Title
People vs. Laquinon
Case
G.R. No. L-45470
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1985
Barrio captain Samama Buat found Pablo Remonde shot, tied, and naming Gregorio Laquinon as the shooter. Laquinon denied involvement, blaming a deceased commander. Court ruled murder with treachery, increasing indemnity to P30,000.
murder case
admissibility of dying declaration
evidence
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-45470)

Factual Background

The prosecution evidence established that around 11:30 p.m. of November 13, 1972, Samama Buat, the barrio captain of Clib in Hagonoy, heard gunshots originating from the bank of a river approximately three hundred meters south of his residence. Shortly thereafter, Leocario Buat arrived and reported that an unidentified man was calling for help near the riverbank. Samama Buat proceeded to the scene, where he later found Pablo Remonde lying on sand. Remonde’s two hands were tied on his back, and he was lying face down. Samama Buat took Remonde’s “ante mortem” statement. When asked his identity, Remonde answered that he was Pablo Remonde. When asked who shot him, Remonde allegedly replied that it was Gregorio Laquinon. Samama Buat further asked whether Remonde would survive; Remonde answered that he did not know.

After taking the statement, Samama Buat reported the shooting to Vice Mayor Antonio Biran of Hagonoy. The vice mayor proceeded to the scene and asked the victim who shot him, to which Remonde again allegedly responded that he was shot by Gregorio Laquinon. Remonde was then placed in a jeep and brought to the hospital. He was admitted to Canos Hospital in Digos, Davao del Sur, where he was attended to by Dr. Alfonso Llanos. Dr. Llanos performed an operation and recovered a slug from the victim’s body. Remonde died on November 16, 1972, due to bullet wounds.

Accused’s Version and Defense Theory

Gregorio Laquinon denied killing Remonde. His defense, as summarized by the trial court, was that he was a member of the KM, and that he was ordered by Noli Cabardo, then his CO, to fetch Remonde. He claimed he requested Cristino Nerosa to accompany him. According to him, they brought Remonde to the riverbank where Cabardo and ten companions were waiting. Before reaching the place, he allegedly separated from Nerosa, and he said he alone delivered Remonde to Cabardo. He claimed that Cabardo confronted Remonde because Remonde had been commanded to buy provisions in Matanao but failed to return. Remonde allegedly admitted that he spent the money on “drinking and gambling,” after which Cabardo became angry. The accused maintained that as Remonde attempted to escape, he heard a shot that he believed was fired by Cabardo because Cabardo was holding a .38 caliber revolver. He further claimed that after the shot he saw Remonde sprawled on the ground, and that Cabardo ordered them to go to the mountain.

The accused added that two days later, their mountain camp was raided by the PC, during which Cabardo and two others were killed. He asserted that he escaped, went to Magpet, North Cotabato, engaged in farming, and later surrendered to the PC Barracks in Davao City in May 1975 after he felt that as a KM member he had “committed something.” He anchored his denial primarily on the proposition that Cabardo—not he—had shot Remonde.

The Appellate Issue on Admissibility of the Victim’s Statement

On appeal, the accused argued that the conviction rested on the statement attributed to the deceased, which he challenged as inadmissible. He contended that the statement was not admissible as an ante mortem declaration because it was not executed under a consciousness of impending death, and he also questioned the competence and credibility of the deceased as a witness.

The accused further relied on the circumstance that the deceased had named the son of Suelo Maravillas—a person who later turned out to be Cristino Nerosa—as one of those who shot him, asserting that this should have rendered the dying declaration incompetent or incredible. He also attacked the trial court’s assessment that the physical and situational facts supported the prosecution narrative, particularly in light of his claim that he and Nerosa separated and that he brought Remonde alone to Cabardo.

Court’s Treatment of the “Ante Mortem” Character and Possible Res Gestae Value

The Court held that the victim’s statement did not qualify as an ante mortem declaration because the declaration showed that the deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die. The declaration failed to demonstrate that the deceased believed himself to be at the point of death, in the sense that every hope of recovery was extinct, which the Court identified as the sole basis for admitting such declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court nevertheless ruled that the statement could be admitted as part of the res gestae, because it was made immediately after the incident and because the victim allegedly had no sufficient time to concoct a charge against the accused.

The Court also rejected the contention that the victim’s reference to the name and identity of one of the supposed shooters rendered the testimony incredible or incompetent. It reasoned that the later discovery that the named person was Cristino Nerosa did not, by itself, establish incompetence or disbelief. It similarly held that the accused’s argument that darkness at the scene made the statement unreliable did not, as presented, defeat admissibility or credibility, particularly as the accused was alleged to be a member of the KM and the circumstances were consistent with the prosecution’s theory.

Trial Court’s Credibility Findings and Physical-Facts Analysis

In affirming conviction, the Court cited with approval the trial court’s assessment of why it could not accept the accused’s explanation that CO Cabardo was the killer. The trial court emphasized several points. First, it found it implausible that when the deceased was allegedly delivered to Cabardo he was already hand-tied at his back, the shooting place was covered by thick bushes beside the river, and Cabardo was allegedly with ten men excluding the accused. The trial court considered those overwhelming physical handicaps as inconsistent with the claim that the victim would attempt to flee in a way that would avoid capture.

Second, the trial court treated the accused’s account that the victim tried to flee as contradicting the medical and physical facts. It noted that Dr. Llanos testified the deceased had only one gunshot wound in the abdomen. It concluded that this supported the inference that the victim was fired upon from the front, with the bullet going through and through the intestines and lodging in bony portions of the back. Thus, it considered the claimed attempt to escape as incompatible with the wound’s characteristics and trajectory.

The trial court also viewed the accused’s narrative as inherently suspect. It reasoned that if the accused were innocent, there was no persuasive reason for him to construct an “incredible version” that pointed to Cabardo, especially because Cabardo was no longer alive to explain or defend against the accusation. The trial court further found significant that at the time of the victim’s dying statement, Cabardo was still alive, and that the accused himself admitted that he had no prior differenc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms