Pipe who was the alleged source of the vital information for the prosecution was never presented
Rule 130 Section 36 – Hearsay Rule
HEARSAY TESTIMONY is testimony offered against a party who had no opportunity to examine the
witness (People v Caballero)
It is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to
prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.
***G.R. Not admissible except as provided in the rules
***A person can testify only those facts which the witness knows of his/her personal knowledge
derived from his/her perception.
Ante Mortem Statement as Res Gestae and Dying Declaration as exceptions to the Hearsay Rule
People v. Valero (112 SCRA 660 [1982])
POISONING
FACTS
Lucila Valero alias “Rosing” and Alfonsito Valero alias “Pipe” were the accused in two separate
complaints before the Municipal Court of Bulacan, one for double murder and the other for
frustrated murder.
The complaints against ALFONSITO were dismissed on the ground that “he was a deaf-mute and
therefore, all the proceedings against him were beyond his comprehension.” HENCE, LUCILA
remained as the sole defendant.
***LUCILA was convicted of the complex crime of double murder and frustrated murder and a
penalty of death was imposed upon her.
***CEFERINO VELASCO’s children, Michael, 9 months, and Annabel, aged 1 year and 9 months, died
of poisoning after eating bread containing endrin (a commercial insecticide). His other child,
Imelda, tasted the bread and would have died were it not for the timely medical assistance given her.
Three puppies of Velasco also died of poisoning after eating the bread.
***Cpl. Bucot and Pat. Ventusa conducted an investigation, collected pieces of sliced pan and sent
them to a chemist for examination. It was found that the bread contained endrin.
Velasco was found throwing poisoned rats into a river near his house.
***PROSECUTION: Evidence showed that the poisoned bread was given to the children by ALFONSO
VALERO. That the bread was given to him by LUCILA VALERO to deliver to the minor children.
***Lucila denies having given the bread to Pipe
***DEFENSE: The children might have eaten one of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father to
poison rats in his garden.
WITNESS RODOLFO QUILANG testified that he saw Lucila deliver something to Pipe alleging that
the former gave an instruction by sign language to the latter to deliver the same to the children.
WITNESS FEDERICO JAIME testified that although he did not see the delivery by Pipe, he claimed
that he learned or obtained the information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of sign
language. ***The trial court accepted this as competent, trustworthy and credible.
as a witness either for the prosecution or for the defense. Jaime and Velasco were presented as
prosecution witnesses to convey to the Court what they learned from Pipe by sign language.
ISSUE
Whether or not the testimonies of Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco are hearsay evidence or part
of the res gestae.
HELD
***EVIDENCE IS PURELY HEARSAY
The presentation of such evidence likewise violates the principle of res inter alios acta. The rights
of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.
RES GESTAE- Thing Done; It refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the
participants, victims or spectators to a crime immediately before, during or immediately after
the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as
a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement.
***With reference to the testimony of Jaime, there is no showing that Pipe made the extrajudicial
revelation spontaneously when he was still under the influence of a startling occurrence. Pipe
made his extrajudicial revelation not spontaneously but after an interview through the complicated
process of sign language.
People v. Damaso (212 SCRA 547 [1992])
SUBVERSION
FACTS
Basilio Damaso and Bernie Mendoza were charged with violation of PD No. 1866(Illegal Possession
of Firearms and Ammunitions), in furtherance of the crime of subversion, for having in their
possession one (1) M14 Rifle with magazine and 57 live ammunition.
A raid was conducted in the house rented by Damaso. In one of the rooms, they saw books used for
subversive orientation, an M-14 rifle, bullets and ammunitions. They confiscated the articles and
brought them to their headquarters for final inventory. They likewise brought the persons found in
the house to the headquarters for investigation.
Damaso pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. On trial, the counsel of Damaso interposed his
objections to the admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence on the grounds of it being
HEARSAY, IMMATERIAL OR IRRELEVANT AND ILLEGAL for lack of search warrant. ***HE DID NOT
PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE.
***Damaso was found GBRD by the RTC.
***The records of this case show that the accused-appellant was singled out as the sole violator of
P.D. No. 1866, in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion. Yet,
there is no substantial and credible evidence to establish the fact that the appellant is allegedly
the same person as the lessee of the house where the M-14 rifle and other subversive items were
found or the owner of the said items.
The PROSECUTION presented two witnesses who attested to the fact they cannot readily establish
whether the appellant is the same person as the lessee of the house.
ISSUE
Whether the testimonies of the witnesses are hearsay evidence
If, even hearsay, it may still be admissible in evidence
HELD
Yes the testimonies are hearsay as the matters testified were not based on their own personal
knowledge.
***RULE: LACK/FAILURE TO OBJECT to a hearsay testimony results in it being admitted in evidence.
BUT!!! HEARSAY EVIDENCE whether objected or not cannot be given credence. (No probative value
although admitted)
The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the
confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them.
