SECOND DIVISION with deliberate intent

and decided purpose to

G.R. No. 177147 kill and by means of
[Formerly G.R. No. 147313] treachery, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and feloniously shoot
- versus - Alexander Parreo with
JOEMARIE CERILLA, the firearm which the
accused was then
Present: provided, hitting and
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,* inflicting pellet wound at
CARPIO,** the right back portion of
CARPIO MORALES, his body which caused
TINGA, and his death.
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
CONTRARY TO
Promulgated: LAW.[4]
November 28, 2007
The prosecutions evidence shows that
x----------------------------------------x at around 6:00 pm on 24 April 1998,
the victim, Alexander Parreo
DECISION (Alexander), his 14-year old daughter,
Michelle, and neighbor, Phoebe Sendin
TINGA, J.: (Sendin), went to the house of
appellant. They were cordially
For automatic review is the welcomed and entertained by appellant
Decision[1] of the Court of and his wife.[5] An hour later, a blackout
Appeals[2] dated 26 October 2006 in occurred. At this time, Alexander
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00032 which sought permission from the couple to
affirmed with modification the leave, which the latter
Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court acknowledged.[6] On their way home,
(RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 23 dated 15 Michelle was walking ahead of
August 2000 in Criminal Case No. Alexander with the latter closely
496502 finding appellant Joemarie following his daughter. Suddenly, after
Cerilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt walking for about 100 meters
of the crime of murder and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
from appellants house, Michelle heard
On 6 July 1998, an Information an explosion. Michelle immediately
was filed against appellant charging turned her back and saw appellant
him of the crime of murder committed pointing a gun at Alexander who, at
as follows: that moment, was staggering towards
her.[7] Sendin, who was also with
That on or about Alexander and Michelle, did not look
April 24, 1998, in the back but instead ran away and
Municipality of Leganes, proceeded to the house of Mrs.
Province of Iloilo, Parreo.[8] Meanwhile, Michelle was
Philippines and within cuddling Alexander beside the road
the jurisdiction of this when the latter repeatedly told her that
Honorable Court, the it was appellant who shot
above-named accused, him.[9] Twenty minutes later,
armed with a firearm Alexanders other daughter, Novie Mae,
arrived; she was also told by Alexander had left, appellant ordered his
at that moment that it was appellant stepdaughter Franlin to buy candle at
who shot him.[10] the store across their house. Appellant
and Madoline posted themselves at
SPO3 Frederick Dequito (SPO3 their doorway holding a flashlight to
Dequito) and other police officers light Franlins path. Upon Franlins return
rushed to the crime scene and helped to the house, appellant heard an
carry Alexander to an ambulance. SPO3 explosion and he immediately closed
Dequito was able to ask Alexander who the door. Later, the policemen
shot him to which he
answered Pato. Pato is an alias by
which appellant is known.[11] went to his house and told him that he
was a suspect in the shooting of
Alexanders wife, Susan, who rushed to Alexander and was then brought to the
the hospital was also told by Alexander police station.[17] The following day, he
