DYING DECLARATION deceased in the sum of P 12,000.

00 and reported to Vice Mayor Antonio Biran the

to pay the costs. shooting of Pablo Remonde. Vice Mayor
Biran went to the scene of the incident
From the foregoing judgment, accused Gregorio Laquinon and asked the victim who shot him to
interposed the present appeal. which the latter answered that he was
G.R. No. L-45470 February 28, 1985 shot by Gregorio Laquinon (pp. 21 A to
23, tsn, Dec. 8, 1975). Pablo Remonde
The People's version of the case is as follows: was placed on a jeep of the Vice Mayor
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, and brought to the hospital (p. 23, Id,).
vs. Pablo Remonde was admitted to the
On November 13, 1972, at about 11:30
GREGORIO LAQUINON, alias "JOLLY", defendant- Canos Hospital in Digos, Davao del Sur
o'clock in the evening, Samama Buat,
appellant. where he was attended to by Dr. Alfonso
barrio captain of Clib, Hagonoy, Davao
del Sur, was at his residence in barrio Llanos. Dr. Llanos performed an
Clib. In a short while he heard gunshots operation on the victim from whose body
coming from the bank of a river some a slug was recovered (pp. 15-16, tsn, Jan.
CONCEPCION, JR., J.: three hundred meters to the south of his 26, 1976; Exh. B). Pablo Remonde died
house (pp. 4-6, tsn, Dec. 8, 1975). Then, in the hospital on November 16, 1972
his brother, Leocario Buat, arrived and because of bullet wounds (pp. 17-20, tsn,
Accused Gregorio Laquinon was charged with the crime of told him that a man was shouting for help Jan. 26, 1976; see also clinical chart.
murder in the Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur for at the bank of the river. Samama Buat Exh. C, Folder of Exhibits).
the killing of Pablo Remonde, coated as follows: told his brother to call the barrio
councilman. Thereafter, he proceeded to The accused Gregorio Laquinon denied having killed the
That on or about November 13, 1972, in the place where the unidentified man deceased. The trial court summarized his defense, as
the Municipality of Hagonoy, Province of was. His brother, Leocario and the barrio follows:
Davao del Sur, Philippines, and within the councilman also arrived there. Samama
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the Buat found the man lying on the sand and
above named accused, with treachery asked who he was. The man answered, "I In his defense, the accused declared that
and evident premeditation, armed with a am Pablo Remonde" (pp 7-10, Id.). he was a KM member; that he was
gun and with intent to kill, did then and Remonde's two hands were tied on his ordered by one Noli Cabardo, then their
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously back. He was lying face down (p. 10, Id). CO, to fetch Pablo Remonde; he
shoot one Pablo Remonde with said requested one Cristino Nerosa to go with
weapon, inflicting upon the latter wounds him, and matter of factly, they brought
Samama Buat then took the "ante Remonde to the place where said CO
which caused his death. mortem" statement of Pablo Remonde. Cabardo with ten companions, was
He asked him who he was to which he waiting at the riverbank; that before
After the trial, the lower court rendered a decision finding answered that he was Pablo Remonde. reaching the place, Nerosa separated
the accused guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him Samama Buat asked "who shot you" and from him and he alone brought Remonde
as follows: Remonde said that it was Gregorio to Cabardo. There Cabardo confronted
Laquinon. He asked Pablo Remonde Remonde why, having been commanded
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the whether from the gunshot wounds he to buy some provisions in Matanao, he
Court finds the accused guilty beyond suffered he would survive to which the (Remonde) never returned; to which
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, victim answered "I do not know" (pp. 11, Remonde answered that he spent the
and imposes upon him the penalty 19, 21, Id.; see also Exh. A, Folder of money 'in drinking and gambling; when
of reclusion perpetua (Art. 248, Revised Exhibits). After that, barrio captain Buat upon Cabardo got mad and as Remonde
Penal Code); to indemnify the heirs of the went to the municipality of Hagonoy and attempted to escape, he (witness) heard
 a shot which must have been fired by whose name I don't But the dying declaration of the deceased Pablo Remonde
Cabardo as he was holding a .38 Cal. know. is not admissible as an ante-mortem declaration since the
revolver; that he (witness) also had that deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or not.
evening a Cal. 22 paltik; that after the Q Why you were shot The declaration fails to show that the deceased believed
shot he saw Remonde sprawled on the by said persons above? himself in extremist, "at the point of death when every hope
ground, and then Cabardo ordered them of recovery is extinct, which is the sole basis for admitting
to go to the mountain as in fact they did; this kind of declarations as an exception to the hearsay
that two days later during the day, their A They are suspecting rule." 1
mountain camp was raided by the PC and me that I'm an informer
Cabardo and two others were killed while of Vice Mayor Viran
regarding KM . It may be admitted, however, as part of the res gestae since
he (witness) was able to escape and went the statement was made immediately after the incident and
to Magpet, North Cotabato, and engaged the deceased Pablo Remonde had no sufficient time to
in farming therein with his relatives; but Q Do you think you'll concoct a charge against the accused.
believing that as a KM member he die with your wound?
'cmmitted something,' he surrendered to
the Davao PC Barracks in May, 1975 On the whole, We are satisfied with the findings of the trial
A I don't know sir. court that the accused was responsible for the killing of
(Exhibit '2'), where up to now he is being
confined. Pablo Remonde. We cite with approval the following
The accused-appellant argues that the foregoing statement observations of the trial court:
is inadmissible in evidence as an ante-mortem declaration
The accused-appellant prays for the reversal of the because it was not executed under a consciousness of an
appealed judgment on the ground that the lower court erred Indeed, the Court cannot believe that CO
impending death; and that the deceased was not a Cabardo did the killing as related by the
in finding him guilty of the crime charged on the basis of the competent witness.
statement attributed to the deceased Pablo Remonde which accused for the following reasons:
reads:
The fact that the deceased had named the son of Suelo First, when the deceased was allegedly
Maravillas who turned out as Cristino Nerosa as one of delivered to CO Cabardo, he was already
Q State your name and those who shot him in his dying declaration does not make
other personal hand-tied at his back, that the place of the
the deceased an incompetent witness. Nor does it render shooting was "covered by thick bushes
circumstances. said dying declaration incredible of belief. The testimony of and beside the river", and that CO
the accused that he and Nerosa separated and that he Cabardo was with ten men excluding the
A Pablo Remonde y alone brought the deceased to Noli Cabardo is not accused; under these circumstances, it is
Saballa, 24 years old, corroborated. It may be that Nerosa was with the accused hard to believe that the deceased, with all
laborer and resident of when the latter shot the deceased, as stated in the dying those overwhelming handicap, would
Pob. this mun. declaration, but that the accused testified that Nerosa was attempt to flee.
not with him when he brought the deceased to Noli Cabardo
Q Who shot you? in order to free Nerosa from criminal liability.
