Case Digest (G.R. No. 28450)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Moro Salahuddin (alias Sala), G.R. No. 28450, August 08, 1928, Supreme Court En Banc, Avanceaa, J., writing for the Court.
On the morning of September 29, 1926, Moro Aru left his house for the river and returned later that morning mounted on his carabao with visible bruises on both temples and about the eyes. In the presence of his wife Baraya and the Moros Haili and Lakibul, Aru related that while at the river three Moros—Sala (the appellant), Baturani, and Hamahali—had handed him a paper and then attacked him; Sala struck his forehead, Baturani his chest, and Hamahali the nape of his neck. Aru fell and, while on the ground, was repeatedly struck until he lost consciousness; on regaining consciousness he mounted his carabao and returned home carrying the bolo his assailants had taken from him.
After recounting the attack Aru told his wife he felt badly and believed he was going to die, naming the three as his aggressors and instructing her to inform the authorities should he die. He became unable to speak thereafter and was taken to the hospital, dying about two hours later; the attending physician testified the cause of death was cerebral hemorrhage produced by the blows to the head.
Prior incidents between the parties were adduced at trial: Aru had previously fought with Sala (in which Sala lost a tooth), and Aru’s father-in-law had accused Baturani and Hamahali of livestock theft; these facts were introduced as possible motives for the attack. A complaint charged Sala, Baturani and Hamahali; Sala was convicted of homicide, sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, and ordered to indemnify the heirs P1,000; Baturani and Hamahali were acquitted. Sala appealed the judgment.
At trial the testimony of Baraya, Haili, and Lakibul established Aru’s statement as made in the belief of impending death and thus as an ante-mortem declaration. The prosecution also produced the appellant’s statement to Constabulary Lieutenant Barbajera that he and Aru had fought earlier and that “there is no debt that should not be paid,” which the Court found indicative of a vindictive motive. Sala claimed self‑defense, testifying that ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the statements made by the deceased before his death admissible as ante‑mortem (dying) declarations?
- Was the plea of self‑defense by the appellant sufficiently proven to defeat the homicide conviction?
- Should the conviction and sentence imposed by the lo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)