that it was appellant who shot was subjected to paraffin test the result
him.[12] Alexander died the following of which turned out to be negative.[18]
day.[13]
Appellants testimony was
corroborated by Madoline and
Dr. Tito D. Doromal, Philippine National Franlin. PO1 Javelora declared that
Police medico-legal officer, performed when he asked Alexander who shot
an autopsy on the body of him, the latter did not
Alexander. The autopsy report stated answer.[19] Likewise, PO3 Sarmiento
the cause of death to be hemorrhage and Allona stated that when they went
secondary to pellet to the hospital to interrogate
wounds.[14] Testifying on his report, Dr. Alexander, the latter could not give a
Doromal explained that Alexander died definite answer as to who shot him.[20]
from a gunshot wound which
penetrated the ribs and lacerated the On 15 August 2000, the RTC found
right lobe of the liver, colon, stomach, appellant guilty beyond reasonable
duodenum, and right kidney. The doubt of murder and sentenced him to
entrance wound was located at the suffer the penalty of reclusion
middle-back portion of the body. Seven perpetua. The dispositive portion of the
(7) pellets were recovered on the decision read:
muscle of the upper and middle
abdominal wall.[15]
WHEREFORE,
The defenses evidence consists of the premises considered,
testimonies of appellant himself and of and in the light of the
his wife, Madoline, his stepdaughter, facts obtaining and the
Franlin, PO1 Manolito Javelora, PO3 jurisprudence aforecited,
Alberto Sarmiento, and PO3 Wilson judgement is hereby
Allona. Appellant interposed alibi as his rendered finding the
main defense. He claimed that accused GUILTY beyond
Alexander, together with his daughter reasonable doubt of the
and Sendin, had gone to his house crime of MURDER,
on 24 April 1998 at around 6:00 hereby sentencing the
p.m. where they were welcomed and said accused to the
offered snacks.[16] They were having a penalty of RECLUSION
conversation when a blackout PERPETUA pursuant to
occurred. Alexander then asked Sec. 6 of Republic Act
permission to leave. After the visitors No. 7659[,] amending
 Article 248 of the in People v. Mateo,[26] the case was
Revised Penal Code. The referred to the Court of Appeals.
said accused is further
condemned to indemnify The appellate court affirmed the trial
the surviving heirs of the courts ruling but modified the award of
deceased, Alexander moral damages from Thirty Thousand
Parreo, the sum Pesos to Fifty Thousand
of P257,774.75 by way Pesos.[27] Hence, the instant appeal.
of actual damages; the
amount of P30,000.00 In a Resolution dated 16 July
by way of moral 2007, the Court required the parties to
damages and the sum simultaneously submit their respective
of P50,000.00 by way of supplemental briefs if they so
death desired. [28]
Both parties manifested
compensation. The that they would adopt their briefs filed
accused who is detained before the appellate
is entitled to be credited court.[29] Thereafter, the case was
in full with the entire deemed submitted for decision.
period of his preventive
detention. The Jail Appellant argues that the trial court
Warden, Iloilo Rehabilita erred in giving full credence to the
tion Center is ordered to testimony of the prosecution's
remit the said accused to eyewitness, Michelle, as well as the
the National Penitentiary dying declaration of Alexander
at the earliest considering that the circumstances
opportunity. under which the crime was committed
rendered the identification of the
SO ORDERED.[21] gunman impossible.