Second, if the deceased truly tried to flee,
the logical thing he would do would be to
A Mr. Laquinon, a Nor does the testimony of Barrio Captain Samama Buat that flee away from and not towards Cabardo;
person who ran for the place was dark and that the victim had told him that he in doing the former he would turn to his
councilor before the was shot by members of the KM make the deceased an right or to his left or towards his back; if
ticket of Liberal last incompetent witness. On the contrary, it strengthens the he fled to his left or right, or towards his
local election and son statement of the deceased since the accused is a member back, he would be exposing one side of
of Suelo Maravllias of the KM. his body, or his back, and when fired
upon in that position he would have been
 hit on one side of the body or at his back. prosecution witness Bo. Capt. Buat when [G.R. No. L-26193. January 27, 1981.]
The evidence as testified to by Dr. he took the statement of the deceased,
Llanos however, shows that the the deceased was feeling strong, surely, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, v. RODULFO
deceased had only one wound a gunshot under such circumstances it is hard to SABIO, alias "PAPU", Defendant.
wound, in the abdomen; this shows he believe that the deceased would name
was fired upon frontally, the bullet going the accused with whom he had no quarrel Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza for Plaintiff-
through and through the intestines and and Nerosa as his killers if that was really Appellee. .
lodged, presumably in the bony portions not the truth.
of his back, that is why the slug (Exhibit Leonardo Aboli, for Defendant-Appellant.
"B") was recovered. The accused's Accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
version, therefore, that the deceased tried murder qualified by treachery. The victim was apparently SYNOPSIS
to flee is hard to believe for being against shot while his two hands were tied at his back. Accused, in
the physical facts. shooting the victim, obviously employed means or force in Before the Court a quo, the 13-year old accused was
the execution of the offense which tended directly and charged with Robbery with Homicide for the death of
Now, if the accused is innocent, why specially to insure its execution without risk to himself Catalino Espina, an octogenarian, owner of a small sari-sari
should he relate such an incredible arising from the defense which the offended party might store located in his house, who, in the early morning of
version? make. October 5, 1965, was found on the second floor of his
dwelling wounded on the forehead, from which injury he
died three days later. The merchandise in his store was in a
Oh what a tangled web they weave when WHEREFORE, with the modification that the indemnity to
state of disarray and the tin can containing the cash sales in
first day practice to deceive. be paid to the heirs of the deceased is increased to
the amount of P8.00 was found empty. The accused was
P30,000.00, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is
positively identified by a neighbor of the victim who saw him
With these observations, the Court cannot believe that the hereby, AFFIRMED. With costs against the appellant.
running from the scene of the incident that fateful morning,
accused really delivered the deceased to CO Cabardo and and by the victim in his ante-mortem statement taken by the
that it was Cabardo who shot him. As testified to by him, SO ORDERED. police in the presence of the victims grandnephew. the
their mountain camp was raided by the PC two days after accused was found guilty as charged, with the attendant
the incident, as a result of which raid Cabardo and two of Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Abad Santos, Escolin and aggravating circumstances or disregard of respect due to
their companions were killed. The accused himself was able Cuevas, JJ., concur. the 80-year old victim and recidivism, and without any
to escape, went to hide in a relative's farm in faraway mitigating circumstances. He was sentenced to death but in
Magpet, North Cotabato, did farming there until one day in view of his youth, the trial Court recommended that the
May, 1975, repentant that, as a KM member, he had penalty be commuted to reclusion perpetua.
"committed something", he finally surrendered to the PC
Barracks in Davao City. Cabardo, may he rest in peace, Footnotes On automatic review, the Supreme Court held that only the
having gone to the other world, and can no longer speak in crime of homicide had been committed as the evidence
his behalf, it is not unlikely that the accused conceived of 1 People vs. Dominguez 22474, Nov. 26, supportive of the charge of robbery was at best
this outlandish defense by pointing to CO Cabardo, to free 1970, 36 SCRA circumstantial and did not establish beyond reasonable
himself from responsibility. doubt that the accused away personalty belonging to the
offended party.
=============================================
Most important to remember on this point
======================================= Judgment modified. Accused was sentenced to an
is that at the time the deceased grade his
"dying" statement, Cabardo was still alive; indeterminate penalty.
that per the accused himself, he had no
previous differences with the deceased or EN BANC
with the barrio captain; and that from the SYLLABUS
 admitted to establish the factor of robbery. The admission of of the incident, is also minor detail which does not detract
dying declarations has always been strictly limited to from the reliability of her identification of the accused.
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ROBBERY; MERE criminal prosecutions for homicide or murder as evidence of Moreover, the defense had not shown any ulterior motive on
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR the cause and surrounding circumstances of death. the part of the witness that would make her implicate and
CONVICTION. The evidence supportive of the charge of testify falsely against the accused, who was a neighbor and
robbery is at best circumstantial and does not establish 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROBATIVE FORCE OF VICTIMS DYING an acquaintance.
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had carried DECLARATION LIES IN THE BELIEF OF AN IMPENDING
away personalty belonging to the offended party. There was DEATH; CASE AT BAR. The seriousness of the injury on 8. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENTS; RENDITION
no eyewitness to the alleged robbery, nor was any part of the victims forehead which had affected the brain; his THEREOF ONE DAY AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE TRIAL
the alleged missing objects recovered. The consumation of inability to speak until his head was raised; the spontaneous NOT OBJECTIONABLE. The defense decries the speed
the robbery cannot be inferred nor presumed from the answer of the victim that "only Papu Sabio is responsible for with which the trial Court decided the case, alleging that the
circumstances that the accused was seen running "with his my death" ; and his subsequent demise from the direct decision was prepared and signed on April 29, 1966, or one
hands inside his shirt", or that the "barro", alleged to have effects of the wound on his forehead, strengthen the day after the close of trial on April 28, 1966, and was read
contained cash amounting to about P8.00, was seen on the conclusion that the victim must have known that his end to the accused on April 30, 1966, without benefit of a
floor, open and empty, or that the things and merchandise was inevitable. The death did not ensue till three days after transcript of stenographic notes memoranda of the parties,
inside the house were in disarray (People v. Labita, et al, the declaration was made will not alter its probative force so that the trial Court not have seriously considered the
Phil. 1068, unreported case). since it is not indispensable that declarant expires merits of the case or must have prejudged even before the
immediately thereafter. It is the belief in impending death trial ended. That contention is belied by the detailed findings
2. ID.; ID.; CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE COMMISSION and not the rapid succession of death, in point of fact, that of facts in the decision of the trial Court duly supported by
OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; NECESSARY FOR renders the the dying declarations admissible. the transcript of stenographic notes now on record.
