Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People v. Peña
G.R. No. 133964
February 13, 2002
Facts
Issue
Whether the statement of the victim Jimbo Pelagio as well as the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on the
victim’s declaration can be considered as part of the res gestae, hence, an exception to the hearsay rule.
Ruling
1. The requisites for the admissibility of dying declarations are: (1) at the time the declaration was made,
death was imminent and the declarant was conscious of that fact; (2) the declaration refers to the cause
and surrounding circumstances of such death; (3) the declaration relates to facts which the victim was
competent to testify to; (4) the declarant thereafter died; and (5) the declaration is offered in a criminal
case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry.
2. The first element is lacking. It was not established with certainty whether Pelagio uttered his statement
with consciousness of his impending death. While he was in pain when he made his statement, he
expressly stated that Peña only pistol-whipped him and almost shot him.
emmanuelgumpalbaccaymbacpa
3. The crucial factor to consider is the contemporaneity of the moment when the statement was made and
the moment of the realization of death. The time the statement was being made must also be the time the
victim was aware that he was dying.
T: Alam mo ba ang dahilan kung bakit ka naririto sa Valenzuela Emergency T: Dati mo bang kilala si Ramil Peña?
Hospital at kinukunan ka ng salaysay? S: Opo.
S: Opo, dahil pinagpapalo po ako ng baril ni RAMIL PEÑA sa ulo at kinuha T: Ano ba ang tatak ng tricycle mo?
and tricycle kong minamaneho. S: Yamaha RS-100, kulay itim.
T: Taga saan itong si Ramil Peña? T: Sino and may-ari ng tricycle?
S: Sa Dulong Tangke, Valenzuela, (Malinta), M.M. S: Si Rey Dagul.
T: Saan, kailan at anong oras nangyari ito? T: Binaril ka ba ni Ramil?
S: Sa Paco, Obando, Bulacan, kaninang ika-8 ng Disyembre 1995 sa ganap S: Muntik na ho.
na ika-4:15 ng umaga. T: Bakit sa iyo ginawa ni Ramil and bagay na ito?
T: Sakay mo ba itong si Ramil Peña? S: Ewan ko ho.
S: Oho, sumakay sa may gasolinahan ng Petron sa Malinta, Valenzuela, M.M.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
A criminal complaint was filed against Palanas before the RTC of Pasig
FACTS:
6:40 in the morning on Block 14, Kenneth St. corner Eusebio Ave. Pasig City. SP02 Ramon Borre (SP02
Borre) brought his 5 month old grandson outside his residence. P03 Leopoldo Zapanta (P03 Zapanta) while was
watching TV in Borre’s house, as he had slept over, he heard 4 successive gunshots and saw 2 men armed with .38
caliber revolvers standing a meter away from Borre. He saw Bernabe Palanas (Palanas) but could not identify the
other shooter. Zapanta and Borre’s stepson Ramil Ranola (Ranola) brought Borre to the Pasig City General Hospital.
On the way, Borre told Ranola and Zapanta that it was “Abe/ Aspog/ Abe Palanas” who shot him. This was repeated to
his wife Resurreccion Borre (Resurreccion). 11:00 that day, Borred died in the hospital due to the gunshot wounds.
During the trial, Planas used the defese of alibi and alleged that on the day of the incident he was in Paranaque
city attending his sick father, and attended a baptism in Tondo, whereafter he then went back to his father to
Paranaque. Upon returning to his home in the evening it was only then he knew of such incident due to him being
accused by Resureccion of being the murderer of Borre.
RTC declared that Planas was guity beyond reasonable doubt stating that Borre’s statement was res gestae and
due to positive identification by Zapanta. RTC gave no credence to Palana’s alibi as Paranaque and Pasig could be
travelled to in 1hr. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, and considered the statement of Borre as a dying
declaration.
ISSUE:
Whether the statement of Borre was a dying declaration
HELD:
YES. The CA is also correct in admitting SPO2 Borre’s statements on his way to the hospital as evidence, both
as a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae.
For a dying declaration to constitute an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, four (4) conditions must
concur:
(a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death;
(b) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending death;
(c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and
(d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the
victim.
On the other hand, a statement to be deemed to form part of the res gestae, and thus, constitute another
exception to the rule on hearsay evidence, requires the concurrence of the following requisites:
(a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(b) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
In the case at bar, SPO2 Borre’s statements constitute a dying declaration, given that they pertained to the
cause and circumstances of his death and taking into consideration the number and severity of his wounds, it may be
reasonably presumed that he uttered the same under a fixed belief that his own death was already imminent. This
declaration is considered evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of
his impending death would make a careless and false accusation. Verily, because the declaration was made in
extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is
induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, the law deems this as a situation so solemn and
awful as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in court.
In the same vein, SPO2 Borre’s statements may likewise be deemed to form part of the res gestae. “Res gestae
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 contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.
The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be
regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony.”
In this case, SPO2 Borre’s statements refer to a startling occurrence, i.e., him being shot by Palanas and his
companion. While on his way to the hospital, SPO2 Borre had no time to contrive the identification of his assailants.
Hence, his utterance was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling occurrence. Definitely, such
statement is relevant because it identified Palanas as one of the authors of the crime. Therefore, the killing of SPO2
Borre, perpetrated by Palanas, is adequately proven by the prosecution.