***PEOPLE v VALERO The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible.
But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence
whether objected to or not has no probative value.
DECISION IS REVERSED AND APPELLANT ACQUITTED
Agcaoili v. Molina (AM 94-979, October 25, 1995)
GRAVE IGNORANCE OF LAW
FACTS
Judge Emerito Agcaoili filed a complaint for grave ignorance of law against Judge Adolfo Molina in
relation to Criminal Case No. 10-435.
Judge Agcaoili alleged that respondent Judge Molina, in conducting the preliminary investigation of
the above-mentioned criminal case, failed to exercise utmost care in the issuance of a warrant of
arrest against the accused, Rolando Anama, based as it was, merely on the statements of two (2)
witnesses who had no personal knowledge of the commission of the offense charged.
Such action, complainant judge averred, was a clear violation of section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution which requires that before a warrant of arrest is issued, "the judge must personally
determine the existence of probable cause from an examination under oath of the complainant
and his witnesses."
***Mere hearsay evidence cannot be the basis that probable cause exists, stated complainant judge.
There must be something more concrete.
***THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR opined close perusal of the records disclosed
that the complaining witnesses do not have personal knowledge of the facts which became the basis
of the filing of the crime charged and of the issuance of the warrant of arrest.
ISSUE
Whether or not the testimonies of Mencelacion Padamada and Rosita Castillo are hearsay evidence
HELD
YES!!! The basis for the issuance of a warrant of arrest were hearsay evidence. The witnesses had
clearly no personal knowledge of the facts leading to the death of Virgilio Capa.
People v. Brioso (37 SCRA 336 [1971])
MURDER
FACTS
Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza were found guilty of murder in the CFI of Abra for the death of one
Silvino Daria.
On December 23, 1966, the spouses Silvino Daria and Susana Tumalip were in their house in Tayum,
Abra. Silvino was making a rope while his wife, four meters away, was applying candle wax to a flat
iron.
CECILIA BERNAL, niece and neighbor of the spouses, peeped through a crack in the wall of her house
and saw appellants pass towards the direction of Silvino’s house, Brioso carrying a long gun. She
witnessed each appellant point a gun at the bamboo wall of DARIA’s house. Two detonations
followed.
***DARIA’S WIDOW testified that her husband told her that he was shot by BRIOSO and TAEZA.
***MOTIVE OF THE KILLING APPEARED TO BE the disapproval by the spouses of Taeza’s
courtship of their daughter, Angelita.
ISSUE
Whether the testimony of Cecilia Bernal is uncorroborated and contradictory on the physical identity
of the accused.
HELD
NO!!! There is no apparent discrepancy in the testimony of Cecilia Bernal on the material points of
the case. Her testimony was also corroborated by the declaration of the victim to his wife that it was
Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza who shot him.
The statement satisfied the requirements of an ante mortem statement.
***DARIA must have realized the seriousness of his condition, and it can be safely inferred that
he made the same under the consciousness of impending death.
People v. Mongado (28 SCRA 642 [1969])
ROBBERY WITH DOUBLE HOMICIDE AND RAPE
FACTS
Gaudencio Mongado, Jilly Segador and Belesande Salar were convicted of robbery with homicide and
rape, on a plea of guilty before the trial court of Mainit, Surigao del Norte.
Herein accused, armed with an unlicensed .22 cal. revolver, a small sharp-pointed bolo, a toy revolver
and a wooden club, entered the residence of SILVINO LINCUNA and EMILIA DALIT, husband and
wife, by abusing the goodwill of the said spouses.
***Gaudencio Mongado was the nephew of the spouses
On the same occasion, the accused took, stole, and carried away various articles belonging to the
spouses, and feloniously attacked and assaulted them. Belesande Salar had unlawfully and
feloniously had carnal knowledge with Emilia at the residence while she was still alive and helpless.
***The trial court considered the affidavits of admission of the three accused in appreciating
aggravating circumstances against them.
ISSUE
Whether the affidavits of admission considered by the trial court in appreciating aggravating
circumstances against the accused be objected on the ground of hearsay.
HELD
YES!!! ***Affidavits are generally classed as hearsay evidence; they are objectionable on hearsay
grounds, and are not admissible evidence of the facts they narrate.
The affidavits must first be formally offered and admitted in evidence before the court may consider
their contents.
***RULE 132, Section 35 "[t]he court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered."
In the case at bar, the affidavits of admission have not been formally offered, much less admitted, in
evidence. Hence, they cannot be taken into account.
People v. Quidato (297 SCRA 1 [1998])
PARRICIDE
FACTS
The RTC of Davao found accused-appellant guilty of parricide for the death of BERNARDO QUIDATO,
SR., having conspired, confederated and mutually helped Reynaldo Malita and Eddie Malita, with the
use of a bolo and an iron bar to hack and stab the victim on the different parts of his body.