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]

Q: Where were you in xxxx

relation to your
father when you Q: If this Joemarie
heard that shot? Cerilla is inside
A: I was in front of my the Courtroom,
Daddy and he can you identify
was at my back. him?
A: Yes, Maam.
Q: You said you heard a
shot, what did Q: Please point to him.
you do when you (Witness pointing
heard a shot? to the accused
A: When I heard the Joemarie
shot, I turned Cerilla).[32]
back and I saw
Joemarie pointing Michelles account of how her father was
to my Dad. shot by appellant was corroborated by
the post-mortem examination which
COURT: reveals that the entrance wound is
located at the back of the victim.[33] In
Q: What did he point the same vein, the medico-legal expert
towards your concluded that the gunshot was fired at
Dad? a close range, as evidenced by the
A: Firearm. presence of a power burn measuring
four (4) centimeters in diameter
surrounding the periphery of the
wound [34] and penetrating his internal
organs.[35]
PROSECUTOR PADILLA:

Q: You said Joemarie

was pointing a Significantly, the eyewitnesss
firearm to your positive identification of appellant as
father. Was it [a] the perpetrator of the crime is fully
supported the victims dying which is imposed by an oath
declaration. administered in court.[38]

A dying declaration is a Of the doctrines that authorize

statement made by the victim of the admission of special classes of
homicide, referring to the material facts hearsay, the doctrine relating to dying
which concern the cause and declarations is the most mystical in its
circumstances of the killing and which theory and, traditionally, among the
is uttered under a fixed belief that most arbitrary in its limitations. In
death is impending and is certain to the United States, the notion of the
follow immediately, or in a very short special likelihood of truthfulness of
time, without an opportunity of deathbed statements was widespread
retraction and in the absence of all long before the recognition of a general
hopes of recovery. In other words, it is rule against hearsay in the early
a statement made by a person after a 1700s. Not surprisingly, nearly as soon
mortal wound has been inflicted, under as we find a hearsay rule, we also find
a belief that death is certain, stating the an exception for dying declarations.[39]
facts concerning the cause and
circumstances surrounding his/her Four requisites must concur in
death.[36] order that a dying declaration may be
admissible, thus: first, the declaration
As an exception to the rule must concern the cause and
against hearsay evidence, a dying surrounding circumstances of the
declaration or ante mortem statement declarant's death. This refers not only
is evidence of the highest order and is to the facts of the assault itself, but also
entitled to utmost credence since no to matters both before and after the
person aware of his assault having a direct causal
impending death would make a careles connection with it. Statements
s and false accusation.[37] It involving the nature of the declarants
is thus admissible to provide the identi injury or the cause of death; those
ty of the accused and the deceased, imparting deliberation and willfulness in
to show the cause of death of the dece the attack, indicating the reason or
ased, and motive for the killing; justifying or
the circumstances under which the ass accusing the accused; or indicating the
ault was made upon him. The reasons absence of cause for the act are
for its admissibility is necessity admissible.[40] Second, at the time the
and trustworthiness. Necessity, declaration was made, the declarant
because the declarants death renders it must be under the consciousness of an
impossible his taking the witness stand, impending death. The rule is that, in
and it often happens that there is no order to make a dying declaration
other equally satisfactory proof of the admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable
crime; allowing it, therefore, prevents a and imminent death must be entered
failure of justice. And trustworthiness, by the declarant. It is the belief in
because the declaration is made in impending death and not the rapid
extremity, when the party is at the succession of death in point of fact that
point of death and when every motive renders the dying declaration
to falsehood is silenced and the mind is admissible. It is not necessary that the
induced by the most powerful approaching death be presaged by the
considerations to speak the truth. The personal feelings of the deceased. The
law considers the point of death as a test is whether the declarant has
situation so solemn and awful as abandoned all hopes of survival and
creating an obligation equal to that looked on death as certainly
impending.[41] Third, the declarant is
competent as a witness. The rule is that A: Not once but about 10
where the declarant would not have times.[45]
been a competent witness had he
survived, the proffered declarations will
not be admissible. Accordingly, Shortly thereafter, Novie Mae
declarations made by a child too young arrived and was told by Alexander that
to be a competent witness or by a it was appellant who opened fire at him:
person who was insane or incapable of
understanding his own statements by Q: When you
reason of partial unconsciousness are reached Confesso
not admissible in evidence.[42] Thus, in r Street, what
the absence of evidence showing that happened?
the declarant could not have been A: I saw that my elder
competent to be a witness had he sister was
survived, the presumption must be assisting my
sustained that he would have been father.
competent.[43] Fourth, the declaration
must be offered in a criminal case for
homicide, murder, or parricide, in which
the declarant is the victim.[44] Anent
this requisite, the same deserves no COURT:
further elaboration as, in fact, the
prosecution had caused its witnesses to Q: Whats the name of
take the stand and testify in open court your sister?
on the substance of Alexanders ante A: Michelle.
mortem statement in the present
criminal case for murder. COURT:

The victim communicated his ante- Proceed.

mortem statement to three persons
who testified with unanimity that they FISCAL:
had been told by the victim himself that
it was appellant who shot him. Michelle Q: When you saw your
recounted: sister Michelle
assisting your
Q: You said your father father, what [sic]
moved towards happened next?
you, what A: And I immediately
happened next? went near my
A: I approached my father and asked
father and him who shot him
cuddled him. and he answered
it was Joemarie
Q: What happened next? Cerilla who shot
A: While I was cuddling him.
my father he said,
Day, it was Q: Before you reached
Joemarie who your father, did
shot me. you observe his
physical
Q: How many time he appearance of
said he was shot? what happened to
him?
 A: Yes, Maam, he was A: We advised the group
supporting with to carry Mr.
his arm and when Parreo to the
I asked him he ambulance
still made a because the
response. ambulance was
on the way and
Q: You said [that] before after our mobile
you approached arrived, the
your father[,] you ambulance
saw him arrived also [sic]
supporting his so we carried Mr.
body, what was Parreo to be
his position at brought to the
that time? hospital.
A: He was in a position of
lying with his COURT:
hand on the road
and my sister was Q: Meaning you loaded
assisting him. the victim into the
ambulance?
xxx A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: Were you able to Q: And after he was