CONVICTION. A conviction for Robbery with Homicide
requires that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as 6. ID.; ID.; ID.; NON-CLOSURE THEREOF TO THE 9. ID.; EVIDENCE; ALIBI; CANNOT PREVAIL OVER
any other essential element of a crime (People v. Pacala, ACCUSED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY DOES POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED. The alibi
58 SCRA 370 (1974), it not being enough to infer said NOT MILITATE AGAINST THE FACT OF ITS EXECUTION. put up by the accused crumbles under the positive
robbery from mere suspicion and presumption (U.S. v. The mere failure of the police to confront the accused identification by witnesses and the dying declaration of the
Alasa-as, 40 Phil. 878, 881). with the ante-mortem declaration the first time the latter was victim, aside from the fact that because of the proximity of
arrested and incarcerated neither militates against the fact the house of the accused to that of the victim, it was not
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; INTENT TO ROB MUST BE PROVEN. of its execution considering that it was evidence that the possible for the accused to have been at the scene of the
"Where there was no eyewitness to the alleged robbery, police was under no compulsion to disclose. crime.
and the evidence merely shows that after the killing some of
the things inside the house where the killing took place were 7. ID.; ID.; WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY OF TESTIMONY; 10. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; ONLY
missing, it cannot be presumed that the accused killers DISCREPANCIES REFERRING TO MINOR DETAILS OR HOMICIDE COMMITTED IN THE CASE AT BAR;
committed robbery. It is necessary to prove intent to rob. COLLATERAL MATTERS DO NOT DESTROY THE PENALTY THEREFOR. The accused is guilty only of
This necessarily includes evidence to the effect that the EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR TESTIMONY; CASE AT homicide, attended by the aggravating circumstances of
accused carried away the effects or personalty of the BAR. The alleged divergence between Jesusas disregard of respect due the offended party on account of
offended party. In the absence of evidence that the accused statement at the preliminary investigation and her testimony his age, and dwelling. Recidivism is not to be considered
carried away the missing objects, they cannot be convicted at the trial merits no serious consideration since an affidavit, because of the finding that the crime or robbery has not
of robbery (Ambahang and Amid, 108, Phil. 325; Villorente "being taken ex-parte is almost always incomplete and often been conclusively established. The penalty imposable for
and Bislig, 30 Phil. 59; Barruga, 61 Phil. 318, Aquino, inaccurate." Besides, the discrepancies pointed out by the the crime of homicide, attended by aggravating with no
Revised Penal Code, 1976 Ed., pp. 1415-1416) defense, to wit: whether or not Jesusa saw what the mitigating circumstances, is reclusion temporal in its
accused did after leaving the house after the incident, refer maximum period or seventeen years, four months and one
4. ID.; ID.; DYING DECLARATION IN ADMISSIBLE TO to minor details or collateral matters which do not destroy day to twenty years. In the case at bar, the accused, guilty
ESTABLISH FACT OF ROBBERY IN CASE AT BAR. the effectiveness of her testimony. Further, the discrepancy of the crime of homicide, is sentenced to an indeterminate
The dying declaration of the victim which points to the as to the exact date when the witness actually disclosed to penalty of twelve years of prision mayor as minimum, to
accused as the one slashed and robbed him cannot be the authorities her having seen the accused on the morning twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum; to
 indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of the forehead, from which injury he died three days later. contained the cash sales for Sunday and Monday of about
P12,000.00; and to pay the costs. P8.00 because they counted the money the previous night,
Prosecution witness JESUSA BIRONDO, a fish vendor, was lying empty on the floor. When police officers Paulino
ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw testified that about 5:00 oclock in the morning of October 5, Fuentes and Pedro Burgos arrived, Patrolman Fuentes
library 1965, as she was preparing to go to the seashore, she asked "Manoy Ino" questions which, together with the
heard a shout for help coming from the house of her answers, he wrote on a page torn from a calendar hanging
REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ROBBERY ESTABLISHED neighbor, Catalino Espina, which was located just across somewhere in the room. 2 Patrolman Fuentes then
BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN INSTANT CASE. the street from her house. She recognized the voice as instructed Camilo to take the victim to the town dispensary
Robbery was committed by Rodolfo Sabio. The tin car or Catalinos. When she looked out of the window she saw the at Argao, Cebu, where he was treated. But because the
"barro" which contained some P8.00 the night before the accused Rodulfo Sabio, who is nicknamed "Papu", coming victims condition was considered serious he was
incident, was found empty and lying on the ground of the out of the door of the store at the victim house. The accused immediately transferred to the Southern Islands Hospital
house where the deceased had his store. It could only have was wearing a black shirt with sleeves up to the elbow and where he died three days later. 3
been Sabio who took the money for it was he who entered dark trousers. She had known the accused since his birth
the store and hacked Catalino Espina who died as a result because his house is located at the seashore in Barrio PAULINO FUENTES, a policeman assigned at the
thereof. True, Catalino Espina could not state how much Looc, just about 40 meters from her own house, and she is municipal building of Argao, Cebu, received a report at
money was lost. But from inability to state the amount lost, it familiar with his appearance because she used to see him about 5:30 oclock in the morning of October 5, 1965, that
does not follow that nothing was lost. The two the loss everyday passing by her house or at the seashore from the "Ino" Espina was hacked in barrio Looc. He and another
and the amount of the loss are two entirely different window. Then she shouted for help. Shortly thereafter, she policeman, Pedro Burgos, proceeded to the victims house
concepts. Naturally, Catalino could not state how much saw from her window that many persons, about 50 to 100 where he saw the latter lying on the floor, wounded and
money was lost because he was hacked severely on the neighbors, went to Catalinos house. The following day after bleeding on the forehead. Patrolman Fuentes asked the
forehead before the money was taken by Sabio. A man the incident, or on October 6, 1965, Jesusa told Police victim who had hacked him and the latter answered that it
mortally wounded who did not hand over any money to his Sergeant Jesus Alberca about what she heard and saw. was "Papu" Sabio, son of Menes. According to said
assailant would not expected to answer an inconsequential She executed a sworn statement on the same date. 1 Patrolman, the person referred to was the accused, who, as
question as to the amount of his loss. A man in his situation well as his parents, have been known to the witness for the
would be thinking not how much he had lost but of his CAMILO SEMILLA, a 27-year-old fisherman and past three years. Patrolman Fuentes asked the victim why
impending death. There would be no motive for the killing if grandnephew of the victim, who had lived with the latter "Papu" had hacked him and the latter answered that "Papu"
there was no robbery and robbery cannot be discounted since childhood, left Catalinos house at past 4:00 oclock in had demanded money from him. Patrolman Fuentes also
after Sabio had entered the store and attacked its owner. the early morning of October 5, 1965 to go fishing. At the asked the victim how much money he had lost but the latter
seashore, he waited for somebody to help him drag his boat was not able to answer the question. Sensing that the
to the sea from the elevated support on which it was wound was serious since it was bleeding profusely,
DECISION hoisted. The first person he saw was the accused, Rodulfo Patrolman Fuentes decided to take down the statement of
Sabio, who came running past him about 6 meters away, the victim. He detached a leaf from a calendar and wrote
towards his (Sabios) house. The accused was wearing a down on it the questions he propounded as well as the
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: black T-shirt with sleeves reaching beyond the elbow and answers of the victim. He then had it thumbmarked by the
long "maong" pants. Witness Camilo demonstrated that the victim with the latters own blood as no ink was available.
