Ponente: Bersamin, J.
FACTS:
·
Past midnight on July 31, 1993, Johnny Bolanon
was stabbed near the Del Pan Sports Complex in Binondo, Manila. The assailant
ran away after committing the crime.
·
Bolanon was still able to walk to the house of
his uncle Rodolfo B. Estaño in order to seek help. Thereupon his uncle rushed
him to the Philippine General Hospital by taxicab. On their way to the hospital
Bolanon told Estaño that it was Rodrigo Salafranca who had stabbed him. Bolanon
died at the hospital at 2:30 am despite receiving medical attention.
·
The stabbing of Bolanon was personally
witnessed by Augusto Mendoza, then still a minor of 13 years, who was in the
complex at the time. Mendoza positively identified Salafranca as the culprit.
According to Mendoza, Salafranca had effected his attack by encircling his
(accused) left arm, while behind the victim on the latter’s neck and stabbing
the victim with the use of his right hand, leaving Bolanon with no opportunity
to defend himself.
·
It wasn't until 2003, or 10 years after the
crime was committed, when Salafranca was arrested by authorities in Bataan
where he went into hiding.
·
The RTC found Salafranca guilty of the crime
of murder with the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of
treachery. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
·
On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings and
conclusions of the RTC, citing the dying declaration made to his uncle pointing
to Salafranca as his assailant, and Salafranca’s positive identification as the
culprit by Mendoza. It stressed that Salafranca’s denial and his alibi of being
in his home during the incident did not overcome the positive identification,
especially as his unexplained flight after the stabbing, leaving his home and
employment, constituted a circumstance highly indicative of his guilt.
·
Hence, the instant appeal.
RULING:
Whether
Bolanon's dying declaration should be given credence. – YES.
·
A dying declaration, although generally
inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be
admitted when the following requisites concur, namely: (a) that the declaration
must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death;
(b) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a
consciousness of an impending death; (c) that the declarant is competent as a
witness; and (d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for
homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim.
·
As applied to this case, all the requisites
cited above were met. Bolanon communicated his ante-mortem statement to Estaño,
identifying Salafranca as the person who had stabbed him. At the time of his
statement, Bolanon was conscious of his impending death, having sustained a stab
wound in the chest and, according to Estaño, was then experiencing great
difficulty in breathing. Bolanon succumbed in the hospital emergency room a few
minutes from admission, which occurred under three hours after the stabbing.
There is ample authority for the view that the declarant’s belief in the
imminence of his death can be shown by the declarant’s own statements or from
circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of his wounds, statements made in
his presence, or by the opinion of his physician. Bolanon would have been
competent to testify on the subject of the declaration had he survived. Lastly,
the dying declaration was offered in this criminal prosecution for murder in
which Bolanon was the victim.
·
A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part
of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the
hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal
act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are made
before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements
must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.
·
As applied to this case, the requisites for
admissibility of a declaration as part of the res gestae concur. When he gave the
identity of the assailant to Estaño, Bolanon was referring to a startling
occurrence, i.e., his stabbing by Salafranca. Bolanon was then on board the
taxicab that would bring him to the hospital, and thus had no time to contrive
his identification of Salafranca as the assailant. His utterance about
Salafranca having stabbed him was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to
the startling occurrence. The statement was relevant because it identified
Salafranca as the perpetrator.
What is res gestae?
·
The term res gestae has been defined as
"those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular
litigated act and which are admissible when illustrative of such act." In
a general way, res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations
that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so
spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of
deliberation and fabrication.
·
The rule on res gestae encompasses the
exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or
spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the
commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that the statements
were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of
the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and
to fabricate a false statement.
·
The test of admissibility of evidence as a
part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation
is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that
it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and
also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
testimony..
Whether
Mendoza's and Estano's testimonies were credible. – YES.
·
The RTC and the CA correctly concluded that
Mendoza and Estano were credible and reliable. The determination of the
competence and credibility of witnesses at trial rested primarily with the RTC as
the trial court due to its unique and unequalled position of observing their
deportment during testimony, and of assessing their credibility and
appreciating their truthfulness, honesty and candor. Absent a substantial
reason to justify the reversal of the assessment made and conclusions reached
by the RTC, the CA as the reviewing court was bound by such assessment and
conclusions, considering that the CA as the appellate court could neither
substitute its assessment nor draw different conclusions without a persuasive
showing that the RTC misappreciated the circumstances or omitted significant
evidentiary matters that would alter the result.
·
In this case, Salafranca did not persuasively
show a misappreciation or omission by the RTC. Hence, the Court, in this
appeal, is in no position to undo or to contradict the findings of the RTC and
the CA, which were entitled to great weight and respect.
Whether
the award of civil damages should be modified. – YES.
·
The surviving heirs of Bolanon were entitled
by law to more than the indemnity of P50,000, because the damages to be awarded
when death occurs due to a crime may include: (a) civil indemnity ex delicto
for the death of the victim (which was granted herein); (b) actual or
compensatory damages; (c) moral damages; (d) exemplary damages; and (e)
temperate damages.
·
The CA and the RTC should have granted moral
damages which were different from the death indemnity. Given the circumstances,
the amount of P50,000.00 is reasonable as moral damages, which, pursuant to prevailing
jurisprudence, the Court is bound to award despite the absence of any
allegation and proof of the heirs’ mental anguish and emotional suffering. The
rationale for doing so rested on human nature and experience having shown that
a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and
anguish on the part of the victim’s family.
·
Temperate damages should have also been
awarded. t is already settled that when actual damages for burial and related
expenses are not substantiated by receipts, temperate damages of at least
P25,000.00 are warranted, for it would certainly be unfair to the surviving
heirs of the victim to deny them compensation by way of actual damages.
·
Moreover, the Civil Code provides that
exemplary damages may be imposed in criminal cases as part of the civil
liability "when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances." For the purpose of fixing the exemplary damages, the sum
of P30,000.00 is deemed reasonable and proper because the Court is of the
opinion that a lesser amount could not result in genuine exemplarity.