GR 45600; (May, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45600 ; May 31, 1938
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIXTO FELIPE, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
In the early morning of January 22, 1937, in Solsona, Ilocos Norte, Mateo Bumanlag was fatally wounded. His son, Bonifacio, found him injured and reported the incident. Before his death, Mateo gave an ante mortem declaration under oath before the justice of the peace, identifying Sixto Felipe as his attacker. Sixto Felipe was arrested and subsequently confessed to the crime on two occasions: first, before the chief of police in the presence of the municipal president and justice of the peace, and second, during the preliminary investigation. In his confessions, he stated he was induced by Maximo Tungpalan (whose case was dismissed) to attack Mateo. At trial, the appellant claimed his confession was coerced through ill-treatment, a claim the court found untenable given the presence of officials during the confession. The defense also attempted to prove suicide by the victim, which the court rejected.
ISSUE
1. Whether the ante mortem declaration of the deceased is admissible as a dying declaration.
2. Whether the appellant’s extrajudicial confessions are admissible and voluntary.
3. Whether the crime committed is murder qualified by treachery.
RULING
1. Yes, the ante mortem declaration (Exhibit C) is admissible as a dying declaration. The deceased’s statement, “Now that I lie prostrate in bed, without any further hope of surviving,” clearly shows he believed himself at the point of death, satisfying the legal requirement for such declarations.
2. Yes, the confessions are admissible and voluntary. The court found the appellant’s claim of coercion unsubstantiated, noting the confessions were made in the presence of the municipal president and justice of the peace, and were later reaffirmed freely during the preliminary investigation.
3. Yes, the crime is murder qualified by treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The crime was committed in the victim’s dwelling, an aggravating circumstance, offset by the mitigating circumstance of the appellant’s lack of instruction. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.