G.R. No. 45100 - People vs. Diokno

The case involves the People of the Philippine Islands as the plaintiff and appellatee, and the defendants/appellants Epifanio Diokno and Roman Diokno.
The deceased, Yu Hiong, was described as a Chinese vendor of sundry goods operating in Lucena, Tayabas.
Salome Diokno, engaged to Yu Hiong for about a year, plays a central role as her invitation for Yu Hiong led to subsequent events.

On the morning of January 4, 1935, Salome Diokno invited Yu Hiong to accompany her despite his mention of her father’s disapproval; she assured him of responsibility in spite of the disapproval.
Later that same day, around 6:00 p.m., Yu Hiong and Salome, after taking an automobile from Lucena, visited the house of Vicente Verina in Pagbilao but, finding it empty, proceeded towards San Pablo, Laguna.
On January 5th or 6th, Roman Diokno informed his father, Epifanio Diokno, via telegraph in Manila that Salome had eloped with Yu Hiong.

On the morning of January 7, 1935, the accused Epifanio and Roman Diokno went to San Pablo, Laguna, allegedly in search of the eloping couple.
They were informed that Yu Hiong and Salome were at Antonio Layco’s house.
Upon arrival, Epifanio and Roman observed Yu Hiong descending the stairs and pursued him.
Lacking entrance to the house due to a locked door, Yu Hiong pleaded for assistance by shouting for the door to be opened.
As Yu Hiong, now on his knees and pleading forgiveness, was overtaken, Roman Diokno stabbed him in the back and on the left side, while Epifanio Diokno also attacked him with a knife.
Witness Juan Alcantara and others on the scene, including Hermanos Belen and municipal policeman Francisco Curabo, became involved; the witness testimony and evidence (including Exhibit C – the knife carried by Epifanio) document the pursuit and assault.
Medical examinations at the provincial hospital confirmed that the wounds were incised, with one wound—three and a half inches long—piercing the pleura and penetrating the lower lobe of the right lung, thereby proving to be necessarily mortal.

Exhibit E: An investigation conducted by the San Pablo municipal president captured the near-immediate aftermath. Yu Hiong’s answers to the municipal president’s questions pointed to both Epifanio and Roman Diokno as responsible for his injuries.
Exhibit K: An ante mortem declaration made on January 8, 1935, by the severely wounded Yu Hiong in the hospital, which incorporated his account of the attackers and specifically attributed the infliction of the fatal, incised wound to Roman Diokno.
The accused, when testifying in defense, contended differences in their accounts regarding the sequence of events, including the claim that they did not go together on the day of the incident and that any confrontation was spontaneous and triggered by perceived threats.

The lower court, based on the testimonies—including that of eyewitnesses and the contents of Exhibits E and K—found Epifanio and Roman Diokno guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment sentenced each accused to reclusion perpetua, along with an order to indemnify the heirs of the deceased and pay court costs.
The accused appealed on various grounds, including the admissibility of Exhibit E and Exhibit K, the acquittal claim for Roman Diokno, and the propriety of the sentence of reclusion perpetua for Epifanio Diokno.

Whether the lower court erred in admitting Exhibit E as evidence, given the allegations of alteration and concerns regarding the declarant’s state of mind regarding impending death.
Whether Exhibit K, as an ante mortem declaration, was admissible considering that Yu Hiong did not die immediately but three days later, and whether his declaration reflected a true awareness of his impending death.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to exonerate Roman Diokno, based on conflicting testimonies and the dimensions of the wounds as attested by expert opinion.
Whether the facts established justified a conviction for murder (with aggravating circumstances like abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation) or rather for simple homicide.

Whether the crime was properly qualified as murder given the alleged presence of abuse of superior strength or evident premeditation.
Whether the mitigating circumstances, such as immediate vindication of a grave offense, passion or obfuscation, and voluntary surrender, were appropriately considered in light of the circumstances.

Whether sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua by the trial court was correct or if the penalty should be revised based on the absence of corroborated qualifying circumstances.
The determination of the appropriate indeterminate penalty, as well as the computation of credit for the time of preventive imprisonment provided under relevant statutes.