The PROSECUTION presented as its witnesses accused-appellant’s brother, LEO QUIDATO, his wife
GINA QUIDATO and PATROLMAN LUCRECIO MARA. They presented the extrajudicial confessions
of Eddie and Reynaldo, however, they were not presented on the witness stand.
***Quidato objected to the testimony of his wife on the ground that the same was prohibited by the
marital disqualification rule.
***The accused-appellant holds that the trial court erred in giving credence to the extra-judicial
confessions of the Malita’s in clear violation of his constitutional right to confront witnesses.
ISSUE
Whether the non-presentation of the witnesses Reynaldo and Eddie gave the affidavits the character
of hearsay.
HELD
YES!!! The failure to present the witnesses on the witness stand to testify on their extra-judicial
confessions gave their affidavits the character of hearsay.
AS A RULE, unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments in their
affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from the judicial proceedings, being inadmissible
hearsay.
The voluntary admissions of an accused made extra judicially are not admissible in evidence
against his co-accused when the latter had not been given an opportunity to hear him testify and
cross-examine him.
***QUIDATO was acquitted
People v. Cloud (265 SCRA 472 [1996])
PARRICIDE
Doctrine of independently relevant statements
FACTS
An information for parricide was filed against accused-appellant Robert Cloud before the RTC of
Quezon City for beating John Albert Cloud, his son, to death.
Mrs. Josephine Aguilar was at the St. Luke’s Hospital to have some stitches removed from her
daughter’s head when her attention was called by a limpid (calm?) boy being carried by a man
followed by an old woman who has shouting hysterically. She noticed that John Albert’s face was
swollen and bruised and his body was covered with dry blood.
John Albert’s grandmother repeatedly said that her grandson was killed by his father. Her male
companion told her to stop and keep quiet. He told the people at the ER that the old woman was
crazy.
***The boy was pronounced dead.
***His baptismal certificate showed that John Albert was born on October 2, 1987 to JANET
VILLAGRACIA and ROBERT CLOUD.
***MRS. AGUILAR, bothered by what she saw and heard, approached ATTY. REMEDIOS BALBIN.
Atty. Balbin contacted the NBI and requested for the exhumation of the boy’s cadaver. ***His body
was exhumed by the NBI at the Manila South Cemetery; during the autopsy, several contusions,
abrasions and hematoma were found in his body.
***The prosecution built up its case on the basis of a SWORN AFFIDAVIT and TESTIMONY in open
court of its principal witness, JOSEPHINE AGUILAR.
***DEFENSE argues that at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, Robert Cloud was not in
their house and that he only learned of his son’s death when he returned. They further argued that
he was a sickly child from birth and was often hospitalized due to difficulty in breathing.
***They presented the death certificate of John Albert issued by DR. GACAS, stating that the cause of
death was broncho pneumonia with heart complications.
DR. ALBERTO M. REYES, the medical specialist of the NBI who examined the exhumed body of the
little boy was presented as prosecution witness; his report indicated that the cause of death was
“hemorrhage, intracranial, severe, and traumatic”
***The prosecution's primary evidence that it was appellant who beat up and killed the boy was the
testimony of its principal witness Josephine Aguilar who declared that she heard appellant's
grandmother herself shouting that it was appellant who killed his own son by beating him to death.
The said grandmother, Rufina Alconyes, was not presented in court, since at the time of the trial she
was already dead.
The Solicitor General posits the view that the outbursts of that grandmother constituted
exceptions to the hearsay rule since they were part of the res gestae.
ISSUE
Whether the testimony made by Josephine Aguilar was hearsay?
HELD
NO!!! The report made by Josephine Aguilar is not hearsay since she was actually there and
personally heard the statements of Alconyes which she recounted in court.
Her account of said statements of Alconyes are admissible under the doctrine of independently
relevant statements, with respect to the tenor and not the truth thereof, since independent of the
truth or falsity of the same they are relevant to the issue on the cause of the death of the victim.
Feria v. Court of Appeals (325 SCRA 525 [2000])
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
FACTS
Petitioner Norberto Feria has been under detention by reason of his conviction of the crime of
Robbery with Homicide for the jeepney hold-up and killing of US Peace Corps Volunteer Margaret
Viviene Carmona.
Twelve years later, peti sought to be transferred from Manila City Jail to the Bureau of Corrections in
Muntinlupa City but the Jail Warden of MCJ informed the Presiding Judge of the RTC-Manila that the
same cannot be effected w/o the submission of the Commitment Order or Mittimus, Decision, and
Information.
***It was then discovered that the entire records of the case including the copy of the judgment were
missing. The records appear to have been lost or destroyed in the fire which occurred at the 2nd and
3rd floor of the Manila City Hall.
