Cerilla Dying Declaration
Cerilla Dying Declaration
The trial court regarded the victims This argument essentially challenges
dying declaration as the most telling the credibility of the witnesses,
evidence pointing to appellant as the including the eyewitness, whose
assailant.[22] It appreciated the testimonies were relied upon by the
presence of treachery in qualifying the trial court in convicting appellant. Basic
crime to is the principle that the findings of fact
murder because the victim was unarm of a trial court, its calibration of the
ed and walking on his way testimonies of the witnesses and its
home when he was suddenly and assessment of the probative weight
unexpectedly shot from behind by thereof, as well as its conclusions
appellant.[23] The trial court ruled that anchored on said findings are
appellants alibi and denial could not accorded high respect, if not conclusive
prevail over the positive testimonies of effect. This is because the trial court
credible witnesses.[24] Moreover, it has the unique opportunity to observe
observed that appellant was not able to the demeanor of a witness and is in the
prove the impossibility of his presence best position to discern whether they
at the crime scene which could have are telling the truth. This rule holds true
proven his alibi.[25] especially when the trial court's findings
have been affirmed by the appellate
In view of the penalty court.[30]
of reclusion perpetua imposed on
appellant, the case was initially Appellants authorship of the crime was
elevated to this Court for review. proven by the positive identification of
However, pursuant to our ruling
an eyewitness and the victims dying long or short
declaration. firearm?
A: About 11 inches.
The prosecution presented Michelle,
who categorically identified appellant as Q: After you saw
the one who shot Alexander, viz: Joemarie pointing
a firearm to your
Q: While you and your father, what
father were happened next?
walking towards A: I saw my father
home, did you staggering
remember towards me and I
anything unusual saw Joemarie
that happened? Cerilla ran.
A: Yes, Maam.
Q: Where was he going?
Q: What was that? A: Maybe towards his
A: I heard an explosion. house.[31]
[8]
TSN, 16 December 1999, p. 5.
[9]
Id. at 8-9.
CERTIFICATION
[10]
TSN, 7 January 1999, p. 7.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of
the Constitution, and the Division [11]
TSN, 14 January 1999, pp. 6-
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby 7.
certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in [12]
TSN, 12 November 1998, p.
consultation before the case was 6.
assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Courts Division. [13]
Id. at 7.
[14]
Records, p. 11.
[15]
TSN, 29 October 1998, pp. 5-
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO 8.
Acting Chief Justice
[16]
TSN, 2 September 1999, p.
5.
[17]
Id. at 6-10.
[18]
Id. at 11.
*
As replacement of Justice [19]
TSN, 24 June 1999, pp. 13-
Leonardo A. Quisumbing who is on 14.
official leave per Administrative Circular
No. 84-2007. TSN, 30
[20]
September 1999,
pp. 19-20.
**
Acting Chairperson.
[21]
CA rollo, p. 45.
Rollo, pp. 4-17. Penned by
[1]
[28]
Id. at 21.
See People v. Elizaga, G.R.
[43]
[29]
Id. at 22-27. No. 78794, 21 November 1988.
171017, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 808 (2003); People v. Aliben, 446 Phil.
642, 661. 349 (2003).
[31]
TSN, 15 October 1998, pp. 6- [45]
TSN, 15 October 1998, pp. 7-
7. 8.
[32]
Id. at 3. [46]
TSN, 7 January 1999, pp. 4-
6.
[33]
Records, p. 12.
[47]
TSN, 14 January 1999, pp.
[34]
TSN, 29 October 1998, p. 8. 5-6.
[35]
Supra note 11. [48]
TSN, 12 November 1998, pp.
25-29.
[36]
R.J. FRANCISCO, EVIDENCE Supra note 11. 6. Pellet
[49]
RULES 128-134, 3rd ed., 1996, p. 257. wound 2.5 x 3.0 cm. in diameter 121
[37]
People v. Cortezano, 425 cm from the right heel, 7.0 cm. from
Phil. 696, 715 (2002). the posterior median line, with powder
burn 0.4 cm. in diameter surrounding
[38]
United States v. Gil, 13 Phil. its periphery, penetrating the
530, 549 (1909); People v. Saliling, abdominal cavity by fracturing the
161 Phil. 559, 572-573 (1976); 10th and 11th ribs, lacerating the
5 MORANS COMMENTS ON THE RULES diaphragm, macerating the right lobe of
OF COURT, 1970 ed., p. 306, the liver, perporating the ascending
citing United States v. Gil, supra, which colon, stomach, duodenum, right
in turn cites Lord Byron Eyre and the kidney (nephrectomy) and 7 pellets
Roman law rule, Morti proximum, sive were recovered on the muscle of the
moribundum, non praesumendum est upper and middle abdominal wall.
mentiri, nec esse immemorem saluties
aeternae; licet non praesumatur simper CAUSE OF DEATH:
vicere verum.
HEMORRHAGE, SECONDARY TO
J. STRONG, MCCORMICK ON
[39]
PELLET WOUNDS. (Autopsy Report
EVIDENCE (1990) ed. at 463. (Exh. B). Record, p. 150.
[40]
See People v. Ortiz and [50]
TSN, 24 June 1999, pp. 11-
Zausa, 55 Phil. 993 (1931); People v. 14.
Araja, et al., 192 Phil. 412, 424 (1981).
TSN, 30
[51]
September 1999,
People v. Almeda, 209 Phil.
[41]
pp. 18-19.
393, 398 (1983); See also People v.
Devaras, 147 Phil. 664, 673 (1971). [52]
CA rollo, pp. 42-43.
People v. Ansus, 453 Phil.
[53]
1030 (2003).
[55]
CA rollo, p. 42.
[56]
People v. SPO 1Brecinio, 469
Phil. 654, 665 (2004).
[57]
CA rollo, pp. 44-45.