People vs. Maglian, G.R. No.

189834, March 30, 2011 (Praeter Intentionem)

Facts:
Accused-appellant Jay Mandy Maglian is charged with parricide for setting on fire and
killing his wife Mary Jay Rios Maglian. On January 4, 2000, the 2 had an argument that
led to the accuse to pour kerosene to his wife. The act resulted to third degree burns on
90% of the victim’s body. The accused brought the victim to the DLSU medical center in
Dasmarinas. The victim’s aunt transferred the victim to East avenue medical center, as
the hospital have a burn unit. But the accused subsequently brought the victim to St.
Claire. Not having a burn unit, the family of the victim then transferred the victim to PGH
but the condition of the victim already worsens. The victim died on February 24, 2000.
Before her death, she was able to give a dying declaration.
The accused contends that the burning of the victim is accidental. He argues that during
their argument, his wife threatened to burn the clothes that he gave. This led to the
struggle of the 2 over the kerosene, which resulted to the pouring of the kerosene on
the body of the victim. The accused argued that the dying declaration of the victim to
some of her friends corroborates this story
The accused further alleged that the he should be atleast eligible for a mitigating
circumstance. The RTC ruled that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The
accused appealed the case to the CA, arguing that the trial court erred in neglecting the
dying declaration of the victim that corroborates the arguments of the accused.

Issue:
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:
The court agreed that the dying declaration is admissible evidence, but must have the
required circumstances. These circumstances are: concerns it concerns the cause and
the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death, it is made when death appears
to be imminent and the declarant is conscious about the impending death, the declarant
would have been competent to testify had he or she survived, and the dying declaration
is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant’s death.
In determining that no intent to commit so grave a wrong is present, the commission of
the crime and the injuries sustained by the victim should be examined. In the case at
bar, the court finds it extremely far-fetched that the accused-appellant accidentally
poured kerosene on the 90% of the body of the victim. This shows that the appellant is
well aware of the fatality that his actions may bring to the victim. Therefore, the
contention that there is mitigating circumstance is denied by the court.