Petitioner filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with the SC against the Jail
Warden of MCJ, Presiding Judge of RTC Manila, and City Prosec. of Manila, praying for his discharge
from confinement on the ground that his continued detention without any valid judgment is illegal
and violative of his constitutional right to due process.
***The RTC to which the case was raffled dismissed the case on the ground that the mere loss of the
records of the case does not invalidate the judgment or commitment nor authorize the release
of the petitioner, and the proper remedy would be reconstitution of the records of the case which
should be filed with the court which rendered the decision.
***CA affirmed with modification that the petitioner may be transferred to the BOC in Muntinlupa
without prejudice to the reconstitution of the original records.
Petitioner argues that his detention is illegal because there exists no copy of a valid judgment as
required by Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court and that the evidence considered by
the trial court and Court of Appeals in the habeas corpus proceedings did not establish the contents
of such judgment.
Public respondents alleged that Feria made judicial admissions, both verbal and written, that he
was charged with and convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide (this he did not deny);
presented a certified true copy of the report attesting to the fact that he was convicted and a
certified true copy of People’s Journal containing a short news article that the petitioner was
convicted.
ISSUE
Whether the news article amounts to hearsay evidence
HELD
YES!!! The newspaper article amounts to hearsay evidence and are therefore not only inadmissible
but without any probative value at all whether objected to or not unless offered for a purpose other
than proving the truth of the matter asserted.
In this case, the news article is admissible only as evidence that such publication does exist with the
tenor of the news therein stated.
Rule 130 Section 37 – Dying Declaration
As a general rule, a dying declaration is hearsay, and is inadmissible as evidence.
This is the rationale for this exception to the hearsay rule under Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court. The elements of such exception are:
(1) The deceased made the declaration conscious of his impending death;
(2) The declarant would have been a competent witness had he survived;
(3) The declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death;
(4) The declaration is offered in a criminal case where the declarant's death is the subject of inquiry;
and
(5) The declaration is complete in itself.
The requisites for the admissibility of statements as part of the res gestae are:
(a) The statement is spontaneous;
(b) It is made immediately before, during or after a startling occurrence; and
(c) It relates to the circumstances of such occurrence.
People v. De Joya (203 SCRA 343 [1991])
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
FACTS
Pioquinto de Joya was charged with robbery with homicide before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan for
taking, carrying and carting away two (2) rings, one (1) necklace, one (1) piece of earring, belonging
to ARNEDO VALENCIA and EULALIA DIAMSE, in the sum of P500.00, and for stabbing and hitting
Eulalia on her neck and other parts of her body causing her death.
De Joya pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. He was convicted of the crime charged after the
trial it having been shown that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
***The spouses Valencia and their son Alvin left for school while Eulalia Diamse was left at the home.
At around 3 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day, their neighbor noticed defendant-appellant De
Joya standing and holding a bicycle at the yard of the Valencia’s.
***When Alvin got home, he saw his grandmother lying on the floor, drenched in her own blood. He
immediately asked her what happened to which she responded “Si Paqui.”
***Dr. Tolentino arrived at around 4 o’clock in the afternoon and examined the body and declared
that she died of heart attack. When asked why her ears were punctured, he did not give a reply.
***A death certificate was requested by Herminia but Dr. Tolentino did not issue one and instead,
immediately left.
Herminia found out that some of her mother’s jewelry were missing and that the room at the ground
floor was ransacked. Further, some of the rooms were in disarray.
***RICARDO ILLETO photographed the rooms and things found in the house.
***Later on, Herminia went to Dr. Adela Cruz and pleaded the doctor to issue a death certificate so
that her mother could be embalmed.
The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Romulo Madrid showed that the cause of death of
the victim was “shock, secondary to punctured wound neck” situated at the right side of the neck, just
below the right ear wherein it went out thru, opposite, almost in the same location, from one side of
the neck to the opposite side.
***PROSECUTION relied heavily on the circumstances surrounding the death of the victim as testified
to by the witnesses and proven during trial, as well as the dying declaration of the deceased.
ISSUE Whether or not the dying declaration of Eulalia is admissible
HELD
NO!!! The dying declaration of the deceased is not admissible because it was an incomplete
declaration. She was cut off by her death before she could convey a complete or sensible
communication to Alvin. The phrase uttered by Eulalia was simply assumed by the trial court to have
been intended by the former to name the person who thrusted a sharp instrument through her neck.
The Doctrine of Completeness provides that for a dying declaration to be admissible, it must be
complete in itself. To be complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything
that constituted the res gestea of the subject of his statement, but that his statement of any given fact
should be a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such
fact.
The reason upon which incomplete declarations are generally excluded, or if admitted, accorded little
or no weight, is that since the declarant was prevented (by death or other circumstance) from saying
all that he wished to say, what he did say might have been qualified by the statements which he was
prevented from making. That incomplete declaration is not therefore entitled to the presumption of
truthfulness which constitutes the basis upon which dying declarations are received.
