G.R. No. L-71768; July 28, 1987
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Norberto Tanaman alias Lamber Tanaman alias Lamberto Tanaman, Victoriano Sebial, Pedro Bulocbuloc, Alfredo Banaag and Glicerio Banaag, accused, Norberto Tanaman alias Lamber Tanaman alias Lamberto Tanaman, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On October 1, 1982, Sgt. Romulo Bazar was fatally shot while walking home in Barangay Lorenzo Tan, Tangub City. Severely wounded, he was able to reach a nearby house for help and was rushed to the hospital. En route, he identified Norberto Tanaman (appellant) as his assailant. At the Tangub City Emergency Hospital, while in critical condition, Bazar gave an antemortem statement to P/Lt. Osias Dumanjug, again naming appellant as one of the four persons who shot him. He stated the motive was related to a dispute over a lost cow. Bazar suffered multiple gunshot wounds, was transferred for further treatment, and died on October 3, 1982.
An Information for Murder was filed against appellant and several others. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay indemnity. The court acquitted the other accused for insufficiency of evidence. Appellant appealed, contending his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and challenging the admissibility of the victim’s dying declaration.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s antemortem statement as a valid dying declaration and in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on such evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The antemortem statement was correctly admitted as a valid dying declaration. For admissibility, a declaration must concern the cause and circumstances of death, be made under consciousness of impending death, by a competent witness, and offered in a homicide or murder case where the declarant is the victim. Appellant argued the statement was inadmissible because the victim, when asked if he would survive, answered, “My wounds are serious and I am not sure.” The Court ruled that an express statement of lost hope is not indispensable. The circumstances—the nature and seriousness of the five gunshot wounds, the victim’s critical condition with low blood pressure, and his subsequent death—inevitably lead to the conclusion he was conscious of his impending demise when he made the declaration.
The declaration, which positively identified appellant as the assailant and stated the motive, was corroborated by other evidence. A witness testified to hearing gunshots and seeing appellant and his companions fleeing, with appellant stating “he was hit.” Against this credible evidence, appellant’s mere denial and his implausible alternative story about the victim’s motive were insufficient to create reasonable doubt. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the victim was shot from behind. The Supreme Court held the prosecution evidence, anchored on the admissible dying declaration, satisfied the required moral certainty for conviction.