University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic DYING DECLARATION

Case Name MARTURILLAS V. PEOPLE
Ponente CJ. Panganiban

DOCTRINE

General Rule: witnesses can testify only to those facts derived from their own perception.

Exception: A report in open court of a dying person’s declaration made under the consciousness of an impending death that
is the subject of inquiry in the case.

RELEVANT FACTS

1. Petitioner Celestino Marturillas was charged and convicted with homicide for the death of Artemio Pantinople by
the RTC. He appealed his conviction to the CA but the appellate court affirmed the RTC. The Prosecution and the
Defense present different versions of the events:

Prosecution Defense
Lito Santos (Witness), a forty-three-year old farmer and On that same evening at around 8:30 p.m. herein Petitioner
resident of Davao City, testified that about 6:00 o’clock in former Barangay Captain Celestino Marturillas was roused
the afternoon of November 4, 1998, he saw his neighbor from his sleep at his house in Barangay Gatungan,
and ‘kumpare’ Artemio Pantinople arrive on board a Bunawan District, Davao City by his wife since Kagawads
jeepney from Bunawan, Davao City. Artemio was carrying Jimmy Balugo and Norman Libre (Barangay Kagawads of
a truck battery, some corn bran and rice. They talked for a Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City) wanted to see
while concerning their livelihood afterwhich, Artemio him. Dazed after just having risen from bed, Petitioner was
proceeded to connect the battery to the fluorescent lamps rubbing his eyes when he met the two Kagawads inside his
in his store. Artemio’s store was located about five (5) house. He was informed that a resident of his barangay,
meters away from Lito’s house. Artemio Pantinople, had just been shot. Petitioner at once
ordered his Kagawads to assemble the members of the
"After installing the battery to the fluorescent lamps, SCAA (Special Civilian Armed [Auxiliary]) so that they could
Artemio sat for a while on a bench located in front of his be escorted to the crime scene some 250 meters away. As
store. Then, Cecilia Santos, Lito’s wife, called him and soon as the SCAA’s were contacted, they (Petitioner,
Artemio for supper. Artemio obliged. Lito, opting to eat later, Kagawads Libre and Balugo including Wiliam Gabas, Eddie
served Artemio and Cecilia the food. After eating, Artemio Loyahan and Junior Marturillas - the last three being SCAA
returned to the bench and sat on it again together with his members) then proceeded to the crime scene to determine
tree (3) children, namely: Janice, Saysay and Pitpit. what assistance they could render.

Lito was eating supper in their kitchen when he heard a While approaching the store owned by the Pantinople’s and
gunshot. From a distance of about ten (10) meters, he also not very far from where the deceased lay sprawled,
noticed smoke and fire coming from the muzzle of a big Petitioner was met by Ernita Pantinople (wife of the
gun. Moments later, he saw Artemio clasping his chest and deceased-Artemio Pantinople) who was very mad and
staggering backwards to the direction of his (Lito’s) kitchen. belligerent. She immediately accused Petitioner of having
shot her husband instead of Lito Santos who was his
Artemio shouted to him, ‘Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil ko ni enemy. Petitioner was taken aback by the instant
kapitan,’ meaning ‘Help me, Pre, I was shot by the accusation against him. He explained that he just came
captain.’ However, Lito did not approach Artemio right from his house where he was roused by his Kagawads from
after the shooting incident because Cecilia warned him his sleep. Not being able to talk sense with Ernita
that he might also be shot. Pantinople, Petitioner and his companions backed off to
avoid a heated confrontation. Petitioner instead decided to
go back to his house along with his companions.
Lito did not see the person who shot Artemio because his
attention was then focused on Artemio.
Upon reaching his house, Petitioner instructed Kagawad
Jimmy Balugo to contact the Bunawan Police Station and
inform them what transpired. Not knowing the radio
 University of the Philippines College of Law

Shortly, Lito saw Ernita Pantinople, the wife of Artemio, frequency of the local police, Kagawad Balugo instead
coming from her house towards the direction where radioed officials of nearby Barangay San Isidro requesting
Artemio was sprawled on the ground. Ernita was hysterical, them to contact the Bunawan PNP for police assistance
jumping and shouting, ‘Kapitan, bakit mo binaril and aking since someone was shot in their locality.
asawa.’ She also repeatedly cried for help.
Moments later, PO2 Mariano Operario and another police
officer arrived at the house of Petitioner and when
confronted by the latter, he was informed by PO2 Operario
that he was the principal suspect in the slaying of Artemio
Pantinople. Upon their invitation, Petitioner immediately
went with the said police officers for questioning at the
Bunawan Police Station. He also took with him his
government-issued M-14 Rifle and one magazine of live M-
14 ammunition which Petitioner turned over for safe
keeping with the Bunawan PNP. The police blotter showed
that Petitioner surrendered his M-14 rifle with live
ammunition to SPO1 Estrellan and PO3 Sendrijas of the
Bunawan PNP at around 10:45 p.m. of November 4, 1998.

