11 Fuentes v. CA

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 14/05/2019, 1*52 PM
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fuentes, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 111692. February 9, 1996.
ALEJANDRO FUENTES, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.
Evidence; Hearsay Rule; Exception; One of the exceptions to the

hearsay rule is that pertaining to declarations made against interest.
Its admissibility is grounded on necessity and trustworthiness.·
One of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule is that
pertaining to declarations made against interest. Sec. 38 of Rule
130 of the Rules of Court provides that „(t)he declaration made by a
person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it
was made so far contrary to declarantÊs own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration
unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.‰ The
admissibility in evidence of such declaration is grounded on
necessity and trustworthiness.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
431
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 431
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ab4e3a02489e8b9cc003600fb002c009e/p/APF963/?username=Guest Page 1 of 12
Same; Same; Declaration Against Interest; Requisites.·There

are three (3) essential requisites for the admissibility of a
declaration against interest: (a) the declarant must not be available
to testify; (b) the declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the
declarant; and (c) the circumstances must render it improbable that
a motive to falsify existed.
Same; Same; Same; The admission against penal interest
cannot be accepted in the instant case as the declarant is not „unable
to testify.‰ No showing that declarant is either dead, mentally
incapacitated or physically incompetent was made which Section 38
of the rules contemplates.·But more importantly, the far weightier
reason why the admission against penal interest cannot be accepted
in the instant case is that the declarant is not „unable to testify.‰
There is no showing that Zoilo is either dead, mentally
incapacitated or physically incompetent which Sec. 38 obviously
contemplates. His mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make
him ipso facto unavailable under this rule. For it is incumbent upon
the defense to produce each and every piece of evidence that can
break the prosecution and assure the acquittal of the accused.
Other than the gratuitous statements of accused-appellant and his
uncle to the effect that Zoilo admitted having killed Malaspina, the
records show that the defense did not exert any serious effort to
produce Zoilo as a witness. Lest we be misunderstood, the Court is
always for the admission of evidence that would let an innocent
declaration of guilt by the real culprit. But this can be open to
abuse, as when the extrajudicial statement is not even
authenticated thus increasing the probability of its fabrication; it is
made to persons who have every reason to lie and falsify; and it is
not altogether clear that the declarant himself is unable to testify.
Criminal Law; Murder; Actual Damages; Actual damages if not
supported by the evidence on record cannot be granted.·The award
by the court a quo of P8,300.00 as actual damages is not supported
by the evidence on record. We have only the testimony of the
victimÊs elder sister stating that she incurred expenses of P8,300.00
in connection with the death of Malaspina. However, no proof of the
actual damages was ever presented in court. Of the expenses
alleged to have been incurred, the Court can only give credence to
those supported by receipts and which appear to have been
genuinely expended in connection with the death of the victim.
Since the actual amount was not substantiated, the same cannot be
granted.
432

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Public AttorneyÊs Office for petitioner.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Still professing innocence and insisting that he is a victim

of mistaken identity, petitioner Alejandro Fuentes, Jr.,
seeks reversal of the decision of 1 the Court of Appeals
affirming his conviction for murder.
At four oÊclock in the morning of 24 June 1989 Julieto
Malaspina together with Godofredo Llames, Honorio Osok
and Alberto Toling, was at a benefit dance at Dump Site,
Tudela, Trento, Agusan del Sur. Petitioner called
Malaspina and placed his right arm on the shoulder of the
latter saying, „Before, I saw
2
you with a long hair but now
you have a short hair.‰ Suddenly petitioner stabbed
Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife. Malaspina
fell to the ground and his companions rushed to his side.
Petitioner fled. Before the victim succumbed to the gaping
wound on his abdomen3 he muttered that Alejandro
Fuentes, Jr., stabbed him.
Dr. Porfirio L. Salubre, the Rural Health Physician who
autopsied the cadaver of Julieto Malaspina on 24 July
1989, reported that death was due to „stab wound at left
lumbar region 1-1/2 in. in length
4
with extracavitation of the
small and large intestines.‰
Petitioner claims on the other hand that it was his
cousin Zoilo Fuentes, Jr., alias „Jonie‰ who knifed
Malaspina; that when the victim was killed he was
conversing with him; that
_______________
1 Decision penned by Justice Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr., with

Justices Oscar M. Herrera and Alfredo J. Lagamon concurring, prom. 28
July 1993; Rollo, pp. 34-39.

