buhale

People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 94570 September 28, 1994

Facts: Atanacia Ramos had a daughter Rosita. Rosita married Domiciano Peralta. They had a daughter Siony. On morning, Siony came to Atanacia at her house frantically told her that Domiciano was strangling Rosita. They went to the Peralta home and found Rosita dead. Domiciano was not there. They immediately reported the matter to the police, who eventually arrested the Domiciano. At the preliminary investigation, Siony executed a sworn statement implicating her father. Domiciano was charged with Parricide. At the trial Atanacia testified as to Siony’s declaration. However, Siony testified for her father and said that though she saw someone strangling her mother, she did not see who it was. After the defense rested, the prosecution presented the investigating judge who testified as to the regularity of the conduct of the preliminary investigation. TC convicts.

Held: The statement Siony made to her grandmother when she rushed to inform her of her father's attack on her mother was part of the res gestae. Res gestae means the "thing done." It refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims or spectators to a crime immediately before, during or immediately after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. Siony rushed to Atanacia immediately upon seeing her father strangling her mother to death. Her spontaneous declaration to Atanacia was part of the res gestae and is assumed to preclude the probability of premeditation of fabrication. Since the utterance was made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses rather than reason and reflection, and during the brief period when consideration of self-interest could not have been fully brought to bear, the utterance may be taken as expressing Siony's real belief as to the facts just observed by her.

Besides, where a witness executes a statement for the prosecution and retracts his testimony and subsequently testified for the defense, the test to decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence. Retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts. Siony testified during the preliminary examination conducted by Judge Paano that the appellant choked her mother to death. Her subsequent retraction was an afterthought and has no probative value at all. 

Furthermore, there are certain circumstances that may have persuaded the daughter to change her former declaration and testify in favor of her father. First, the accused was her father after all, and she probably felt that she should not be responsible for his incarceration for the rest of his life. Second, her testimony was given 7 years after the incident and therefore could not be expected to be as accurate as the statement she made in the preliminary investigation only hours after the killing. Third, during all this time, her father had been under detention and she must have believed that this was punishment enough for him. Lastly, she was, at the time she testified in court, living with her father's sister, who may have greatly influenced her testimony and caused her to recant her earlier statement. 

ECHAVEZ, v. DOZEN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al.

G.R. No. 192916 : October 11, 2010

Facts:

Vicente Echavez was the absolute owner of several lots in Cebu City, which he donated to petitioner Manuel Echavez (Manuel) through a Deed of Donation Mortis Causa.In March 1986, Vicente executed a Contract to Sell over the same lots in favor of Dozen Construction and Development Corporation (Dozen Corporation). In October 1986, they executed two Deeds of Absolute Sale over the same properties covered by the previous Contract to Sell. On November 6, 1986, Vicente died. Emiliano Cabanig, Vicentes nephew, filed a petition for the settlement of Vicentes intestate estate. On the other hand, Manuel filed a petition to approve Vicentes donation mortis causa in his favor and an action to annul the contracts of sale Vicente executed in favor of Dozen Corporation. These cases were jointly heard.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Manuels petition to approve the donation and his action for annulment of the contracts of sale. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTCs decision. aw The CA held that since the donation in favor of Manuel was a donation mortis causa, compliance with the formalities for the validity of wills should have been observed. The CA found that the deed of donation did not contain an attestation clause and was therefore void. Being unsatisfied with the decision of the CA, Manuel filed a petition for review on Certiorari before the SC.

Held:

The CA correctly declared that a donation mortis causa must comply with the formalities prescribed by law for the validity of wills,cra1aw "otherwise, the donation is void and would produce no effect." w Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code should have been applied. That the requirements of attestation and acknowledgment are embodied in two separate provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 805 and 806, respectively) indicates that the law contemplates two distinct acts that serve different purposes. An acknowledgment is made by one executing a deed, declaring before a competent officer or court that the deed or act is his own. On the other hand, the attestation of a will refers to the act of the instrumental witnesses themselves who certify to the execution of the instrument before them and to the manner of its execution.hAlthough the witnesses in the present case acknowledged the execution of the Deed of Donation Mortis Causa before the notary public, this is not the avowal the law requires from the instrumental witnesses to the execution of a decedents will. An attestation must state all the details the third paragraph of Article 805 requires. In the absence of the required avowal by the witnesses themselves, no attestation clause can be deemed embodied in the Acknowledgement of the Deed of Donation Mortis Causa.