2. In this appeal, petitioner raises two issues:

 whether the prosecution’s evidence is credible. Under the first main issue, he questions:
o the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses;
o the alleged inconsistencies between their Affidavits and court testimonies;
o and the plausibility of the allegation that the victim had uttered, "Tabangi ko p’re, gipusil ko ni kapitan"
("Help me p’re, I was shot by the captain"), which was considered by the two lower courts either as his
dying declaration or as part of res gestae.
 whether it is sufficient to convict him of homicide. Under the second main issue, petitioner contends:
o that the burden of proof was erroneously shifted to him;
o that there should have been no finding of guilt because of the negative results of the paraffin test;
o that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the type of gun used in the commission of the crime

Issue Ratio
WON the YES.
prosecution’s
evidence is ON positive identification:
credible?
Marturillas contends that it was inconceivable for Prosecution Witness Ernita Pantinople -- the
victim’s wife -- to have identified him as the assassin. According to him, her house was "a good fifty
Note: I did not (50) meters away from the crime scene," which was "enveloped in pitch darkness." Because of the
include everything alleged improbability, he insists that her testimony materially contradicted her Affidavit. The Affidavit
because the supposedly proved that she had not recognized her husband from where she was standing during
court’s discussion the shooting. If she had failed to identify the victim, petitioner asks, "how was it possible for her to
was pretty long. conclude that it was [p]etitioner whom she claims she saw fleeing from the scene?"

SC:

 Ernita’s testimony that she saw [petitioner] at the crime scene is credible because the spot
where Artemio was shot was only 30 meters away from her house. Undoubtedly, Ernita is
familiar with [petitioner], who is her neighbor, and a long-time barangay captain of Barangay
Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City when the incident took place. Ernita was also able
to see his face while he was running away from the crime scene.
 University of the Philippines College of Law

 The identification of a person can be established through familiarity with one’s physical
features. Once a person has gained familiarity with one another, identification becomes
quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. Judicial notice can also be taken of
the fact that people in rural communities generally know each other both by face and name,
and can be expected to know each other’s distinct and particular features and
characteristics."

This holding confirms the findings of fact of the RTC. Settled is the rule that on questions of the
credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the
highest degree of respect.

Petitioner doubts whether Ernita could have accurately identified him at the scene of the crime,
considering that it was dark at that time; that there were trees obstructing her view; and that her
house was fifty (50) meters away from where the crime was committed.

SC:

Ernita’s recognition of the assailant was made possible by the lighted two fluorescent lamps in their
store and by the full moon. x x x. In corroboration, Lito testified that the place where the shooting
occurred was bright.

"The trees and plants growing in between Ernita’s house and the place where Artemio was shot to
death did not impede her view of the assailant. To be sure, the prosecution presented photographs
of the scene of the crime and its immediate vicinities. These photographs gave a clear picture of the
place where Artemio was shot. Admittedly, there are some trees and plants growing in between the
place where the house of Ernita was located and the spot where Artemio was shot. Notably,
however, there is only one gemilina tree, some coconut trees and young banana plants growing in
the place where Artemio was shot. The trees and banana plants have slender trunks which could
not have posed an obstacle to Ernita’s view of the crime scene from the kitchen window of her house
especially so that she was in an elevated position.
WON the words YES. The dying declaration of the victim was complete, as it was "a full expression of all
uttered by the that he intended to say as conveying his meaning. It [was] complete and [was] not merely
victim can be fragmentary." Testified to by his wife and neighbor, his dying declaration was not only
admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, but was also a weighty and telling
considered as part
piece of evidence.
of his dying
declaration?
[RELEVANT] Ernita positively testified that immediately after the shooting, she had heard her husband say, "Help
me p’re, I was shot by the captain." This statement was corroborated by another witness, Lito
Santos, who testified on the events immediately preceding and subsequent to the shooting.

Dying Declaration

Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, provides:

"The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of impending death,
may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death."
 University of the Philippines College of Law

General Rule: witnesses can testify only to those facts derived from their own perception. Exception:
A report in open court of a dying person’s declaration made under the consciousness of an
impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case.

Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a victim on the verge of death, are entitled to the
highest degree of credence and respect. Persons aware of an impending death have been known
to be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous in their accusations. The dying
declaration is given credence, on the premise that no one who knows of one’s impending
death will make a careless and false accusation. Hence, not infrequently, pronouncements of
guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the dying declaration of the deceased victim.

To be admissible, a dying declaration must

1) refer to the cause and circumstances surrounding the declarant’s death;

2) be made under the consciousness of an impending death;

3) be made freely and voluntarily without coercion or suggestions of improper influence;

4) be offered in a criminal case, in which the death of the declarant is the subject of inquiry; and

5) have been made by a declarant competent to testify as a witness, had that person been called
upon to testify.

AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

 The statement of the deceased certainly concerned the cause and circumstances
surrounding his death. He pointed to the person who had shot him.
 As established by the prosecution, petitioner was the only person referred to as kapitan in
their place.
 It was also established that the declarant, at the time he had given the dying declaration,
was under a consciousness of his impending death.
 True, he made no express statement showing that he was conscious of his impending
death. The law, however, does not require the declarant to state explicitly a
perception of the inevitability of death. The perception may be established from
surrounding circumstances, such as the nature of the declarant’s injury and conduct that
would justify a conclusion that there was a consciousness of impending death. Even if the
declarant did not make an explicit statement of that realization, the degree and seriousness
of the words and the fact that death occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as
sufficient evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with full consciousness of
being in a dying condition.
 Also, the statement was made freely and voluntarily, without coercion or suggestion,
and was offered as evidence in a criminal case for homicide. In this case, the declarant
was the victim who, at the time he uttered the dying declaration, was competent as a
witness.
 University of the Philippines College of Law

Whether or not the YES. The fact that the victim’s statement constituted a dying declaration does not preclude
dying declaration it from being admitted as part of the res gestae, if the elements of both are present.
can also be
considered part of Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
his Res Gestae?
Part of the res gestae. -- Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking
[RELEVANT DIN] place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof,
may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as
part of the res gestae."

 Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators
to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its commission.
 spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any
opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement.
 An important consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and the
statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental
balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation.

A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the
hearsay rule, when the following requisites concur:

1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;

2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and

3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.

AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE:

 The principal act, the shooting, was a startling occurrence.

 Immediately after, while he was still under the exciting influence of the startling occurrence,
the victim made the declaration without any prior opportunity to contrive a story implicating
petitioner.
 Also, the declaration concerned the one who shot the victim.

Aside from the victim’s statement, which is part of the res gestae, that of Ernita -- "Kapitan, ngano
nimo gipatay ang akong bana?" ("Captain, why did you shoot my husband?") -- may be considered
to be in the same category. Her statement was about the same startling occurrence; it was uttered
spontaneously, right after the shooting, while she had no opportunity to concoct a story against
petitioner; and it related to the circumstances of the shooting.
 University of the Philippines College of Law

WON the evidence YES.

of the prosecution
is sufficient to Having established the evidence for the prosecution, we now address the argument of petitioner
support that the appellate court had effectively shifted the burden of proof to him. He asserts that the
conviction? prosecution should never rely on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of its evidence,
implying that there was no sufficient evidence to convict him.

We disagree. The totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain
the conviction of petitioner. The dying declaration made by the victim immediately prior to
his death constitutes evidence of the highest order as to the cause of his death and of the
identity of the assailant.This damning evidence, coupled with the proven facts presented by
the prosecution, leads to the logical conclusion that petitioner is guilty of the crime charged.

What were the First. Santos testified that he had heard a gunshot; and seen smoke coming from the muzzle of a
circumstances gun, as well as the victim staggering backwards while shouting, "Help me p’re, I was shot by the
which would captain." This statement was duly established, and the testimony of Santos confirmed the events
that had occurred. It should be understandable that "p’re" referred to Santos, considering that he
produce conviction
and the victim were conversing just before the shooting took place. It was also established that the
beyond two called each other "p’re," because Santos was the godfather of the victim’s child. 5
reasonable douby
in this case? Second. Ernita testified that she had heard a gunshot and her husband’s utterance, "Help me p’re,
I was shot by the captain," then saw petitioner in a black jacket and camouflage pants running away
from the crime scene while carrying a firearm.

Third. Ernita’s statement, "Captain, why did you shoot my husband?" was established as part of the
res gestae.

Fourth. The version of the events given by petitioner is simply implausible. As the incumbent
barangay captain, it should have been his responsibility to go immediately to the crime scene and
investigate the shooting. Instead, he avers that when he went to the situs of the crime, the wife of
the victim was already shouting and accusing him of being the assailant, so he just left. This reaction
was very unlikely of an innocent barangay captain, who would simply want to investigate a crime.
Often have we ruled that the first impulse of innocent persons when accused of wrongdoing is to
express their innocence at the first opportune time.55

Fifth. The prosecution was able to establish motive on the part of petitioner. The victim’s wife
positively testified that prior to the shooting, her husband was trying to close a real estate transaction
which petitioner tried to block. This showed petitioner’s antagonism towards the victim
Paraffin Test Petitioner takes issue with the negative results of the paraffin test done on him. While they were
negative, that fact alone did not ipso facto prove that he was innocent. Time and time again, this
Court has held that a negative paraffin test result is not a conclusive proof that a person has not
fired a gun.63 In other words, it is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when
culprits wear gloves, wash their hands afterwards, or are bathed in perspiration. 64 Besides, the
prosecution was able to establish the events during the shooting, including the presence of petitioner
at the scene of the crime. Hence, all other matters, such as the negative paraffin test result, are of
lesser probative value.
 University of the Philippines College of Law

Corpus Delicti Petitioner then argues that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the type of gun used in the
shooting. Suffice it to say that this contention hardly dents the latter’s case. As correctly found by
the appellate court, the prosecution was able to give sufficient proof of the corpus delicti -- the fact
that a crime had actually been committed

RULING

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED, subject to the modification
in the award of damages set forth here. Costs against petitioner.