***SEC. 24, RULE 130 Offer to Compromise not admission and not admissible in evidence against the
person making the offer. EXCEPT in a criminal case, where compromise is not allowed, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
***ACQUITTAL
People v. Dunig (215 SCRA 469 [1992])
MURDER
A dying declaration is entitled to the highest credence on the theory that a person who knows he is
on the verge of death is not likely to make a false accusation. However, the declaration, albeit
presumably in good faith, may still be based on an erroneous identification of the declarant's killer.
FACTS
Pacifico Dunig was charged with the murder of Marilyn Canatoy (14) before the RTC of Bulacan. It
was alleged that the death of the victim was brought about by repeated stabbing.
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses besides the doctor who testified on the cause of death.
The witnesses were Maylin Montes, Katherine Montes, and Teresita Montes.
Maylin (10) testified that she saw Dunig stab her sister in the neck three times. This was corroborated
by Katherine (13). Katherine also testified that she heard Marilyn say “Nanay, nanay, sinaksak ako ni
Pico” which is Dunig’s nickname.
Terisita declared on the stand that she saw Marilyn and Pico quarreling and that in the afternoon of
the same day, Marilyn knocked on her door, her neck bleeding, and said “Nanay, nanay, bigyan niyo
ako ng katarungan dahil sinaksak ako ni Pico.”
***DR. NICANOR CRUZ informed the court that the victim died of hemorrhage due to multiple stab
and incised wounds in the neck. HE OPINED UNCERTAINLY THAT THE VICTIM MIGHT OR MIGHT
NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK OR RUN TO THE HOUSE AFTER THE STABBING.
ISSUE Whether or not Marilyn’s statement qualifies as a dying declaration.
HELD
NO!!! Marilyn’s statement, if true, should qualify as a dying declaration. However, based on the
testimonies of the Montes sisters that the rest house was dark, Marilyn could not have possibly seen
the person who stabbed her. Furthermore, according to the doctor who autopsied the body, the
victim might not have been able to speak at all after she was stabbed because of the severity and
location of her wounds.
***ACQUITTAL
People v. Amaca (G.R. No. 110129 [1997])
HOMICIDE (Murder ang nasa Information because qualified ng evident premeditation kaso kahit
nakita na may treachery and nighttime, since di naman nakainclude sa info., di na mababago)
…the accused may be held accountable only for the crime charged (or for the crime necessarily
included therein), and every doubt must be resolved in his favor
FACTS
Edelciano Amaca a.k.a. “Eddie” and one only known as “Ogang” was charged in the RTC of Bais City
of murder for attacking, assaulting and shooting WILSON VERGARA, from which he suffered a fatal
gunshot wound resulting into his immediate death.
Amaca was convicted of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution presented DR. EDGAR PIALAGO, a resident physician of the hospital where the
victim was brought, who testified that the victim suffered two (2) gunshot wounds at the back
resulting to multiple organ failure, and that even with immediately medical attention, he could not
have survived the wounds he sustained.
BERNARDO MANGUBAT, one of the police investigators, testified that when he inquired from the
victim about the incident, Vergara told him that he was shot by CVO Amaca and Ogang for no apparent
reason. Further, Vergara told him that he was on the verge of death. The declaration made by the
victim was reduced into writing, and Mangubat had the former’s thumbmark affixed to the same, with
Wagner Cardenas as witness.
ISSUE Whether or not Vergara’s statement qualifies as a dying declaration.
***Appellant assails the credibility, not the competency, of the victim.
Competency of a witness to testify requires a minimum ability to observe, record, recollect and
recount as well as an understanding of the duty to tell the truth.
HELD
YES!!! It has been ruled that an ante mortem statement may be authenticated through the declarant’s
thumbmark imprinted which his own blood, and serve as evidence in the form of a dying declaration
in a criminal case involving his death.
In the present case, the statement made by the deceased was immediately made after the shooting
incident and, more important, there was no time to fabricate the same.
It may be admitted in evidence as a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae. The dual
admissibility of the statement is not redundant and has the advantage of ensuring the statement’s
appreciation by courts, particularly where the absence of one or more elements in one of the said
exceptions may be raised in issue.
***The ante mortem statement met all requirements for its admissibility either as a dying declaration
or as part of the res gestae or both.
***CONVICTION
People v. Sion (G.R. No. 109617, August 11, 1997)
MURDER
FACTS
Felipe Sion alias Junior and Federico Disu alias Miguel were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals in the murder of Fernando Abaoag.
Both Sion and Disu pleaded not guilty to the charge and waived pre-trial. During the trial, the
prosecution presented Cesar and Felicitas Abaoag, brother and wife of the victim, Dr. Leopoldo
Manalo, Rosendo Imuslan, and SPO1 Ricardo Abrio. The defense presented as witness Disu and Sion,
Corazon Sion, and Dr. Leopoldo Manolo.