2 TSN, 11 July 1991, pp. 9-10.
3 TSN, 18 June 1991, pp. 2-6; 11 July 1991, pp. 8-11; 8 August 1991,
pp. 3-5.
4 Exhs. „A‰ and „B,‰ Records, pp. 69-71; see TSN, 11 July 1991, pp. 2-4.
433
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 433

he was compelled to run away when he heard that

somebody with a bolo and spear would „kill all those from
San Isidro‰ because „Jonie,‰ the killer, was from that place;
that since he was also from San Isidro he sought refuge in
his brotherÊs house where he met „Jonie‰; that „Jonie‰
admitted spontaneously that he stabbed Malaspina
because after a boxing match before the latter untied his
gloves and punched him; that as there were many persons
milling around the house „Jonie‰ jumped out and escaped
through the window; that he was arrested at eight oÊclock
in the morning5
of 24 June 1989 while he was in a store in
the barangay.
The Regional Trial Court of Prosperidad, Agusan del
Sur, found petitioner guilty of murder qualified by
treachery and imposed on him an indeterminate prison
term of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of
reclusion temporal as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of
the victim Julieto Malaspina the amount of P50,000.00
6
and
to pay P8,300.00 as actual damages plus costs.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial
court; hence, this petition for review.
Petitioner contends that the appellate court erred when
it held that petitioner was positively and categorically
identified as the killer of Malaspina, in affirming the
judgment of conviction and in holding petitioner liable for
damages to the heirs of the victim.
Petitioner points to an alleged inconsistency between the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Alberto Toling and
Honorio Osok to the effect that they saw petitioner stab
Malaspina on the right lumbar region, and the testimony of
the attending physician that the victim was stabbed on the

left lumbar region.
This discrepancy is inconsequential. What is material is
that Malaspina was stabbed to death and that three (3)
prose-
_______________
5 TSN, 3 September 1991, pp. 3-7.

6 Judge Evangeline S. Yuipco presiding; Records, pp. 107-108.
434

cution witnesses positively identified petitioner as the knife

wielder. It must be stressed that these witnesses has
known petitioner for quite some time and never had any
personal misunderstanding nor altercation with the latter
as to create any suspicion that they were impelled by ill
motives to falsely implicate him.
That it was another person who committed the offense is
too incredible. No less than petitionerÊs own witness, Nerio
Biscocho who claimed he also saw the killing, testified that
Alejandro Fuentes, Jr., the petitioner, and „Jonie‰ Fuentes
are one and the same person. Thus·
COURT:
Q. Who is this Joni Fuentes and Alejandro Fuentes?
A. That Joni Fuentes is the same of that or the accused
Alejandro Fuentes. I do not7 know his real name but he
is called as Joni, sir, x x x x
On cross-examination witness Biscocho further admitted

that he himself would call petitioner Alejandro Fuentes,
Jr., as „Joni‰ or „Jonie‰ Fuentes, as some of his friends did,
but victim8
Malaspina occasionally called petitioner
„Junior.‰
Petitioner would make much of the alleged confession of
Zoilo Fuentes, Jr., since it is a declaration against penal
interest and therefore an exception to the hearsay rule. The

socalled confession of Zoilo was allegedly given to
Felicisimo Fuentes, the uncle of petitioner and Zoilo, who
in turn relayed the matter to P/Sgt. Benjamin Conde, Jr.
Felicisimo testified that on 24 June 1989 while he was at
Barangay San Isidro, Zoilo Fuentes, Jr., confessed that he
killed Malaspina in „retaliation‰; that he even showed him
the knife he used and asked his help in finding a lawyer, in
securing bail and, if possible, in working out a settlement
with the relatives of the deceased. The following day
however he learned that the self-
_______________
7 TSN, 29 August 1991, pp. 7-8.

8 Id., pp. 13-14.
435
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 435

confessed killer was gone and that petitioner

9
had been
arrested for a crime he did not commit.
For his part, Station Commander P/Sgt. Conde, Jr.,
testified that after the criminal information for murder was
filed on 26 July 1989, petitioner met Felicisimo who
informed him of the disclosure by Zoilo. Conde then advised
Felicisimo that if it was true that it was Zoilo who fatally
stabbed Malaspina, Felicisimo must persuade Zoilo to
surrender. Conde then personally went to Barangay San
Isidro to investigate. There 10
he was told by the townsfolk
that Zoilo had already fled.
One of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule is
that pertaining to declarations made against interest. Sec.
38 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that „(t)he
declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify,
against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in
the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary
to declarantÊs own interest, that a reasonable man in his
position would not have made the declaration unless he
believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors in interest and against third

persons.‰ The admissibility in evidence of such11
declaration
is grounded on necessity and trustworthiness.
There are three (3) essential requisites for the
admissibility of a declaration against interest: (a) the
declarant must not be available to testify; (b) the
declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the
declarant; and (c) the circumstances must render it
improbable that a motive to falsify existed.
In the instant case, we find that the declaration
particularly against penal interest attributed to Zoilo
Fuentes, Jr. is not admissible in evidence as an exception to
12
the hearsay rule. We are not unaware of People v. Toledo,
a 1928 case, where Justice Malcolm writing for the Court
endeavored to
_______________
9 TSN, 29 August 1991, pp. 3-5.

