Facts:

In the case of Mark Bayquen vs. The Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 93851, decided on March 6, 1992, the petitioner, Mark Bayquen, along with co-accused Wilfredo Boco, was charged with homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The information was filed by Jose P. Basco, Assistant City Fiscal, alleging that on July 25, 1984, in Baguio City, the accused conspired to attack Teofilo Estepa, resulting in his death due to cardio-respiratory failure caused by a gunshot wound. Both accused pleaded not guilty during their arraignment.

The trial court rendered its decision on December 15, 1989, finding Bayquen and Boco guilty of homicide instead of murder, sentencing them to an indeterminate prison term and ordering them to pay damages to the victim's heirs. Boco appealed the decision, raising several errors regarding the credibility of the witness Bernadette Estepa, the victim's sister, and the admission of the victim's dying d...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Wilfredo Boco and Mark Bayquen were charged with homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch VI.
• The information, filed by Assistant City Fiscal Jose P. Basco, alleged that on or about July 25, 1984, in Baguio City, the accused, armed with a gun and a bladed weapon, conspired with evident premeditation to attack Teofilo Estepa.
• The assault resulted in injuries that caused cardio respiratory failure secondary to massive hemorrhage and a gunshot wound injuring vital organs. The victim, identified in some parts of the record as Bong Estepa, ultimately died as a consequence of the attack.

Proceedings in Lower Courts

• Both accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
• After trial, on December 15, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision finding Mark Bayquen and Wilfredo Boco guilty of homicide as principals by direct participation (albeit, for direct homicide rather than murder as initially charged).
• The imposition of the penalty was via the Indeterminate Sentence Law, setting a minimum prison term of 10 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor and a maximum of 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal.
• The court also ordered the payment of actual and moral damages to the victim’s heirs, along with costs.

Factual Chronology and Testimonies

• Incident and Immediate Aftermath
• On July 23, 1984, at around 8:00 p.m., the victim Teofilo (Bong) Estepa arrived home at No. 20 Ouisumbing Street, Trancoville, Baguio City, accompanied by his sister, Bernadette Estepa.
• During a birthday celebration, Teofilo advised his sister to state he was asleep if asked, hinting he was “led into trouble” (Pinasubodac).
• Escalation and Developments on July 24–25, 1984
• On July 24, Bernadette received information from boarder Virgie Corpuz that Barangay Captain Albert Della and Dr. Bayquen (father of Mark Bayquen) had come looking for Teofilo concerning an earlier incident involving a damaged motorcycle.
• Teofilo later went out to look for Wilfredo Boco, his companion in the motorcycle incident, returning at about 10:00 p.m. with vague explanations.
• In the early hours of July 25, a commotion and mysterious door movement in the family house was noted by Bernadette.
• Upon finally opening a door around 4:00 a.m., Bernadette discovered Teofilo’s room in disarray and shortly afterward heard two gunshots.
• Rushing downstairs, she found her brother bleeding; his declarations indicated that he had been shot (and, in his own words, “stabbed”) by Mark Bayquen and Boco.
• The Dying Declaration and Subsequent Evidence
• Bernadette’s testimony included a dying declaration reputedly made by the victim identifying his assailants.
• However, conflicting statements emerged: while her immediate post-incident declarations (to a policeman, a doctor, and barangay personnel) were spontaneous and unelaborated, later testimony before the NBI two weeks after the incident raised issues regarding credibility and delay.
• The autopsy report substantiated the occurrence of a gunshot wound with detailed forensic findings—such as the wound dimensions, the trajectory (perforating vital organs), and the evidence of a lodged bullet—contradicting parts of the victim’s earlier reported “stabbed” injuries.

Administrative and Procedural Developments

• After conviction, both accused appealed.
• Wilfredo Boco raised several errors concerning the evaluation of Bernadette’s testimony and the acceptance of the dying declaration as untainted evidence.
• Mark Bayquen, as petitioner, contended that the trial court erred in:
• Not considering the early spontaneous declarations of Bernadette as part of the res gestae.

ii. Relying on what he described as “incredible” later testimony that purportedly had the opportunity for fabrication. iii. Ignoring the statements of the accused and tangible evidence (including testimony regarding a robbery) that allegedly negated a clear motive.

Contentions Raised by the Petitioner

• The petitioner argued that the more credible, spontaneous statements made immediately after the incident should have been given greater weight than testimony given some 14 days later in which circumstances allowed for possible fabrication.
• He emphasized that the autopsy findings confirmed a single fatal gunshot wound, directly conflicting with the dying declaration which mentioned both a gunshot and a stabbing, thereby undermining the credibility of the key witness.
• The petitioner also noted that the victim’s family (including his father, who arrived later) did not respond as one might expect in a typical outcry against suspected killers, which raised further doubts about the authenticity of the dying declaration.

Issue:

Whether the trial and appellate courts properly accorded full weight to the testimony of Bernadette Estepa, particularly her alleged dying declaration, given the delay in its full disclosure.

• The issue centers on whether the spontaneous post-incident statements (made immediately to a policeman, a doctor, and a barangay captain) should be distinguished from her later, allegedly fabricated or rehearsed statements.

Whether the application of the res gestae rule was correctly implemented in admitting the ante-mortem statements of the victim as evidence.

• The petitioner contends that the trial court erred by not relying on the spontaneous declarations as part of res gestae, while improperly giving weight to statements made under less credible circumstances.

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt based substantially on the credibility of a single key witness’s testimony given the inconsistencies in the victim’s dying declaration.

• Whether the physical evidence, especially the autopsy findings, adequately supports the elements of homicide as alleged by the prosecution.

• Whether the delay in the reporting of the dying (ante-mortem) declaration and the inconsistencies in the victim’s purported statements undermine the evidentiary foundation for the conviction.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)