Cesar testified that his brother Fernando was trying to stop Sion and Juguilon from hurling stones
towards his nephew Ronnie Manuel. And before the two desisted and left, one of them threatened
Fernando.
At about 9 o’clock on the same evening, Cesar heard the sound of stone throwing at the nearby house
of his brother Fernando. He went out and saw Johhny Juguilon, Felix Sion, Edong Sion and Miguel
Disu throwing stones towards the direction of Fernando. He saw appellant Felipe Sion stabbed the
victim.
Cesar tried to help his brother but a stone was hurled at him. He desisted helping his brother when
he heard Sion shout to his companions telling them to also kill Cesar.
When Felicitas went to the place of the incident, his husband told her that he was hit and identified
the assailants.
ISSUE Whether or not the statement made by Fernando qualifies as dying declaration
HELD
YES!!! The statement made by Fernando is a dying declaration because it was made under a
consciousness of an impending death.
Dying declarations are admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule because of
necessity and trustworthiness.
***Necessity, because the declarant's death renders impossible his taking the witness stand, and it
often happens that there is no other equally satisfactory proof of the crime; and
***trustworthiness, for it is "made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and every
hope of this world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by
the most powerful consideration to speak the truth.
We find no ulterior motive on the part of Felicitas to fabricate the declarations of her husband.
***CONVICTION
Rule 130 Section 38 – Declaration Against Interest
People v. Bermal (June 19, 1997)
KIDNAPPING
In kidnapping, what is important is to determine and prove the fact of seizure, and the subsequent
disappearance of the victim will not exonerate an accused from prosecution therefor. Otherwise,
kidnappers can easily avoid punishment by the simple expedient of disposing of their victims bodies.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Theodore Bernal and two others whose identities and whereabouts are still
unknown, were charged with the crime of kidnapping before the RTC of Davao City.
BIENVENIDO OPENDA, JR. was drinking liquor with his friends when he was brought, handcuffed and
carried away using a PU by herein accused, who were armed with guns. They fled Bolton Isla and
thereby deprived Openda of his liberty against his will.
***Bernal entered a not guilty plea during his arraignment. Trial ensued against him. During the trial,
Bernal testified for his defense.
Salito Enriquez testified that Openda, Jr. told him that he and Naty, Bernal’s wife, were having an
affair.
ISSUE Whether or not Openda, Jr.’s revelation to Enriquez is a declaration against interest
and hence admissible in evidence.
HELD
YES!!! Openda, Jr., having been missing since his abduction, cannot be called upon to testify. His
confession to Enriquez, definitely a declaration against his own interest, since his affair with Naty
Bernal was a crime, is admissible in evidence because no sane person will be presumed to tell a
falsehood to his own detriment.
Section 38, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, viz.:
Sec. 38. Declaration against interest. – The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to
testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it
was made so far contrary to declarants own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not
have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors-in-interest and against third persons.
***It includes all kinds of interest: pecuniary, moral or penal
Concept of self-serving evidence:
NDC v Workmen’s Compensation, G.R. No. L-21724. April 27, 1967) Exceptions
GR Self-serving evidence is evidence made by a party out of court at one time; it does not include
a party’s testimony as a witness in court. It is admissible.
EXPN Workmen’s Compensation Law
Sec. 49 The Commissioner may receive as evidence and use as proof the following matters in addition
to the sworn statement at open hearing:
1. Reports of attending examining physician.
2. Reports of investigators appointed by the Commissioner.
3. Reports of the employer, including copies of time sheets, book of accounts or other records.
4. Hospital records in relation to the case.
FACTS
Luis Raymundo was employed at the National Development Co. for more than 12 years as a machine
tender. His designation consisted of lifting heavy loads, pushing a wagon loaded with dyed and wet
cloth and mixing chemicals for use in dyeing and printing textiles and that because of strenuous work
done mostly at night and because of exposure to sudden changes in temperature, he began to lose
weight, complained of backaches and chest pains and later spat blood.
He retired from service on account of his poor health and eight months after, he died of pulmonary
tuberculosis.
***GERTRUDES LUCAS VDA. DE RAYMUNDO filed a claim for workmen’s compensation for the death
of her husband.
NDC denied liability and alleged that Raymundo never contracted tuberculosis while employed at
their office, and that tuberculosis is not an occupational disease incident and/or peculiar to the work
of the claimant. ***Claimed that the action is already barred because it exceeded the three-month
period provided under Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The respondent, Gertrudes Raymundo, presented among others the death certificate of his late
husband showing that he died of pulmonary tuberculosis, the affidavit of Dr. Crisanto Vito Cruz, and
the letter from NDC advising Luis Raymundo of the termination of his employment.
