PEOPLE VS PALMONES

PEOPLE VS  PALMONES

G.R. No. 136303.  July 18, 2000

FACTS

The case evolved from a shooting incident that happened in Kidapawan, Sultan Kudaratthat involved a police officer AsimMamansal as the victim who was killed later and the brothers  AnthonyMelchor and Anthony BaltazarPalmones as the accused-assailants.

That one night in April 27, 1997, the victim was shot in a dark place, together with his paramour, while riding home by an unidentified person who later were known through the prosecution’s witness testimony as the Palmones brothers.

The identity of the two accused was raised based on the testimony of Sony Boy Redovan, the witness of the prosecution who was also a nephew of the victim, who testified that before the death of his uncle, the later was able to declare that the accused-assailant were the Palmones brothers. That the witness Redovan was able to talk with his uncle nearly an hour before it dies, and that the same declared who shot him.

 The same testimony was also testified by Inspector Tagum who said that he was able to ask the victim while in the emergency room, about the identity of his perpetrator, and that were Juany and Tony Palmones.

The two accused were convicted for a crime of murder in the RTC based largely on the alleged dying declaration of the victim through the testimonies of the witnesses Sonny Boy Redovan and Inspector Tagum and the apparent weakness of their defense.

Hence, this appeal by the accused-appellants to the Supreme Court.

Issues:                                                                                                                                                

            1. Whether the court a quo erred in considering the alleged dying declaration of AsimMamansal as an exception to the hearsay rule.

            2. Whether the court a quo erred in considering the alleged dying declaration of AsimMamansal as part of the Res Gestae Rule.

Ruling:

1. Yes. There was an error in considering the alleged dying declaration of AsimMamansal for it lacks some of the requirements to be an exceptions to the rule of inadmissibility of hearsay evidence for it to be admissible as evidence to the court.

Section 31, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

Sec. 31.  Dying declaration. – The declaration of a dying person, made under a consciousness of an impending death, may be received in a criminal case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death

As such, the requirements for the admissibility of an ante mortem statement are: (a) it must concern the crime and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) at the time it was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration was offered in a criminal case for murder, homicide or parricide wherein which the decedent was the victim.

In cases where an alleged dying declaration is sought to be admitted, it must be proven that that the declaration was made “under a consciousness of impending death” which means simply that the declarant is fully aware that he is dying or going to die from his wounds or injuries soon or imminently, or shall have a complete conviction that death is at hand, or there must be “a settled hopeless expectation.”

In this case, it was not established by the prosecution that the statements of the declarant concerning the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death were made under the consciousness of impending death.  No proof to this effect was ever presented by the prosecution.  It was not shown whether Sonny Boy Redovan or Inspector Alexander Tagum ever asked the victim whether he believed that he was going to die out of his injuries or any other similar question.  Sonny Boy Redovan claimed that he was able to talk with the victim for around an hour but the only thing he revealed of their conversation was the alleged identification of the victim of his two assailants. For his part, Inspector Tagum admitted that the only question he asked of the victim was if the victim knew who had shot him.From these points, there was no proved that the victim was ever aware of the seriousness of his condition.

2.         Yes. The alleged statements attributed to the victim cannot be admitted as part of the res gestae because it lacks the requisites of spontaneity in order for it to be admitted as part of the res gestae and be admissible as evidence to the court.                                                                                                                                                 

Res gestae 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 a 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.

In order to admit statements as evidence part of the res gestae, the element of spontaneity is critical.  The following factors have generally been considered in determining whether statements offered in evidence as part of the res gestae have been made spontaneously:  (1) the time that lapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of the statement; (2) the place where the statement was made; (3) the condition of the declarant when he made the statement; (4) the presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the statement relative thereto; and (5) the nature and circumstances of the statement itself.

                                               

Premises considered, the judgment by the RTC Kidapawan, Cotabato is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants are ACQUITED AND RELEASED from confinement.