Facts:

• Defendant, Joaquin Siojo, found guilty of homicide for shooting the chief of police, Gregorio Esguerra.
• Incident occurred on August 17, 1933, in San Miguel, Bulacan.
• Defendant, a secret agent, provoked a fight with the deceased and shot him twice, causing fatal injuries.
• Trial court found defendant guilty and sentenced him to an indeterminate sentence of not less than eight years and one day of prision mayor and not more than fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal.
• Defendant appealed the decision.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. The dying declaration of the deceased, Exhibit B, was admissible as evidence because it was made under the consciousness of impending death.
2. Although the document should have been accompanied by a translation, the failure to object to its admission on that specific ground and the fact that the document was written in the language of the province where the crime was committed justified its admission.
3. The defendant did not act in self-defense as he was the aggressor in the fight and provoked the deceased. The evidence did not support the claim of self-defense or incomplete self-defense.
4. The finding of the lower court that the crime was committed in contempt of and with insult to ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

1. The dying declaration of the deceased, Exhibit B, was admissible as evidence because it was made under the consciousness of impending death. This exception to the hearsay rule allows for the admission of statements made by a person who believes they are about to die and has no hope of recovery. The court found that the declaration was made in this context and was therefore admissible.
2. Although the document should have been accompanied by a translation, the failure to object to its admission on that specific ground and the fact that the document was written in the language of the province where the crime was committed justified its admission. The court emphasized that objections to the admissibility of evidence must be specific and timely. In this case, the failure to object to the lack of translation at the time of admission waived the objection.
3. The defendant did not act in self-defense as he was the aggressor in the fight and provoked the deceased. The evidence presented during the trial did not support the claim of self-defense or incomplete self-defense. The court found that the defendant intentionally provoked the deceased and was therefore not entitled to the defense of self-defense.
4. The finding of the lower court that the crime was committed in contempt of and with insult to public authority was not justified as the deceased was an a...continue reading