NDC contended that the exhibits as well as the testimony of respondent should be excluded because
the first is self-serving while the second are hearsays. Petitioner adds that while the death certificate
(Exh. "E") is admissible to prove the fact and date of death, it is not competent to prove the cause
thereof.
ISSUE Whether the evidence presented by Gertrudes is admissible to support an award in
her favor.
HELD
YES!!! While the evidence may be hearsay by common law rules of evidence, they are nevertheless
admissible under Section 49 of the Act.
***PAYMENT OF CLAIMS AFFIRMED
Rule 130 section 42- Part of the Res Gestae
People v. Amaca (G.R. No. 110129, August 12, 1997)
FACTS
Edelciano Amaca a.k.a. “Eddie” and one only known as “Ogang” was charged in the RTC of Bais City
of murder for attacking, assaulting and shooting WILSON VERGARA, from which he suffered a fatal
gunshot wound resulting into his immediate death.
Amaca was convicted of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution presented DR. EDGAR PIALAGO, a resident physician of the hospital where the
victim was brought, who testified that the victim suffered two (2) gunshot wounds at the back
resulting to multiple organ failure, and that even with immediately medical attention, he could not
have survived the wounds he sustained.
BERNARDO MANGUBAT, one of the police investigators, testified that when he inquired from the
victim about the incident, Vergara told him that he was shot by CVO Amaca and Ogang for no apparent
reason. Further, Vergara told him that he was on the verge of death. The declaration made by the
victim was reduced into writing, and Mangubat had the former’s thumbmark affixed to the same, with
Wagner Cardenas as witness.
ISSUE Whether or not Vergara’s statement qualifies as a dying declaration.
***Appellant assails the credibility, not the competency, of the victim.
Competency of a witness to testify requires a minimum ability to observe, record, recollect and
recount as well as an understanding of the duty to tell the truth.
HELD
YES!!! It has been ruled that an ante mortem statement may be authenticated through the declarant’s
thumbmark imprinted which his own blood, and serve as evidence in the form of a dying declaration
in a criminal case involving his death.
In the present case, the statement made by the deceased was immediately made after the shooting
incident and, more important, there was no time to fabricate the same.
It may be admitted in evidence as a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae. The dual
admissibility of the statement is not redundant and has the advantage of ensuring the statement’s
appreciation by courts, particularly where the absence of one or more elements in one of the said
exceptions may be raised in issue.
***The ante mortem statement met all requirements for its admissibility either as a dying declaration
or as part of the res gestae or both.
***CONVICTION
People v. Tiozon (198 SCRA 236 [1991]
MURDER
FACTS
Leonardo Bolima died of gunshot wounds inflicted by herein accused Eutropio Tiozon, who appeared
to have been very drunk on the night of the crime. Tiozon was brought to the Homicide Section of the
Kalookan City Police Station. The firearm used by Tiozon was being retrieved by the policemen after
the former threw the same at the grassy area at the back of his house.
***Aside from the firearm, the police recovered two (2) spent bullets and three (3) live ammunitions.
Bolima’s wife testified that after the shooting incident took place, the accused came back to their
house and told her that he shot Leonardo Bolima accidentally.
NBI Ballistician Magtibay testified that as per his finding, the evidence shells were fired from the gun
subject matter of the present case.
NBI Purificando testified that the paraffin test conducted on the deceased yielded negative results as
well as on the accused.
***TIOZON testified that the he saw the victim already sprawled on the ground. He inquired from
Bolima what happened and that he told him he was shot. That he threw the firearm because he was
scared that the police would see him holding the same.
ISSUE Whether or not the testimony of Bolima’s wife is covered by the rule on res gestae.
HELD
NO!!! The testimony of Bolima’s wife is NOT PART of the res gestae. It is not hearsay as she testified
on what the accused-appellant told her, not what any other party, who cannot be cross-examined,
told her. Tiozon’s statement to her was an “oral confession” and not part of the res gestae.
Part of the res gestae — Statement made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior to or (sic) subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstance thereof, may be
given in evidence as a part of res gestae . . . (Sec. 36, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, as amended).
Statements as part of the res gestae are among the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The rule is that a
witness "can testify only to those facts which he knows of or his own knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perceptions.17 Accordingly, a testimony of a witness as to what he heard other
persons say about the facts in dispute cannot be admitted because it is hearsay evidence. There are,
however, exceptions to this rule. One of them is statements as part of the res gestae under Section 36
of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. The exceptions assume that the testimony offered is in fact
hearsay; but it is to be admitted in evidence.
***CONVICTION (Homicide lang kasi walang witness to prove treachery)
People v. Naranja (G.R. No.13288, June 30, 1960)
MURDER
FACTS
Jose Naranja was convicted of murder before the CFI of Pangasinan for the death of Mamerto Signey.
Maria Diaz, wife of the deceased, testified that in the afternoon of December 28, 1956, the accused
came to their house telling her to leave her husband. That she told the accused to stop coming to their
house because her husband knew of their illicit relation.