accused had his two hands tucked inside his shirt in front of Present at the time were Pedro Burgos, another police
Automatic review of the death penalty imposed upon the the stomach while running. Minutes later, a certain Enok officer, and Camilo Semilla, the grandnephew. Patrolman
accused, Rodulfo Sabio alias "Papu", by the Court of First Calledo arrived and told Camilo to go home because his Fuentes himself and Pedro Burgos signed as witnesses.
Instance of Cebu, Branch II, in Criminal Case No. V-10804 grand-uncle "Noy Ino" had cried for help. When Camilo Reproduced hereunder in full is the said
for Robbery with Homicide. reached home, he saw "Ino" (the victim) lying wounded statement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
upstairs. He was moaning and was able to speak only when
On October 5, 1965, at about 5:00 oclock in the morning, in his head was raised. When Camilo called the victims name, "Antemortem"
Barrio Looc, Argao, Cebu, Catalino Espina, 80-years old, the latter responded and told Camilo to fetch a policeman.
single, owner of a small sari-sari store located in his house Camilo noticed that the merchandise in the store were in "P Kinsa may ngalan nimo.
was found on the second floor of his dwelling wounded on disarray and the tin can called "barro", which he knew had
T Catalino Espina. Q If you will die, who is responsible for your death? Testifying in his defense the accused RODULFO SABIO, 18
years old, a fisherman, claimed that in the evening of
P - Taga diin man ikao A Only Papu Sabio is responsible for my death. October 4, 1965, he was at home listening to the radio till
past 9:00 oclock after which he went to sleep until about
T - Taga Looc, Argao, Cebu. Q Are you going to sign this or affix your fingerprint? 6:00 oclock in the morning of the next day, October 5,
1965, when he was awakened by his younger brother who
P Kinsa may nag tikbas kanimo kon nagtulis kanimo? A Yes. said that certain policemen were looking for him. The
policemen took him to the municipal building and
T Si Rodulfo (Pafo) Sabyo nga anak ni Menez nga taga Brownish fingerprint mark incarcerated him without asking any question. He was
Looc. released the next day, October 6, but was arrested again on
and across it is written the word November 24, 1965 at P. del Rosario Street in Cebu City.
P Kon ikao mamatay kinsa may responsabli sa imong The accused admitted that he knew witness, Camilo
kamatayon. CATALINO ESPINA. Semilla, because they were neighbors but he denied that
Camilo had seen him running by the seashore at about 5:00
T Si Pafo Sabyo ro gayod ang responsabli sa akong Wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library oclock in the morning of October 5, 1965 because at that
kamatayon. time he was still asleep at home. The accused also
1. (Sgd.) Paulino Fuentes admitted knowing witness, Jesusa Birondo, but alleged that
P Imo ba kining permahan o tamlaan sa imong todlo? she could not have seen him coming out of the door of the
2. (Sgd.) Pedro Burgos" 5 house of "Ino" Espina at about 5:00 oclock in the morning
T Oo. of October 5, 1965 because at that time he was still asleep
Thereafter, Patrolman Fuentes advised Camilo Semilla to at home. 9
Catalino Espina bring the victim to the hospital. Patrolman Fuentes observed
that the things of Catalino and the store items like canned Defense witness JACINTO MENDEZ corroborated the
(Thumbmarked) sardines were all in disarray while the tin can ("barro") was accuseds defense of alibi by testifying that in the evening of
already opened. 6 October 4, 1965, he slept in the house of Hermogenes
Wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Sabio, father of the accused, because he and Hermogenes
On October 5, 1965, DR. MELITA REMOTIQUE AO, had planned to go fishing the following morning. In the
1. (Sgd.) Paulino Fuentes resident physician at the Southern Islands Hospital, Surgery house he saw the accused and the other children of
Department, found that the victim had suffered "compound Hermogenes. When he woke up at 5:00 oclock in the
2. (Sgd.) Pedro Burgos" 4 fracture on the skull, bilateral at the front-parietal area" with morning of the following day, October 5, he saw that the
"laceration and cerebral contusion." From the nature of the accused and the other children were all in the house. He
The English translation reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph injuries, she opined that the same could have been inflicted repaired the nets after waking up, then went out to sea with
by a sharp instrument or by bolo, and although the Hermogenes at about 7:00 oclock and came back at past
"Q What is your name? laceration was not too deep as to cause instantaneous 8:00 oclock in the morning. 10
death, the injury was fatal because it had injured the brain.
A Catalino Espina. 7 In a Decision dated April 29, 1966, the trial Court found the
accused guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide
Q From where are you? The prosecution also offered in evidence and as part of the attended by the aggravating circumstances of disregard of
cross-examination of the accused a letter dated February respect due to the victim, an octogenarian, and recidivism,
A From Lo-ok, Argao, Cebu. 17, 1966 of the Cebu Provincial Warden, 8 showing that the without any mitigating circumstance, and sentenced him to
accused had been previously convicted by final judgment death; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount
Q Who slashed you and robbed you? and had served sentence for two previous crimes of Theft of P6,000.00; and to pay the costs. The trial Court,
committed in the years 1963 and however, recommended that in view of the youthful age of
A Rodulfo Sabio (Papu) the son of Menez from Lo-ok. 1964.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary the accused, the death penalty be commuted to life
imprisonment.
 can which you call barro? Q. Even with the second question, is that correct?
In this appeal, the defense has made the
following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph A. It contained the cash sales. A. Yes, sir.

"Assignment of Errors Q. That barro which you mentioned, where was it before Q. Was there a third question you propounded to Catalino?
you left the house to go to the shore that dawn?
I. "The lower Court erred in concluding that the felony of A. Yes, sir.
Robbery with Homicide, instead of only Homicide, had been A. Beside the bed of Ino.
established by the evidence; Q. Will you please let us know the third question?
Q. You said that tin can or barro where the cash sales
II. "The lower Court erred in admitting Exhibit A of the were kept was beside the bed, do you know more or less A. I asked him how much money he lost, and he was not
prosecution as an ante-mortem declaration of the victim; the amount placed therein? able to answer that question.