10 Id., 4 September 1991, pp. 2-3.
11 Jones on Evidence, 2nd ed., Sec. 1164, cited in Francisco, The
Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. III, 1990 Ed., p. 554.
12 51 Phil. 825 (1928).
436

reexamine the declaration of third parties made contrary to

their penal interest. In that case, the protagonists Holgado
and Morales engaged in a bolo duel. Morales was killed
almost instantly. Holgado who was seriously wounded gave
a sworn statement (Exh. 1) before the municipal president
declaring that when he and Morales fought there was
nobody else present. One (1) month later Holgado died from
his wounds. While the Court agreed that Toledo, who
reportedly intervened in the fight and dealt the mortal
blow, should be exonerated on reasonable doubt, the
members did not reach an accord on the admissibility of
Exh. 1. One group would totally disregard Exh. 1 since
there was ample testimonial evidence to support an
acquittal. The second group considered Exh. 1 as part of

the res gestae as it was made on the same morning when
the fight occurred. A third group, to which Justice Malcolm
belonged, opined that the court below erred in not
admitting Exh. 1 as the statement of a fact against penal
interest.
For all its attempt to demonstrate the arbitrariness
behind the rejection in certain cases of declarations against
penal interest, the Toledo case cannot be applied in the
instant case which is remarkably different. Consider this
factual scenario: the alleged declarant Zoilo Fuentes, Jr., a
cousin of accused-appellant, verbally admitted to the latter,
and later to their common uncle Felicisimo Fuentes, that
he (Zoilo) killed the victim because of a grudge, after which
he disappeared. One striking feature that militates against
the acceptance of such a statement is its patent
untrustworthiness. Zoilo who is related to accused-
appellant had every motive to prevaricate. The same can be
said of accused-appellant and his uncle Felicisimo.
Secondly, we need not resort to legal rhetorics to find that
the admission of such a statement may likewise be, 13
according to Wigmore, „shocking to the sense of justice.‰
Let us assume that the trial court did admit the statement
of Zoilo and on that basis acquitted accused-appellant. Let
us assume further that Zoilo was subsequently captured
and upon being
_______________
13 Id., p. 836.
437
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 437

confronted with his admission of guilt readily repudiated

the same. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can
bind Zoilo legally to that statement.
But more importantly, the far weightier reason why the
admission against penal interest cannot be accepted in the
instant case is that the declarant is not „unable to testify.‰
There is no showing that Zoilo is either dead, mentally

incapacitated or physically incompetent which Sec. 38
obviously contemplates. His mere absence from the
jurisdiction
14
does not make him ipso facto unavailable under
this rule. For it is incumbent upon the defense to produce
each and every piece of evidence that can break the
prosecution and assure the acquittal of the accused. Other
than the gratuitous statements of accused-appellant and
his uncle to the effect that Zoilo admitted having killed
Malaspina, the records show that the defense did not exert
any serious effort to produce Zoilo as a witness. Lest we be
misunderstood, the Court is always for the admission of
evidence that would let an innocent declaration of guilt by
the real culprit. But this can be open to abuse, as when the
extrajudicial statement is not even authenticated thus
increasing the probability of its fabrication; it is made to
persons who have every reason to lie and falsify; and it is
not altogether clear that the declarant himself is unable to
testify. Thus, for this case at least, exclusion is the prudent
recourse as explained in Toledo·
The purpose of all evidence is to get at the truth. The reason for the
hearsay rule is that the extrajudicial and unsworn statement of
another is not the best method of serving this purpose. In other
words, the great possibility of the fabrication of falsehoods, and the
inability to prove their untruth, requires that the doors be closed to
15
such evidence.
_______________
14 See Weber v. Chicago, R.I. & P. RY. Co., 151 N.W. 852, 862, cited in
20 Am. Jur. 468; People v. Catalino, No. L-25403, 15 March 1968, 22
SCRA 1091, 1107.
15 Id., p. 838.
438

