Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9497)
Facts:
People of the Philippines prosecuted Francisco Santos y Baingan @ Pran for the murder of David Ambre on or about 7:30 o’clock in the evening of September 18, 1987 in Barangay Ponggo, Municipality of Nagtipunana, Province of Quirino. The Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31 convicted appellant of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnification of P30,000.00, from which appellant appealed.The prosecution presented Corazon and Lolita Dayao and Dr. Teodomiro Hufana Jr. that after being shot, David remained alive for a few seconds and identified his assailant as “Pare Pran,” later pointed to appellant. The defense claimed alibi and denied that his alias was “Pran,” and argued the victim died instantaneously and that the witnesses could not have heard any imputing words; the court below relied on the antemortem identification as a dying declaration and also as res gestae.
Issues:
- Whether the victim’s alleged last words were physically pos
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9497)
Facts:
- Parties, charges, and procedural posture
- People of the Philippines prosecuted Francisco Santos y Baingan @ Pran and Villamor Asuncion (“appellant”) for murder.
- The Information, dated November 18, 1987, alleged that on or about 7:30 o’clock in the evening of September 18, 1987, in Barangay Ponggo, Municipality of Nagtipunana, Province of Quirino, appellant, in conspiracy with others and armed with a long firearm of undetermined caliber, shot David Ambre with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, causing the victim’s instant death.
- The Information alleged aggravating circumstances:
- the crime was committed during nighttime to insure impunity; and
- the accused used unlicensed firearms.
- Upon arraignment, appellant assisted by counsel Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat pleaded not guilty.
- The trial proceeded against appellant only; Villamor Asuncion remained at large.
- The Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31 rendered the assailed decision on June 28, 1990, in Criminal Case No. 615, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
- Appellant appealed.
- RTC ruling and dispositive disposition on indemnity
- The RTC sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P30,000.00, plus the accessory penalties provided for by law.
- The RTC credited the detention of appellant in his favor.
- Costs were assessed against the accused.
- Prosecution evidence on the killing and the victim’s statements
- Witnesses Corazon Dayao and Pedro Dayao testified on the circumstances of the crime; witness Lolita Ambre testified as the victim’s widow.
- Medical evidence came from Dr. Teodomiro Hufana Jr., who conducted an autopsy and reported the postmortem findings.
- Testimony of Corazon Dayao (presence, shots, fall of victim, and the utterance)
- Corazon, age 25, married, testified she was visiting the Ambre residence to see her husband Pedro (driver of Mr. & Mrs. David Ambre).
- On the evening of September 18, 1987 at about 7:30 o’clock, she was in the terrace sorting dirty clothing.
- The night was dark and raining, but a Coleman lamp illuminated an area of about seven (7) meters; only a terrace rail separated Corazon from David, about half a meter away.
- She saw Lolita beside David.
- She heard five (5) successive gunshots and saw David fall prostrate.
- Seeing David wanted to say something, Corazon called Lolita’s attention and pulled her toward the victim.
- She placed her head near David, who was still alive at the time, and heard David answer when Lolita asked who shot him: “It was Pare Pran.”
- Corazon identified the “Pare Pran” utterance as the victim’s answer to Lolita’s inquiry and later identified the man in court as appellant.
- Testimony of Lolita Ambre (widow; gunshot; cry; identification as Francisco Santos; sworn statements)
- Lolita, age 34, widow, testified she and David had just come out of their canteen.
- She washed her feet while David faced north, looking at the driver’s side of their jeep.
- She heard a gunshot and David cried “Apo!”
- She jumped up and down until Corazon told her David wanted to tell her something.
- When Lolita went near him, David said “Pare Pran.”
- Lolita knew David referred to Francisco Santos, the godfather of their youngest child.
- She held David, but their driver took her inside the house.
- Lolita gave a sworn statement to Pfc. Domingo D. Cuntapay on September 25, 1987, implicating only Asuncion.
- On the following day, during the preliminary investigation, she executed an affidavit before Judge Felipe Castaneta, disclosing that her husband’s assailant was Francisco Santos.
- On October 5, 1987, Lolita executed another sworn statement before Pfc. Cuntapay reiterating the earlier disclosure.
- Testimony of Pedro Dayao Jr. (driver; gun bursts; cry; aftermath)
- Pedro, age 29, testified he was inside the Ambre house that evening rolling a rope when he heard five (5) gun bursts.
- He heard Lolita’s cry: “Jun, they have shot your Manong!”
- He rushed outside and escorted Lolita and Corazon back to the house.
- Medical evidence (autopsy findings; possibility of speech in seconds or minutes)
- Dr. Teodomiro Hufana Jr. conducted an autopsy and reported the postmortem findings:
- a gunshot entrance wound roughly oval about 7 mm. in diameter on the postero-lateral aspect of the left side, about 7 cm. below the angle of the axillary fossa, directed inward injuring the left lung and bisecting the lower ventricle of the heart, and injuring the right lobe of the lungs, with an exit at the right hypochondriac region about 2 cm. in diameter about 9 cm. below the nipple; and
- a gunshot wound “thru and thru” at the latero-medical aspect of the distal third of the forearm, with an entrance about 6 mm. in diameter and an exit at the lateral aspect, with about 1.3 cm. between entrance and exit.
- Cause of death: Severe internal hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound.
- Although the Certificate of Death indicated instant interval between onset and death, Dr. Hufana clarified he was sure the victim had a few seconds or minute before he actually died.
- Dr. Hufana opined that during those few seconds or minute, a victim could utter about two or three words, which could be audible and intelligible, and that deaths due to bullets in the heart or lungs were not...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the victim’s alleged statements were physically possible and qualified as a dying declaration
- Whether the evidence showed that the victim died instantaneously in a manner that rendered an ante-mortem statement impossible.
- Whether, assuming the victim could have spoken, the utterance could qualify as a dying declaration sufficient to sustain conviction.
- Whether the utterance identified appellant as the assailant
- Whether the victim’s words—“Pare Pran”—identified appellant as the perpetrator.
- Whether the prosecution witnesses’ credibility was undermined
- Whether Lolita and Corazon’s testimony was incredible due to circumstances that allegedly negated their assertion that they heard the victim impute the crime to appellant.
- Whether Lolita’s delay in reporting the victim’s antemortem declaration impaired credibility.
- Whether alibi should result in acquittal notwithstanding the dying declaration
- Whether appellant’s alibi warranted acquittal...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)