III. "The tower Court erred in giving credence to the A. About P8.00. Q. Do you know why he did not answer that question?
testimony of Jesusa Birondo, witness for prosecution;
Q. How do you know that tin can had P8.00 inside? A. I think he did not answer that because when he was
IV. "The lower Court erred in finding that the defendant- hacked he had not yet given money to Papu."cralaw
appellant was the perpetrator of the crime." 11 A. Because the previous night we counted the money. virtua1aw library

1. We find merit in the contention that only the crime of Q. The P8.00 was the sales for how many days? x x x
Homicide had been committed. The evidence indicative of
robbery consisted merely of the testimony of witness Camilo A. That was the sales for Sunday and Monday." 12
Semilla who declared as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph Q. You stated in the direct examination that the things in the
and that of Patrolman Fuentes, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph house of the deceased Catalino Espina were in disarray, is
"Q. How far was Rodulfo Sabio when he passed by you that correct?
running that moment? "Q. When you were inside the house of Catalino Espina,
what else did you find in the course of your investigation? A. Yes, sir.
A. About six meters from me.
A. I saw that the things of Catalino Espina and the stands Q. Will you please state before the Honorable Court the
Q. Did you notice while he passed by you running, if he was where the items for sale were displayed were all in disarray. things that were disarrayed when you went up the house of
holding anything? the deceased?
x x x
x x x A. The canned sardines were disarrayed, others had
dropped to the ground; the barro was already opened, and
Q. What other conversation did you have with Catalino other things in the store were in topsy-turvy state." 13
A. Yes, he had his hands inside his shirt."cralaw virtua1aw Espina after the first question?
library Plainly, the evidence supportive of the charge of robbery is
A. I asked him why Papu hacked him, and the victim at best circumstantial and does not establish beyond
Q. What did you notice inside the house upon your arrival answered that Papu demanded money from him. reasonable doubt that the accused had carried away
from the seashore? personality belonging to the offended party. There was no
Q. Could we say that the answer of the deceased Catalino eyewitness to the alleged robbery, nor was any part of the
A. I saw that the barro was already empty, lying on the Espina was outright after the question? alleged missing objects recovered. The consummation of
ground, and the merchandise items were in disorder. the robbery cannot he inferred nor presumed from the
A. Yes, sir. circumstance that the accused was seen running "with his
Q. Do you know what things were placed in that thing or tin hands inside his shirt", or that the "barro", alleged to have
contained cash amounting to about P8.00, was seen on the Patrolman Fuentes, the accused was never confronted with even before the accused was taken into custody, why was
floor, open and empty, or that the things and merchandise the document when he was taken into custody by the police not the accused confronted with such fact?
inside the house were in disarray (People v. Labita, Et Al., for the first time from the morning of October 5 to October 6,
[99 Phil. 1068, unreported case]). A conviction for Robbery 1965, thereby implying that the document did not yet exist For one who has known the accused since the latters
with Homicide requires that the robbery itself be proven as at that time. infancy and who is very familiar with the accuseds
conclusively as any other essential element (People v. appearance because she sees him almost everyday
Pacala, 58 SCRA 370 [1974]), it not being enough to infer The arguments advanced are unavailing. The seriousness passing by her house or at the seashore where the accused
said robbery from mere suspicion and presumption (U.S. v. of the injury on the victims forehead which had affected the has his house, it is not incredible that Jesusa Birondo
Alasa-as, 40 Phil. 878, 881). brain and was profusely bleeding; the victims inability to recognized the accused, at side view, even at a distance of
speak until his head was raised; the spontaneous answer of 17 meters (which was the trial Courts estimate of the
"Where there was no eyewitness to the alleged robbery, the victim that "only Papu Sabio is responsible for my distance between Catalino Espinas house and that of
and the evidence merely shows that after the killing some of death" ; and his subsequent demise from the direct effects Jesusa Birondo as described by the accused) at 5:00
the things inside the house where the killing took place, of the wound on his forehead, strengthen the conclusion oclock in the morning and even if it were raining. Besides,
were missing, it cannot be presumed that the accused that the victim must have known that his end was inevitable. Jesusas description of the clothes that the accused was
killers committed robbery. It is necessary to prove intent to That death did not ensue till three days after the declaration wearing was corroborated by Camilo Semilla, who also saw
rob. This necessarily includes evidence to the effect that the was made will not alter its probative force since it is not the accused that same morning.
accused carried away the effects or personality of the indispensable that a declarant expires immediately
offended party. In the absence of evidence that the accused thereafter. It is the belief in impending death and not the The alleged divergence between Jesusas statement at the
carried away the missing objects, they cannot be convicted rapid succession of death in point of fact, that renders the preliminary investigation and her testimony at the trial
of robbery." 14 (Emphasis supplied). dying declaration admissible. 17 Further, the fact that the neither merits serious consideration since an affidavit,
victim told his grandnephew Camilo Semilla to fetch the "being taken ex-parte is almost always incomplete and often
Nor can the dying declaration of the victim which, in part, police, does not negative the victims feeling of inaccurate." 18 Besides, the discrepancies pointed out by
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph hopelessness of recovery but rather emphasizes the the defense, to wit: whether or not Jesusa saw what the
realization that he had so little time to disclose his assailant accused did after leaving the house of the victim and
"Q. Who slashed you and robbed you? to the authorities. The mere failure of the police to confront whether or not she went down from her house after the
the accused with the ante-mortem declaration the first time incident, refer to minor details or collateral matters which do
A. Rodulfo Sabio (Papu) the son of Menez from Lo- the latter was arrested and incarcerated from October 5 to not destroy the effectiveness of her testimony. Further, the
ok."cralaw virtua1aw library October 6, 1965, neither militates against the fact of its discrepancy as to the exact date when the witness actually
execution considering that it was evidence that the police disclosed to the authorities her having seen the accused on
be admitted to establish the fact of robbery. The admission was under no compulsion to disclose. the morning of the incident, is also a minor detail which
of dying declarations has always been strictly limited to does not detract from the reliability of her identification of
criminal prosecutions for homicide or murder 15 as 3. The credibility of witness Jesusa Birondo is also assailed the accused. Moreover, the defense has not shown any
evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of by the defense alleging firstly, that it is unbelievable that she ulterior motive on the part of witness Jesusa Birondo that
death. 16 could have really identified the accused as the person who would make her implicate and testify falsely against the
came out of the victims house considering that the distance accused, who was a neighbor and an acquaintance.
