GR 94545; (April, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94545. April 4, 1997.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO SANTOS y BAINGAN @ PRAN and VILLAMOR ASUNCION, accused, FRANCISCO SANTOS y BAINGAN @ PRAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of September 18, 1987, David Ambre was shot outside his home in Quirino. Prosecution witnesses Corazon Dayao and Lolita Ambre, the victim’s widow, testified that after hearing gunshots, they approached the fallen victim. When Lolita asked her husband who shot him, he identified his assailant as “Pare Pran,” referring to appellant Francisco Santos, the godfather of their child. Dr. Teodomiro Hufana Jr., who conducted the autopsy, confirmed the victim sustained fatal gunshot wounds to the chest but opined that death was not instantaneous, allowing a brief period wherein the victim could have uttered a few audible and intelligible words.
The defense presented an alibi. Appellant testified he was at home awaiting his sister’s arrival when the crime occurred and only learned of the death the next day. He denied the alias “Pran,” claiming it was “Frank,” and suggested the killing was motivated by the victim’s alleged illicit relationship with a friend’s wife. The trial court convicted appellant of murder, relying heavily on the victim’s ante-mortem statement. Appellant appealed, arguing the statement did not qualify as a dying declaration.
ISSUE
Whether the victim’s ante-mortem statement identifying the appellant qualifies as a dying declaration admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule to sustain a conviction for murder.
RULING
Yes, the statement is a valid dying declaration. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that all requisites for a dying declaration were present. First, the declaration concerned the cause and circumstances of the declarant’s death. Second, at the time of the declaration, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death, a condition inferable from the nature and severity of his wounds as medically established. Third, the declarant was competent to testify, had he survived. Finally, the declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide where the declarant is the victim.
The Court found the medical testimony credible, establishing that the victim had a brief but sufficient lucid interval to make an identification. The declaration, “Pare Pran,” was clear and directly accusatory. The defense of alibi was rightly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially as the appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The positive identification through the dying declaration, corroborated by witness testimony, prevailed over the denial and alibi. The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction but increased the civil indemnity to Fifty Thousand Pesos.