The Court of Appeals as well as the trial court correctly

determined the crime to be murder qualified by treachery.
The suddenness of the attack, without any provocation

from the unsuspecting 16
victim, made the stabbing of
Malaspina treacherous. However, the court a quo erred in
imposing an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as
maximum. Murder under Art. 248 of The Revised Penal
Code is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death. Since aside from treachery qualifying the
crime to murder there is no other modifying circumstance
proved, the medium period of the penalty, i.e. 17reclusion
perpetua, should have been imposed on petitioner.
Petitioner maintains that assuming that he committed
the crime it is error to hold him answerable for P8,300.00
as actual damages on the basis of the mere testimony of the
victimÊs sister, Angelina Serrano, without any tangible
document to support such claim. This is a valid point. In
crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant is liable for all
damages which are the natural and probable
18
consequences
of the act or omission complained of. To seek recovery for
actual damages it is essential that the injured party proves
the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of
certainty premised upon
19
competent proof and on the best
evidence available. Courts cannot simply rely on
speculation, conjecture or guesswork
20
in determining the
fact and amount of damages.
_______________
16 People v. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 96125, 31 August 1995; People v. Loto,

G.R. Nos. 114523-24, 5 September 1995.
17 People v. Laspona, G.R. No. 108084, 14 August 1995; People v.
Mirabite, G.R. Nos. 111294-95, 7 September 1995.
18 Art. 2202, New Civil Code.
19 Art. 2199, id.
20 People v. Degoma, G.R. Nos. 89404-05, 22 May 1992, 209 SCRA 266;
People v. Arguelles, G.R. No. 102539, 17 May 1993, 222 SCRA 166;
Dichoso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 55613, 10 December 1990, 192
SCRA 169.
439
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 439

The award by the court a quo of P8,300.00 as actual

damages is not supported by the evidence on record. We
have only the testimony of the victimÊs elder sister stating
that she incurred expenses
21
of P8,300.00 in connection with
the death of Malaspina. However, no proof of the actual
damages was ever presented in court. Of the expenses
alleged to have been incurred, the Court can only give
credence to those supported by receipts and which appear
to have been genuinely expended in connection with the
death of the victim. Since the actual amount
22
was not
substantiated, the same cannot be granted.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from finding
petitioner ALEJANDRO FUENTES, JR. guilty of
MURDER and directing him to indemnify the heirs of
Julieto Malaspina in the amount of P50,000.00 plus costs is
AFFIRMED with the modification that the penalty
imposed should be as it is corrected to reclusion perpetua,
and the award of actual damages is deleted.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan and

Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
_______________
21 TSN, 19 June 1991, p. 4.

22 In People v. Wenceslao, G.R. No. 95583, 12 August 1992, 212 SCRA
560, the Court disallowed claim for actual damages, the same being
merely based on a typewritten list of expenses submitted by the father of
the deceased without any competent proof presented in court.
440

L.T. Datu and Co., Inc. vs. NLRC
Notes.·Declaration against interest may be received in

evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. (Alberto vs.

Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 745 [1994])
Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed
but must be duly proved with reasonable degree of
certainty. (Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
226 SCRA 423 [1993])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

11 Fuentes v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Fuentes v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 14/05/2019, 1*52 PM

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ALEJANDRO FUENTES, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF

Evidence; Hearsay Rule; Exception; One of the exceptions to the

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 431

Fuentes, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Declaration Against Interest; Requisites.·There

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Still professing innocence and insisting that he is a victim

1 Decision penned by Justice Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr., with

July 1993; Rollo, pp. 34-39.

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 433

he was compelled to run away when he heard that

the attending physician that the victim was stabbed on the

5 TSN, 3 September 1991, pp. 3-7.

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

cution witnesses positively identified petitioner as the knife

On cross-examination witness Biscocho further admitted

interest and therefore an exception to the hearsay rule. The

7 TSN, 29 August 1991, pp. 7-8.

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 435

confessed killer was gone and that petitioner

himself or his successors in interest and against third

9 TSN, 29 August 1991, pp. 3-5.

436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

reexamine the declaration of third parties made contrary to

acquittal. The second group considered Exh. 1 as part of

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 437

confronted with his admission of guilt readily repudiated

There is no showing that Zoilo is either dead, mentally

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Court of Appeals as well as the trial court correctly

The suddenness of the attack, without any provocation

16 People v. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 96125, 31 August 1995; People v. Loto,

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 439

The award by the court a quo of P8,300.00 as actual

Padilla (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan and

Judgment affirmed with modification.

21 TSN, 19 June 1991, p. 4.

440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Notes.·Declaration against interest may be received in

evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. (Alberto vs.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like