2. Next, the defense questions the admissibility of Exhibit from her window to that house was 17 meters, and at 5:00
"A" of the prosecution as an ante-mortem statement arguing a.m. on October 5, 1965, it was still dark and raining; 4. In the fourth and last assignment of error, the defense
that there is no evidence showing that when the declaration secondly, there is a glaring divergence between her decries the speed with which the trial Court decided the
was uttered the declarant was under a consciousness of an testimony at the trial and her statement at the preliminary case, alleging that the Decision was prepared and signed
impending death; that, in fact, the victim had hopes of investigation, which statement was suppressed and not on April 29, 1966, or one day after the close of trial on April
recovery for his first word to Camilo Semilla was for the made known to the trial Court; thirdly, said witness was 28 1966, and was read to the accused on April 30, 1966,
latter to fetch the police. Defense counsel argues further uncertain as to when she actually brought to the attention of without benefit of a transcript of stenographic notes nor
that there are doubts as to when said Exhibit "A" was the authorities the matter of her having seen the accused memoranda of the parties, so that the trial Court could not
thumb-marked because, although it was already in and finally, the defense asks, if it were true that the accused have seriously considered the merits of the case or must
existence in the morning of October 5, 1965, as alleged by had been identified by said witness to the Chief of Police have prejudged it even before the trial ended. That
contention is belied, however, by the detailed findings of ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw [G.R. No. 115690. February 20, 1996]
facts in the Decision of the trial Court duly supported by the library
transcript of stenographic notes now on record.
I dissent in respect of the finding that no robbery was
Finally, the defense contends that the guilt of the accused committed by Rodulfo Sabio for the following
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons:cralawnad
vs. REY SALISON, JR.,* TIRSO ANDIENTE,
alibi put up by the accused, however, crumbles under the
RUFINO DIGNARAN and LEONILO
positive identification by witnesses Jesusa Birondo and 1. The tin can or "barro" which contained some P8.00 the
FEDILES, accused, REY SALISON,
Camilo Semilla and the dying declaration of the victim, night before the incident, was found empty lying on the
JR., accused-appellant.
aside from the fact that because of the proximity of the ground of the house where the deceased had his store. It
house of the accused to that of the victim, it was not could only have been Sabio who took the money for it was
impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the as he who entered the store and hacked Catalino Espina DECISION
crime. who died as a result thereof.
REGALADO, J.:
In summation, the accused is guilty only of Homicide, 2. True, Catalino Espina could not state how much money
attended by the aggravating circumstances of disregard of was lost. But from inability to state the amount lost, it does Accused-appellant Rey Salison, Jr., alias Loloy,
respect due the offended party on account of his age, and not follow that nothing was lost. The two the loss and the appeals from a judgment in Criminal Case No. 21805- 91 of
dwelling Recidivism is not to be considered because of our amount of the loss are two entirely different concepts. the Regional Trial Court of DavaoCity, Branch 16, which
finding that the crime of Robbery has not been conclusively imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the
established. 3. Naturally Catalino could not state how much money was murder of one Rolando Valmoria.
lost because he was hacked severely on the forehead
The penalty imposable for the crime of Homicide, attended before the money was taken by Sabio. A man mortally The information filed against appellant and the co-
by aggravating with no mitigating circumstances, is wounded who did not hand over any money to his assailant accused Tirso Andiente, alias Sano, Rufino Dignaran, alias
reclusion temporal in its maximum period or seventeen (17) should not be expected to answer an inconsequential Jongjong; and Leonilo Fediles, alias Ondoy, alleges:
years, four (4) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. question as to the amount of his loss. A man in his situation
19 would be thinking not how much he had lost but of his That on November 30, 1990 in the City of Davao,
impending death. Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
WHEREFORE, we find the accused, Rodulfo Sabio alias Court, the above-mentioned accused, confederating and
"Papu", guilty of the crime of Homicide and hereby sentence 4. There would be no motive for the killing if there was no mutually helping one another, with abuse of superior
him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of robbery and robbery cannot be discounted after Sabio had strength and with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully and
prision mayor as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion entered the store and attacked its owner. feloniously mauled and pummeled with hard wood one
temporal as maximum; to indemnify the heirs of the Rolando Valmoria. Serious and fatal injuries were inflicted
deceased, Catalino Espina, in the amount of P12,000.00; Considering, however, the fact that Rodulfo Sabio has been which subsequently caused the death of Rolando Valmoria
and to pay the costs. in detention since 1965 and the recommendation of the trial on December 4, 1990.1
judge that the death penalty imposed on him be commuted
SO ORDERED. to life imprisonment on account of his youth, my vote as to Upon arraignment, appellant Rey Salison, Jr., assisted
the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua. by counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty.2 Trial then
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., proceeded only against him, because his three other co-
Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concur. Aquino, J., concurs. accused were and, still are, at large. On November 26, 1993,
============================================= the trial court rendered a decision with the following decretal
Barredo, J., took no part. ======================================== portion:

Separate Opinions
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Rey Salison guilty
SECOND DIVISION beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER
punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, When Valmoria fought back, accused Salison, Fediles A When they arrived (at) the house, the father
with no modifying circumstance present, the Court has no and Andiente picked up pieces of wood and started to hit requested that his son be allowed to sit on
other alternative but to impose the proper penalty Valmoria at the back on his nape, and on the rear part of his our chair.
of reclusion perpetua, the same being the medium period head, Valmoria fell to the ground and, upon finding a chance
within the range of the penalty imposable and to pay the to do so, he stood up and ran towards his house which was Q And what happened next after that?
cost(s); to indemnify the offended party (in) the amount a few meters away. The assailants followed Valmoria but A At that time Rolando Valmoria was sitting on the
P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and P7,270.70 as failed to further hit the victim because Valmoria was able to chair and he was so weak and his neck and
actual damages.3 (Corrections in parentheses ours.) hide inside his house. All of the accused shouted for Valmoria head slumped on the chair and the
to come out but the latter refused, causing his four assailants Valmorias requested me that he has
In the present appeal, herein appellant contends that to hit the walls and windows of the Valmoria residence. something to say and requested it to be
the trial court erred (1) in finding that there was proof beyond During this time, the victim remained seated inside the house. written and he stuttered in talking.
reasonable doubt that the accused conspired with his co- Shortly thereafter, Valmoria started to complain of dizziness
accused in killing the victim, (2) in not holding that accused is and pain in his head which was bleeding at that time.11 Q What did you do after the victim requested you?
only responsible for the injuries that he actually inflicted on Consequently, at the request of Valmoria, his parents A I obeyed. I obeyed the request and I got a
the victim, and (3) in admitting in evidence the alleged dying accompanied him to the house of witness Patricia Alcoseba, ballpen and paper.
declaration of the victim, as well as the agreement between the purok leader. The victim asked Alcoseba to write down
the parents of the accused and the victim.4 his declaration regarding the incident explaining that if he Q Then what happened next?
