Case Digest (G.R. No. 67690-91)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Hernandez, Merlito Hernandez and Maximo Hernandez alias "Putol," G.R. No. 67690-91, January 21, 1992, Supreme Court First Division, Narvasa, C.J., writing for the Court. The People prosecuted the three accused-appellants for two counts of murder arising from the nighttime shooting deaths of Buenaventura and Narciso Mendoza at the Mendozas' home in Candelaria, Quezon on May 28, 1979.On the night of the killings, Elena Mendoza (Buenaventura’s wife) testified that after gunshots, her husband asked for water and, when asked whether he recognized his assailants, named Eduardo and Merlito Hernandez and said Maximo Hernandez held the gun; Buenaventura died shortly thereafter. Police recovered .30 caliber shell casings and slugs and pathologist Dr. Domingo Alcala testified that both victims died from bullet wounds consistent with a rifle fired from a lower level.
The Provincial Fiscal filed two separate informations for murder in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena, charging the three defendants with conspiracy, alevosia and evident premeditation. The three pleaded not guilty and were tried jointly; the prosecution presented Elena, Gelacio Mendoza (a brother who testified he saw three men pass near his house shortly before the shots), police investigators and the forensic pathologist. The defense presented alibi evidence: Maximo said he judged a singing contest from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. (confirmed by two witnesses), and Eduardo and Merlito testified they were in Bulagsong, Catanauan helping harvest palay, supported by four defense witnesses (with one rebuttal from a government agrarian officer who said the land was not irrigated as claimed).
The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and on March 8, 1984 sentenced each to reclusion perpetua for both murders and ordered indemnity to heirs. The RTC clerk transmitted the record to the Supreme Court on the belief that reclusion perpetua called for automatic review (an erroneous premise, as automatic review is statutorily required only when death is imposed). The Supreme Court nonetheless accepted the appeal and the appellants filed briefs. The appellants primarily contested (a) the trial court’s rejection of certain defense exhibits, (b) admission and credit given to the alleged dying declaration of Buenaventura as testified by Elena, (c) sufficiency o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Buenaventura Mendoza’s statements identifying the assailants qualify as a dying declaration and thus satisfy the hearsay exception?
- If not a dying declaration, were those statements admissible as part of the res gestae under Section 36, Rule 129?
- Were the remaining proofs—Gelacio’s identification by build and the physical evidence—sufficient to sustain convi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)