Multiple Admissibility

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODRIGO SALAFRANCA y BELLO

Multiple admissibility: An ante-mortem declaration of a victim of murder, homicide, or parricide

FACTS:

Past midnight on July 31, 1993 Bolanon was stabbed near the Del Pan Sports Complex in
Binondo, Manila; that after stabbing Bolanon, his assailant ran away; that Bolanon was still able
to walk to the house of his uncle Rodolfo B. Estaño in order to seek help; that his uncle rushed
him to the Philippine General Hospital by taxicab; that on their way to the hospital Bolanon told
Estaño that it was Salafranca who had stabbed him; that Bolanon eventually succumbed at the
hospital at 2:30 am despite receiving medical attention; and that the stabbing of Bolanon was
personally witnessed by Augusto Mendoza, then still a minor of 13 years, who was in the
complex at the time.

RTC Ruling: Convicted

The evidence is clear that it was Rodrigo Salafranca who delivered two (2) stabbing blows to the
victim while holding Johnny Bolanon with his left arm encircled around Bolanon’s neck stabbing
the latter with the use of his right hand at the right sub costal area which caused Bolanon’s
death. Not only because it was testified to by Augusto Mendoza but corroborated by Rodolfo
Estaño, the victim’s uncle who brought Bolanon to the hospital and who relayed to the court that
when he aided Bolanon and even on their way to the hospital while the latter was suffering from
hard breathing, victim Bolanon was able to say that it was Rodrigo Salafranca who stabbed him.

The RTC appreciated treachery based on the testimony of Prosecution witness Mendoza on how
Salafranca had effected his attack.
By "encircling his (accused) left arm, while behind the victim on the latter’s neck and stabbing
the victim with the use of his right hand," Salafranca did not give Bolanon "any opportunity to
defend himself."

The RTC noted inconsistencies in Salafranca’s and his witness’ testimonies, as well as the fact
that he had fled from his residence the day after the incident and had stayed away in Bataan for
eight years until his arrest. The RTC opined that had he not been hiding, there would be no
reason for him to immediately leave his residence, especially because he was also working near
the area.

With the above observations and findings, accused Rodrigo Salafranca is hereby found guilty of
the crime of Murder defined and punished under Article 248 as amended by Republic Act No.
7659 in relation to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code with the presence of the qualifying
aggravating circumstance of treachery (248 par. 1 as amended) without any mitigating nor other
aggravating circumstance attendant to its commission, Rodrigo Salafranca is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

CA Ruling: CA affirmed RTC Ruling

“The dying declaration made to his uncle pointing to Salafranca as his assailant, and Salafranca’s
positive identification as the culprit by Mendoza. It stressed that Salafranca’s denial and his alibi
of being in his home during the incident did not overcome the positive identification, especially
as his unexplained flight after the stabbing, leaving his home and employment, constituted a
circumstance highly indicative of his guilt.”

ISSUES:

I. Whether or not the ante-mortem declaration of the victim is admissible.

II. Whether or not a declaration or an utterance can be part of the Res Gestae and thus
admissible as evidence.

RULING:

SC held that appeal lacks merit.

The RTC and the CA correctly concluded that Mendoza and Estaño were credible and reliable. The
determination of the competence and credibility of witnesses at trial rested primarily with the
RTC as the trial court due to its unique and unequalled position of observing their deportment
during testimony, and of assessing their credibility and appreciating their truthfulness, honesty
and candor.
Page 1 of 3
 Multiple Admissibility

Absent a substantial reason to justify the reversal of the assessment made and conclusions
reached by the RTC, the CA as the reviewing court was bound by such assessment and
conclusions, considering that the CA as the appellate court could neither substitute its
assessment nor draw different conclusions without a persuasive showing that the RTC
misappreciated the circumstances or omitted significant evidentiary matters that would alter the
result. Salafranca did not persuasively show a misappreciation or omission by the RTC. Hence,
the Court, in this appeal, is in no position to undo or to contradict the findings of the RTC and the
CA, which were entitled to great weight and respect.

At the time of the utterance Bolanon had seemed to be having a hard time breathing, causing
Estaño to advise him not to talk anymore; and that about ten minutes after his admission at the
emergency ward of the hospital, Bolanon had expired and had been pronounced dead. Such
circumstances qualified the utterance of Bolanon as both a dying declaration and as part of the
res gestae. considering that the Court has recognized that the statement of the victim an hour
before his death and right after the hacking incident bore all the earmarks either of a dying
declaration or part of the res gestae either of which was an exception to the hearsay rule.

Bolanon communicated his ante-mortem statement to Estaño, identifying Salafranca as the

I. All the requisites were met herein. Bolanon communicated his ante-mortem
statement to Estaño, identifying Salafranca as the person who had stabbed him. At
the time of his statement, Bolanon was conscious of his impending death, having
sustained a stab wound in the chest and, according to Estaño, was then experiencing
great difficulty in breathing. Bolanon succumbed in the hospital emergency room a
few minutes from admission, which occurred under three hours after the stabbing.
There is ample authority for the view that the declarant’s belief in the imminence of
his death can be shown by the declarant’s own statements or from circumstantial
evidence, such as the nature of his wounds, statements made in his presence, or by
the opinion of his physician. Bolanon would have been competent to testify on the
subject of the declaration had he survived. Lastly, the dying declaration was offered
in this criminal prosecution for murder in which Bolanon was the victim.

II. A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible
in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur
(See Doctrines/Laws)

Doctrines/Laws

Dying declaration: A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its
hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites concur, namely:

(a) That the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant’s death;

(b) That at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an
impending death;

(c) That the declarant is competent as a witness;

(d) That the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in
which the declarant is a victim.

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

(a) The principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence.

Note:

I. Res gestae has been defined as "those circumstances which are the un-designed
incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible when illustrative of
such act."

II. Res gestae (Generally) refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow
out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and

Page 2 of 3
 Multiple Admissibility

contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and
fabrication.

Page 3 of 3