During the trial, the prosecution presented seven should die and no witness would testify, his written
A He related to me as to who started the trouble
witnesses, a picture of the pieces of wood 5 used by the declaration could be utilized as evidence.
as to who struck him first, the second and the
accused in killing the victim, receipts of expenses incurred in At the trial of the case, Alcoseba presented the written third.
the hospital for the treatment of said victim,6 a written and signed declaration of Valmoria and she affirmed what
declaration of the victim after the incident, 7 and a written Q Now Mrs. Alcose(b)a, while the victim was
was written in the declaration, testifying as follows:
agreement between the parents of appellant and the victim.8 narrating to you, what did you observe about
PROSECUTOR DAYANGHIRANG III: his condition?
The evidence of record reveals that at around 8:00
oclock in the evening of November 30, 1990, witness Maria Q Mrs. Alcose(b)a, on November 30, 1990, where A I observed that he was so weak and he was in
Magdalena Ayola saw appellant Salison approach the victim, were you? pain and I believed at that time he was dying.
Rolando Valmoria, who was then watching television in a
A I was in our house. Q Did the victim utter the words to that effect that
store at Cory Village, Agdao, Davao City. Salison placed his
he was dying?
arm around Valmorias shoulder and brought him behind a Q Where?
neighbors house where there was a mango tree. There, A Yes, sir. He told me by saying I believe that I will
appellant Salison boxed Valmoria in the abdomen.9 A At Cory Village. die.
During the fistfight between Salison and Valmoria, the xxx xxx xxx Q What else?
three other accused Andiente, Dignaran and Fediles
suddenly appeared and joined the fight and simultaneously Q After you heard that there was trouble A Because he said that he felt a terrible pain on
attacked Valmoria. It was then when witness Emilia in Cory Village, what happened next, if any? his head.
Fernandez approached them that the three co-accused
A I noticed that the mother and father of Rolando Q Did he tell you the reason why he requested you
disappeared, leaving Salison and Valmoria behind.
Valmoria helped Rolando Valmoria in to make a declaration in writing?
Fernandez was able to separate Salison from Valmoria.
walking towards my house.
However, the three co-accused returned and started to maul A He told me that if anybody will testify regarding
Valmoria again, with Salison rejoining the three in assaulting Q When they arrived (at) your house, what my death this declaration of mine could be
the victim.10 happened next? utilized as evidence.
 xxx xxx xxx A When Rolando Valmoria died. visiting his girlfriend, a certain Neneng Edpalina, when he
heard Valmoria and Andiente shouting at each other. He tried
Q Showing to you this statement, what a relation xxx xxx xxx to pacify the two but the victim told him not to interfere
is this one (sic) to the one you said which is because he had nothing to do with them. Then he saw
the statement of the victim? Q At the time you were taking this statement, from
the victim did he tell you the persons who Valmoria, Andiente, Dignaran, Fediles and a certain Andy
A Yes, this is the one. were responsible for his injuries? engaged in a fistfight. He was trying to stop the group from
fighting when witness Fernandez came and told him not to
xxx xxx xxx A Yes, sir. interfere.

Q There is a printed name. . . a signature over the Q Who? He then left and while he was on his way home, he
printed name Rolando Valmoria, ang heard somebody shout agay, so he went back and saw
guibunalan/ pasyente, whose signature is A Rufino Dignaran, Jr. alias Jongjong and the Andiente holding a piece of wood while Valmoria was running
this? second is Loloy Salison and the third one is towards his house. He had just grabbed the piece of wood
name(d) Tirso and the fourth, I cannot from Andiente when two CAFGUs arrived and arrested him,
A That is the signature of Rolando Valmoria. remember the name of the fourth person Andiente, Dignaran and Fediles. All of them were
who hit the victim yes, now I remember, its subsequently released after the investigation.15
COURT:. Leonilo Fediles.
The errors imputed to the trial court may be
Q When the victim signed that document, was he Q You wrote that statement (o)n a piece of paper? consolidated and narrowed down to the question of credibility
sitting?
of the prosecution witnesses, the existence of conspiracy in
A Yes, sir.12 (Corrections and emphasis supplied.)
A Yes, sir. the commission of the crime, and the evidentiary weight of
After making that declaration in the house of witness the dying declaration, as well as of the written agreement of
Q After the victim signed that document what Alcoseba, Valmorja and his parents proceeded to the the parents of the victim and the accused.
happened next? hospital where he was X-rayed and treated for his head
In the instant case, the lower court held that:
A They left and they went to the detachment. injuries. Subsequently, the victim was allowed to go home.
However, at 4:00 oclock the following morning, he started to
xxx xxx xxx convulse and was rushed to the hospital. After three days The testimony of the prosecutions witnesses were clear,
there, Valmoria died.13 strong and convincing to deserve full faith and credence. As
Q What happened to this piece of paper after the against the pure denial of the accused of his direct
victim signed this? The prosecution likewise presented Dr. Edmundo participation as a conspirator, the positive, clear and
Visitacion, Jr. who had conducted the necropsy which straightforward declaration of the prosecutions witnesses
A I gave it to the mother. established the cause of death of Valmoria indicated in the must prevail. No motive or reason has been shown why
post mortem certificate: He explained that the head injury they would falsely impute to the accused the commission of
Q So you did not keep that piece of paper?
sustained by the victim was caused by a blunt external such a grave crime. The accused Rey Salison has no
A No, sir. I gave it to them so they will be able to trauma probably made by a solid object and this trauma quarrel or bickering with the prosecutions witnesses. In fact,
use it. caused the subdular hemorrhage.14 two of the prosecutions witnesses are friends of the mother
of Rey Salison. These prosecutions witnesses declared that
Q Before they left your house you gave that piece On December 12, 1990, the parents of the victim and
they saw (that) the accused Rey Salison together with the
of paper to the mother? those of the accused Salison and Dignaran entered into a
other accused participated in boxing and mauling Rolando
written agreement for the refund of hospital expenses of
A At that time I did not give that declaration first to Valmoria with pieces of wood)16
Valmoria. However, no reinbursement was actually made.
the mother because they were attending to
their son. On the other hand, the lone defense witness was We agree with the findings of the trial court giving full
appellant Salison himself who merely denied having killed the faith and credit to the witnesses for the People. The
Q When did you give that document to the victim. He testified that on that day, together with his friends uncorroborated testimony of appellant can not prevail over
mother? Andiente, Dignaran, Fideles and a certain Andy, he was the positive declarations of the prosecutions witnesses. In
fact, there were three eyewitnesses, with no ill motives A Yes, sir. xxx xxx xxx
whatsoever, who testified against appellant and confirmed
Salisons direct participation in the commission of the crime. xxx xxx xxx From the aforesaid testimony, these simultaneous attacks on
the victim proved the common intent of the accused to inflict
The defense did not present any evidence to support COURT: fatal blows upon the victim.
the denials of appellant. The putative girlfriend of Q Did you see the 3 come from the bushes? A Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy. 19 A
Salison, who was allegedly with him on that day, was Yes, sir. conspiracy may be inferred without need of showing that the
not presented to confirm that fact and thereby prove that he Q Where were you during the time when these parties actually came together and agreed in express terms
did not participate in the fight between his co-accused three appeared from the bushes? to enter into and pursue a common design.20 For collective
Andiente and the victim. His testimony pinpointing Andiente responsibility among the accused to be established, it is
as the killer was only a convenient way to avoid liability since A I was nearby because we were watching them. sufficient that at the time of the aggression all of them acted
Andiente remained at large and could not refute Salisons in concert each doing his part to fulfill their common purpose
testimony imputing the crime to him. Q Were you alone watching them or you had a to kill the victim.21
companion?
