PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONITO BOLLER alias
Obat, DIANITO BOLLER alias Nonoy and FRANCISCO BOLLER alias Bayani,
accused-appellants. [G.R. Nos. 144222-24. April 3, 2002]
Facts:
Obat, Nonoy and Bayani Boller opened fire at the copra kiln where Arsenio Orquin, Jesus Orquin and Lolito de la Cruz were working which resulted to their death. Jacinto, the brother of Jesus was able to escape and has positively identified the three accused.
Moments later, Nixon de la Cruz, son of Lolito reported the incident to Barangay Captain Gutardo Berbis. Upon instruction of Berbis, Kagawad Pedro Sumagdon reduced to writing the dying declaration of Lolito using his own words and did not read to the victim what he wrote down, or asked him to sign it. He asked Lolito, “Why are you wounded?” Lolito answered, “I was shot by Obat Boller, Nonoy Boller and Bayani Boller.” Sumagdon wrote down the statement, which is translated in English as follows: Statement of Lolito de la Cruz who was shot and these were the persons whom he saw, NonoyBoller, ObatBoller and BayaniBoller, and they were clothed with military uniforms and some of them are members of CHDF of Bu-aw and the place where the shooting incident took place is near the coconut plantation of Arsenio Orquin.
Lolito’s declaration was witnessed and heard by Roberto Tolin and PoncianoOrquin. The written statement, entitled “Ante-Mortem,” was signed by Sumagdon, Tolin and Orquin.
Issue:
Is the dying declaration admissible?
Held:
Yes. The four requisites for the dying declaration to be admissible in evidence are present in the case at bar. First, the statement of Lolito de la Cruz certainly pertains to the cause and surrounding circumstance that eventually led to his death. He was able to identify who the perpetrators were, their appearances and the place where the incident happened. Second, when the declaration was made he was under consciousness of an impending death wherein he sustained fatal wounds and survival was a remote possibility, he died before reaching to the hospital. Third, the victim is competent as a witness. Finally, the statement was offered in a criminal case in which the declarant was the victim.
Moreover, the Rules of Court do not require that the witness repeat the exact words of the victim, it being sufficient that he will testify on the substance of what was said by the declarant. The rule is that a dying declaration may be oral or written. If oral, the witness who heard it may testify thereto without the necessity of reproducing the word of the decedent, if he is able to give the substance thereof. An unsigned dying declaration may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it down.
Facts:
Obat, Nonoy and Bayani Boller opened fire at the copra kiln where Arsenio Orquin, Jesus Orquin and Lolito de la Cruz were working which resulted to their death. Jacinto, the brother of Jesus was able to escape and has positively identified the three accused.
Moments later, Nixon de la Cruz, son of Lolito reported the incident to Barangay Captain Gutardo Berbis. Upon instruction of Berbis, Kagawad Pedro Sumagdon reduced to writing the dying declaration of Lolito using his own words and did not read to the victim what he wrote down, or asked him to sign it. He asked Lolito, “Why are you wounded?” Lolito answered, “I was shot by Obat Boller, Nonoy Boller and Bayani Boller.” Sumagdon wrote down the statement, which is translated in English as follows: Statement of Lolito de la Cruz who was shot and these were the persons whom he saw, NonoyBoller, ObatBoller and BayaniBoller, and they were clothed with military uniforms and some of them are members of CHDF of Bu-aw and the place where the shooting incident took place is near the coconut plantation of Arsenio Orquin.
Lolito’s declaration was witnessed and heard by Roberto Tolin and PoncianoOrquin. The written statement, entitled “Ante-Mortem,” was signed by Sumagdon, Tolin and Orquin.
Issue:
Is the dying declaration admissible?
Held:
Yes. The four requisites for the dying declaration to be admissible in evidence are present in the case at bar. First, the statement of Lolito de la Cruz certainly pertains to the cause and surrounding circumstance that eventually led to his death. He was able to identify who the perpetrators were, their appearances and the place where the incident happened. Second, when the declaration was made he was under consciousness of an impending death wherein he sustained fatal wounds and survival was a remote possibility, he died before reaching to the hospital. Third, the victim is competent as a witness. Finally, the statement was offered in a criminal case in which the declarant was the victim.
Moreover, the Rules of Court do not require that the witness repeat the exact words of the victim, it being sufficient that he will testify on the substance of what was said by the declarant. The rule is that a dying declaration may be oral or written. If oral, the witness who heard it may testify thereto without the necessity of reproducing the word of the decedent, if he is able to give the substance thereof. An unsigned dying declaration may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it down.
No comments:
Post a Comment