G.R. No. L-28620, February 24, 1928
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANDRES ANCASAN, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: J. Ostrand

FACTS

On May 3, 1927, during a celebration in Banganga, Davao, a duet between the deceased Eugeniano Felizardo and Domingo Bancailan turned into a quarrel when Bancailan became angry at Felizardo’s higher pitch. Bancailan tried to throw Felizardo down but ended up falling with Felizardo on top of him. While they were in this position, the accused Andres Ancasan, a friend of Bancailan, struck Felizardo on the back of the head with a heavy cudgel. The wound became infected with tetanus, leading to Felizardo’s death a few days later. Before his death, in a conscious moment, Felizardo told his wife that Ancasan had inflicted the wound and enjoined her to take care of their children; he lost consciousness shortly after and died within an hour. Ancasan and Bancailan were charged with homicide. The trial court convicted Ancasan but acquitted Bancailan. Ancasan appealed, contesting the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the admissibility of the deceased’s statement to his wife as a dying declaration.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
2. Whether the statement of the deceased to his wife shortly before his death was admissible as a dying declaration.

RULING

1. No. The Supreme Court found the testimony of the prosecution witnesses reasonable and saw no reason to doubt their veracity. The first assignment of error was without merit.
2. Yes. The statement was admissible as a dying declaration. The Court ruled that it is not necessary for the declarant to expressly state that he has lost all hope of recovery. It is sufficient that the circumstances inevitably lead to the conclusion that the declarant did not expect to survive. Here, the deceased’s instructions to his wife to care for their children, made shortly before he lost consciousness and died, clearly indicated he had lost hope of recovery.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding Ancasan guilty of homicide. The aggravating circumstance of treachery (attack from behind) was present but was offset by two extenuating circumstances: intoxication and the probable lack of intent to kill. This brought the penalty down to the minimum degree of *reclusion temporal*, which was correctly imposed by the trial court at twelve years and one day.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment is affirmed with costs against the appellant.