Moreover, denial is a self-serving negative evidence Even if there is no direct evidence showing that all of
that can not be given greater weight than the declaration of A I had some neighbors with me. the accused had a prior agreement on how to kill Valmoria,
credible witnesses who testified on affirmative the doctrine is well-settled that conspiracy need not be
xxx xxx xxx
matters.17 Definitely, therefore, the case of the Government proved by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the
has outweighed and overwhelmed the evidential ramparts of PROSECUTOR MANDALUPE: crime. Very seldom would such prior agreement be
the defense. demonstrable since, in the nature of things, criminal
Q After alias Sano, alias Jong-jong and alias undertakings are only rarely documented by agreements in
Appellants assertion that conspiracy has not been Ondoy joined Salison in boxing Rolando writing.22
established is belied by the eyewitness accounts submitted Valmoria, what else did he do against the
by the prosecution. The manner by which the killing was person of Rolando Valmoria? It is equally a well-accepted corollary rule that where a
executed clearly indicated a confederacy of purpose and conspiracy has been established, evidence as to who among
concerted action on the part of the accused. Prosecution A Valmoria fought back and there was exchange the accused rendered the fatal blow is not necessary. All the
witness Magdalena Ayola, who saw the entire incident, of fist(icuffs) and Loloy Salison, alias Ondoy conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the
testified on this point, thus: and alias Sano picked up some wooden intent and the character of their participation, because the act
pieces of wood (sic). of one is the act of all.23
Q During that time were they alone? The two of
them? Q After these three persons you mentioned What further strengthens the case of the prosecution
picked up wood, what did they do after was the declaration of Valmoria, made and signed by him
COURT: picking up the wood? right after the incident, as to who were responsible for the
A When Salison brought Valmoria under the injuries he sustained. Appellant, however, maintains that said
A They struck Valmoria with the piece of wood. written statement, which was reduced into writing by witness
mango tree, they were only 2 but later, alias
Sano, Fediles and alias Ondoy and alias xxx xxx xxx Patricia Alcoseba and purporting to be a dying declaration, is
Jong-jong boxed Valmoria. inadmissible as evidence since it was in the Cebuano
Q You said that you saw these 4 persons struck regional language and was not accompanied with a
xxx xxx xxx Rolando Valmoria many times while still translation in English or Pilipino.
under the mango tree. Can you tell the
PROSECUTOR MANDALUPE: Honorable Court what part of the body of However, as correctly observed by the Solicitor
Rolando Valmoria was hit by the striking of General:
Q In other words aside from accused Salison alias
wood by the 4 accused, if you can recall?
Loloy who first boxed Rolando Valmoria,
The records do not disclose that the defense offered any
other three persons joined Salison and also A He was hit at his back and at the back of his
boxed Rolando Valmoria? objection to the admission of the declaration. Thus, the
head.18
defense waived whatever infirmity the document had at the a dying declaration because it was not made by the deceased
time of its submission as evidence. The declaration can be under the consciousness of an impending death. As earlier
translated into English or Pilipino as it is already admitted in narrated, at the time the deceased made the declaration he
evidence and forms part of the record.24 was in great pain. He expressed a belief on his imminent
death and the hope that his declaration could be used as
Also, while such statement was given, as in the nature evidence regarding the circumstances thereof. A person
of things they are generally in oral form, they are not thereby would not say so if he believes he would recover and be able
rendered inadmissible as they may even be communicated to testify against his assailants. At all events, assuming that
by means of signs. If the declarations have thereafter been declaration is not admissible as a dying declaration, it is still
reduced to writing and signed by the declarant, the writing is admissible as part of the res gestae,27 since it was made
generally held to be the best evidence, and it must be shortly after the startling incident and, under the
produced.25 circumstances, the victim had no opportunity to contrive.

More than once, this Court has taken into consideration We are in conformity with the verdict of the lower court
documents written in a Philippine dialect, unaccompanied by finding appellant guilty of murder since the killing was
the required translation but which had been admitted in qualified by the circumstance of the accused having taken
evidence without objection by the accused. 26 In those advantage of their superior strength. The victim was unarmed
instances, the Court merely ordered official translations to be and defenseless at the time when all of the accused
made. It is true that Section 33, Rule 132 of the revised Rules mercilessly bludgeoned his back and head with big pieces of
of Court now prohibits the admission of such document in an wood. The number of assailants and the nature of the
unofficial language but we believe that in the interest of weapons used against the hapless victim show a notorious
justice, such injunction should not be taken literally here, inequality of force between the latter and the aggressors,
especially since no objection thereto was interposed by assuring a superiority of strength advantageous to Salison
appellant, aside from the fact that appellant, the concerned and his co-accused in the commission of the crime. The
parties and the judicial authorities or personnel concerned accused purposely used excessive force out of proportion to
appeared to be familiar with or knowledgeable of Cebuano in the means of defense available to the person attacked.28
which the document was written. There was, therefore, no Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance was
prejudice caused to appellant and no reversible error was present in the case at bar, the trial court correctly imposed
committed by that lapse of the trial court. the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the same being the
Also, the written declaration was duly presented during medium period in the range of the imposable penalty.
the trial and the person who reduced the victims declaration PREMISES CONSIDERED, the assailed judgment of
into writing was thoroughly questioned by the court and the the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs
prosecutor, and cross-examined by the defense counsel. The against accused-appellant Rey Salison, Jr.
witness was able to explain and discuss what was written in
the declaration and how she came to prepare the same. SO ORDERED.
Significantly, everything written in that declaration of the
victim was confirmed by the Governments eyewitnesses. Romero, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Appellants argument regarding the inadmissibility of the
declaration on a mere technicality would mean the loss of a
vital piece of evidence that could yield the true facts and give
retributive justice in the murder of Valmoria.
Appellant likewise argues that the declaration made by
the victim before the purok leader can not be considered as S