1. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rodolfo Belbis, Jr. and Alberto Brucales for the homicide of Jose Bahillo.
2. The Court found that the statements made by Jose after he was stabbed did not qualify as a dying declaration because it was not proven he made them under the consciousness of impending death.
3. Jose's statements to his partner were properly admitted as part of the res gestae because they were made spontaneously under the influence of a startling occurrence.
4. The Court also ruled that self-defense could not be claimed because the apparent unlawful aggression had ceased by the time Paul gained possession of the bladed weapon.
1. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rodolfo Belbis, Jr. and Alberto Brucales for the homicide of Jose Bahillo.
2. The Court found that the statements made by Jose after he was stabbed did not qualify as a dying declaration because it was not proven he made them under the consciousness of impending death.
3. Jose's statements to his partner were properly admitted as part of the res gestae because they were made spontaneously under the influence of a startling occurrence.
4. The Court also ruled that self-defense could not be claimed because the apparent unlawful aggression had ceased by the time Paul gained possession of the bladed weapon.
Original Title
4. Belbis Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012
1. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rodolfo Belbis, Jr. and Alberto Brucales for the homicide of Jose Bahillo.
2. The Court found that the statements made by Jose after he was stabbed did not qualify as a dying declaration because it was not proven he made them under the consciousness of impending death.
3. Jose's statements to his partner were properly admitted as part of the res gestae because they were made spontaneously under the influence of a startling occurrence.
4. The Court also ruled that self-defense could not be claimed because the apparent unlawful aggression had ceased by the time Paul gained possession of the bladed weapon.
1. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rodolfo Belbis, Jr. and Alberto Brucales for the homicide of Jose Bahillo.
2. The Court found that the statements made by Jose after he was stabbed did not qualify as a dying declaration because it was not proven he made them under the consciousness of impending death.
3. Jose's statements to his partner were properly admitted as part of the res gestae because they were made spontaneously under the influence of a startling occurrence.
4. The Court also ruled that self-defense could not be claimed because the apparent unlawful aggression had ceased by the time Paul gained possession of the bladed weapon.
● Rodolfo Belbis, Jr. y Competente and Alberto Brucales Vs. People of the Philippines
Subject: A dying declaration should me made under the consciousness of an impending death; In res gestae, the element of spontaneity on the part of the declarant is critical; The unlawful aggression in self-defense must still exist at the time the aggressor was injured by the accused
Facts:
Jose Bahillo was a Barangay Tanod of Sitio Bano, Barangay Naga, Tiwi, Albay. One night, Jose left his house to do his rounds. At around 10:00 p.m., Veronica Dacir, his live-in partner, heard Jose shouting and calling her name. Upon reaching where Jose was, he saw blood at the latter’s back and on his shorts. It was there that Jose told Veronica that he was held by Boboy (petitioner Alberto Brucales), while Paul (petitioner Rodolfo Belbis) Jr. stabbed him. Jose was brought to Albay Provincial Hospital where he was confined for 6 days and released. After sometime, he was again brought to the hospital and was diagnosed to have an inflamed kidney due to infection. There, the police was able to secure his ante-mortem statement. He died the next day.
An information was thus filed against Boboy and Paul for unlawfully attacking Jose causing his death. On their part, they claimed that they merely acted in self-defense and it was in fact Jose who first attacked them with a nightstick, which later on appeared to be a bolo sheathed on a scabbard. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them of the crime of homicide. The same was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
Held:
A dying declaration should me made under the consciousness of an impending death
1. A dying declaration is a statement made by the victim of homicide, referring to the material facts which concern the cause and circumstances of the killing and which is uttered under a fixed belief that death is impending and is certain to follow immediately, or in a very short time, without an opportunity of retraction and in the absence of all hopes of recovery. In other words, it is a statement made by a person after a mortal wound has been inflicted, under a belief that death is certain, stating the facts concerning the cause and circumstances surrounding his/her death. | Page 1 of 3 2. As an exception to the hearsay rule, the requisites for its admissibility are as follows: (1) the declaration is made by the deceased under the consciousness of his impending death; (2) the deceased was at the time competent as a witness; (3) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; and (4) the declaration is offered in a criminal case wherein the declarant's death is the subject of inquiry.
3. The rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders the dying declaration admissible.
4. In this case, the CA erred when it said that the statements made by Jose right after being stabbed and his statement before he died constitute a dying declaration because it was not proven that Jose made it under the consciousness of an impending death.
In res gestae, the element of spontaneity on the part of the declarant is critical
5. There are three requisites to admit evidence as part of the res gestae: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances.
6. The following factors are then considered in determining whether statements offered in evidence as part of the res gestae have been made spontaneously, (1) the time that lapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of the statement; (2) the place where the statement was made; (3) the condition of the declarant when he made the statement; (4) the presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the statement relative thereto; and (5) the nature and circumstances of the statement itself.
7. The statements of Jose should have been admitted as part of res gestae as it was made under the influence of a startling occurrence witnessed by the person who made the declaration before he had time to think. The element of spontaneity is thus critical, which was properly established in this case.
The unlawful aggression in self-defense must still exist at the time the aggressor was injured by the accused
| Page 2 of 3 8. The elements of self-defense are the following: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.
9. To invoke self-defense, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant. In this case however, self-defense cannot be considered as the apparent unlawful aggression ceased when Paul was able to get hold of the bladed weapon. Although there was still some struggle, there is no doubt that the latter, who was in possession of the weapon, already became the unlawful aggressor. The guilt of Boboy and Paul for the crime of Homicide was affirmed.
G.R. No. 198694: February 13, 2013 Ramon Martinez y Goco/Ramon Goco y Martinez, Petitioner, v. People of The Philippines, Respondent. Perlas-Bernabe, J.
