgment of conviction and
in holding petitioner liable for damages to the heirs of the victim.

Evidence offered by the proponent

 Alleged confession of declarant Zoilo Fuentes Jr., a cousin of accused, verbally admitted to the
latter (petitioner), and later to their common uncle, that he (Zoilo) killed the victim because of a
grudge, after which he disappeared.
 The uncle and accused testified that actually the one who stabbed the victim was the cousin of
the accused.
 Proponent sought the admission of the testimony under Declaration Against Interest, as an
exception to the Hearsay rule. 

Ground relied upon by the adverse party in objecting the admissibility of the evidence offered by
the proponent

Objected by the prosecution under the Hearsay Evidence Rule, because the uncle and accused had no
personal knowledge of the truth or falsity of the admission made by the cousin.

Relevant issues involved

Whether or not the testimony is admissible under Declaration Against Interest.

SC ruling on admissibility inadmissibility

 Inadmissible. The SC emphasized the requirement on the requisite that the declarant should be
dead or unable to testify in this case. It is said that when the declarant is alive, the declaration
cannot be admitted until and unless it is shown that the proponent exerted effort to produce the
declarant who is allegedly unable to testify.
 There is no showing that Zoilo is either dead, mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent
which the Rules obviously contemplates. His mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make
him ipso facto unavailable under this rule.
 In this case the accused failed to prove the inability of the declarant to testify. The SC said that
the mere absence of the declarant cannot be equated with the requirement of being unable to
testify. It cannot be conveniently invoked without justification. 

EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:

None. Both the existing and proposed rules of evidence still require that the declarant should be dead or
unable to testify.

However, under the new rules, an additional requirement was provided, that for declarations against
interest to be admissible, such that a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and
offered to exculpate the accused, there must be corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate the
trustworthiness of the statement.