***Accused indicated that he would seek means to separate her from her husband, telling her that he
would kill his compadre.
***On the night of the same day, Maria Diaz proceeded to the kitchen where her husband went, and
saw the accused at the stairs informing her that he had killed her husband whose body she ought to
take and bury.
ISSUE Whether or not her testimony is self-serving testimony or part of the res gestae.
HELD
The testimony of Maria Diaz is not self-serving because she has not gained any beneficial interest in
admitting having had illicit relations with the accused.
Quoting Professor Greenleaf, Chief Justice Moran, in his Comments on the Rules of Court, 1957 Ed.,
Vol. III, pp. 348-349, explains the res gestae rule as follows:
"There are other declarations which are admitted as original evidence, being distinguished from
hearsay by their connection with the principal fact under investigation. The affairs of men consist of
a complication of circumstances so intimately interwoven as to be hardly separable from each other.
Each owes its birth to some preceding circumstances, and in its turn becomes the prolific parent of
others, and each, during the existence, has its inseparable attributes and its kindred facts, materially
affecting its character, and essential to be known for a right understanding of its nature. These
surrounding circumstances, constituting parts of the res gestae, may always be shown to the jury
along with the principal fact and their admissibility is determined by the judge according to the
degree of their relation to that fact, and in the exercise of his sound discretion: it being extremely
difficult, if not impossible to bring this class of cases within the limits of a more particular
description."
People v. Palmones (336 SCRA 80 [2000]
MURDER
FACTS
Anthony Melchor Palmones and Anthony Baltazar Palmones were found guilty of the murder of SPO2
Asim Mamansal.
SPO2 Mamansal died of gunshot wounds inflicted by herein accused.
***SONNY BOY REDOVAN, nephew of the victim, testified that he, his mother and elder brother
rushed to the emergency room of Kidapawan Doctor’s Hospital where they found SPO2 Mamansal.
He asked the victim who the perpetrators were and the victim answered that it was “Juany and Tony
Palmones.”
Sonny claimed that attendants, nurses, and other bystanders were present when he was talking to
his uncle.
He further testified that he heard his uncle positively answer PI Tagum that his assailants were Juany
and Tony.
***DR. AGUAYO testified that while he was attending to the victim, he asked him who shot him and
the latter told him that he did not know.
***PI Tagum testified that the victim indeed identified his assailants as Juany and Tony. He admitted
that when he went to the hospital he was already entertaining the idea that the suspects were Juany
and Tony Palmones because of the radio call he earlier received. He also admitted that the only
question he asked the victim was “who shot you?” and that he was not able to reduce his findings to
writing.
ISSUE Whether the statements made by the victim qualify as part of the res gestae
HELD
NO!!! The statements made by the victim did not satisfy the requirements under the test of
spontaneity hence, it failed to qualify as part of the res gestae.
When Mamansal allegedly uttered the statements attributed to him, an appreciable amount of time
had already elapsed from the time that he was shot as the victim was shot at around 10:00 p.m. but
he only uttered the statements attributed to him about 30 minutes to an hour later. Moreover, he
allegedly made these statements not at the scene of the crime but at the hospital where he was
brought for treatment. Likewise, the trip from the scene of the crime to the hospital constituted an
intervening event that could have afforded the victim opportunity for deliberation. These
circumstances, taken together, indubitably show that the statements allegedly uttered by Mamansal
lack the requisite spontaneity in order for these to be admitted as part of the res gestae.
In order to admit statements as evidence part of the res gestae, the element of spontaneity is
critical.1âwphi1 The following factors have generally been considered in determining whether
statements offered in evidence as part of the res gestae have been made spontaneously: (1) the time
that lapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of the statement; (2) the
place where the statement was made; (3) the condition of the declarant when he made the statement;
(4) the presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the statement relative
thereto; and (5) the nature and circumstances of the statement itself.
***ACQUITTAL
People v. Raquel (265 SCRA 248 [1996]
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
FACTS
Sabas Raquel, Valeriano Raquel, and Amado Ponce were found guilty of the crime of robbery with
homicide before the RTC of Cotabato.
Herein accused-appellants knocked on the door of spouses Agapito and Juliet Gambalan. Agapito
opened the door and was surprised upon seeing that the men were heavily armed. They declared a
hold-up and fired their guns at him.
***Amado Ponce, revealed to P/Sgt. Pangato that appellants Sabas and Valeriano were the
perpetrators of the crime and that they may be found in their residence.
ISSUE Whether the extrajudicial confession made by Ponce to Pangato is admissible against
his co-accused.
HELD
NO!!! The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another. An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant
and is not admissible against his co-accused. The reason for the rule is that, on a principle of good
faith and mutual convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against
him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also
manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a
party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as
evidence against him