That the last words were uttered by the deceased is established by the testimony of Corazon,[25] thus:
Q -What did you do when you saw David Ambre laid flat from (sic) the ground?
A - I called for his wife because he wanted to tell something, sir.
Q -Who wanted to tell something?
A -David Ambre, sir.
Q -Do you mean to tell that David Ambre still alive when you saw him? (sic)
A -Yes, sir.
Q -And what did you do when you saw David Ambre wanting to say something?
A -I pulled his wife and we put our ear(s) near the mouth of David Ambre, sir.
Q -And what happened next when you went near the body of David Ambre?
A -The wife asked from David Ambre who shot him, sir.
Q -And what did David Ambre tell his wife?
A -He told ‘it was Pare Pran’, sir.
Q -Do you know this Pare Pran being referred to by David Ambre?
A -Yes, sir.
Q - If he is in Court today, can you point at him?
A -Yes, sir.
Q -Will you point at the Pare Pran you mentioned who is now in Court today?
A – There, sir.
It must be shown that a dying declaration was made under a realization by the decedent that his demise or at least, its imminence -- not so much the rapid eventuation of death -- is at hand.[29] This may be proven by the statement of the deceased himself or it may be inferred from the nature and extent of the decedent’s wounds, or other relevant circumstances.[30]
In the case at bar, the victim’s declaration consisted of the words “Pare Pran.” Under the circumstances, however, he could not have been expected to articulate his awareness of something so obvious -- the inevitability of his demise -- or to have the energy to do so. The nature and extent of said injuries underscored the seriousness of his condition and they later proved by themselves that the utterances of the deceased were made under a consciousness of an impending death.[31] That his demise thereafter came swiftly, although not instantaneously, further emphasized the victim’s realization of the hopelessness of his recovery.[32]
We stress that when a person is at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. It was the height of jocularity for appellant to have suggested that it was highly possible that the deceased mentioned his name to Lolita so that she would tell him to come to decedent’s succor, or for another reason. Such conjecture finds no basis on record. On the other hand, this speculation is belied by the clear, straightforward testimonies of Lolita and Corazon. Despite several attempts, counsel for the defense failed to make Lolita admit that the victim mentioned appellant’s name for a vague and undefined purpose, other than to identify his assailant.[33] Lolita adamantly stuck to her testimony that her husband told her that he was shot by “Pare Pran.”[34] The unrebutted testimony of Corazon further clarified that the victim said those words in answer to his wife’s question as to who shot him.[35]
The deceased’s condemnatory antemortem statement naming appellant as his assailant deserves full faith and credit and is admissible in evidence as a dying declaration.
Furthermore, the same declaration was also properly admitted in evidence by the trial court as part of res gestae, and rightly so. A declaration made spontaneously after a startling occurrence is deemed as such when (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[36] The utterance of the victim satisfies these three requisites. Clearly, it is admissible as part of the res gestae.
Q -What did you do when you saw David Ambre laid flat from (sic) the ground?
A - I called for his wife because he wanted to tell something, sir.
Q -Who wanted to tell something?
A -David Ambre, sir.
Q -Do you mean to tell that David Ambre still alive when you saw him? (sic)
A -Yes, sir.
Q -And what did you do when you saw David Ambre wanting to say something?
A -I pulled his wife and we put our ear(s) near the mouth of David Ambre, sir.
Q -And what happened next when you went near the body of David Ambre?
A -The wife asked from David Ambre who shot him, sir.
Q -And what did David Ambre tell his wife?
A -He told ‘it was Pare Pran’, sir.
Q -Do you know this Pare Pran being referred to by David Ambre?
A -Yes, sir.
Q - If he is in Court today, can you point at him?
A -Yes, sir.
Q -Will you point at the Pare Pran you mentioned who is now in Court today?
A – There, sir.
It must be shown that a dying declaration was made under a realization by the decedent that his demise or at least, its imminence -- not so much the rapid eventuation of death -- is at hand.[29] This may be proven by the statement of the deceased himself or it may be inferred from the nature and extent of the decedent’s wounds, or other relevant circumstances.[30]
In the case at bar, the victim’s declaration consisted of the words “Pare Pran.” Under the circumstances, however, he could not have been expected to articulate his awareness of something so obvious -- the inevitability of his demise -- or to have the energy to do so. The nature and extent of said injuries underscored the seriousness of his condition and they later proved by themselves that the utterances of the deceased were made under a consciousness of an impending death.[31] That his demise thereafter came swiftly, although not instantaneously, further emphasized the victim’s realization of the hopelessness of his recovery.[32]
We stress that when a person is at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. It was the height of jocularity for appellant to have suggested that it was highly possible that the deceased mentioned his name to Lolita so that she would tell him to come to decedent’s succor, or for another reason. Such conjecture finds no basis on record. On the other hand, this speculation is belied by the clear, straightforward testimonies of Lolita and Corazon. Despite several attempts, counsel for the defense failed to make Lolita admit that the victim mentioned appellant’s name for a vague and undefined purpose, other than to identify his assailant.[33] Lolita adamantly stuck to her testimony that her husband told her that he was shot by “Pare Pran.”[34] The unrebutted testimony of Corazon further clarified that the victim said those words in answer to his wife’s question as to who shot him.[35]
The deceased’s condemnatory antemortem statement naming appellant as his assailant deserves full faith and credit and is admissible in evidence as a dying declaration.
Furthermore, the same declaration was also properly admitted in evidence by the trial court as part of res gestae, and rightly so. A declaration made spontaneously after a startling occurrence is deemed as such when (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[36] The utterance of the victim satisfies these three requisites. Clearly, it is admissible as part of the res gestae.
No comments:
Post a Comment