observe why your loaded, what did
father was sitting you do?
on the ground A: Before the ambulance
and supporting left the area, I
himself not to fall. questioned the
A: Yes, Maam. victim who shot
him and he
Q: Why, [sic] what did answered
you observe? Alias Pato. I am
A: My father was referring to
supporting Joemarie Cerilla,
himself in order the accused.
that blood will not
[ooze] from his Q: The accused Cerilla,
body and his body Alias Pato?
will not fall A: Yes, Your Honor.
down.[46]
PROSECUTOR:
SPO3 Dequito, who responded
immediately to the crime scene, Q: Can you remember
corroborated the testimonies of the the exact words
Alexanders children, to wit: uttered by the
victim when you
asked him who
shot him?
Q: So, what did you do A: He answered me that:
when you arrived I questioned him,
at the crime Who shot you?
scene? and he answered
 that it was Cerilla A: He was leaning on his
and I further side and many
asked him The nurses attending
husband of to him and
Madoline and he saying araguy.
answered Yes,
Alias Pato, the xxx
husband of
Madoline.[47] Q: Between you and
your husband
who spoke first?
Likewise, Alexanders A: My husband.
wife, Sonia,
testified: Q: What were the exact
words stated by
Q: You said from your your husband?
house when you A: He told me that it was
were told by the Joemarie who
girls that your shot him.[48]
husband was
shot, what did These statements comply with
you do? all the requisites of a dying
A: I looked for a taxi and declaration. First, Alexanders
proceeded to the declaration pertains to the identity of
hospital. the person who shot him. Second, the
fatal quality and extent of the
xxx injuries[49] he suffered underscore the
Q: When you arrived at imminence of his death as his condition
the hospital, was so serious that his demise occurred
where did you go the following morning after a thirteen
first? (13)-hour operation. Third, he would
A: To my husband. have been competent to testify had he
survived. Fourth, his dying declaration
xxx is offered in a criminal prosecution for
murder where he was the victim.

Other police officers were

Q: When you reached presented by the defense to refute the
that hospital and dying declaration. PO1 Javelora alleged
your own mother that he happened to pass by the crime
led you to where scene and saw a young girl crying. The
Alexander was, in girl led him to her father who was
what part of the sitting on the roadside. He asked the
hospital did you victim who shot him but he did not get
first see him. any reply.[50] PO3 Allona and Sarmiento
A: Outside the operating arrived at the hospital and questioned
room. Alexander as to who shot him but the
latter told them, I am not sure because
Q: What was the it was dark.[51] These statements
situation of your cannot be construed as a categorical
husband when statement of the victim denying
you first saw him? knowledge as to the identity of his
assailant. It can be recalled that at the darkness so that we can
time Alexander was being questioned, still see objects clearly
he was already being readied for even without sufficient
surgery. At that point, he was lighting. In the case at
understandably no longer fit to respond bar, it would not be so
to questions. Between these two hard for Michelle to
seemingly conflicting testimonies, it is identify a persons fact
the positive identification made by especially if the latter as
Alexander in his dying declaration in the present case was
which must be sustained. barely two (2) arms
length away from them
Appellant insists that there was which is confirmed by the
an inherent impossibility in identifying presence of gunpowder
the assailant with clarity since there nitrates on the body of
was a power blackout at the time of the the victim. We stress,
commission of the crime and was then that the normal reaction
a moonless night. of the person is to direct
his sight towards the
The fact that the crime was source of a startling
committed during a blackout does not [shot] or occurrence. As
cast doubt on Alexanders and Michelles held in People v. Dolar,
positive identification of appellant. the most natural reaction
While the place of occurrence was dark, of the victims in criminal
this did not prevent the Alexander or violence is to strive to
Michelle from identifying the assailant, see the looks and faces
especially since the shot was delivered of their assailants and to
at close range. observe the manner in
which the crime is
In dismissing appellants committed. Added to this
contention, the trial court rationalized: is the fact that the
accused Joemarie Cerilla
x x x This and the victim Alexander
argument deserves scant Parreo
consideration. In the have known each other
case of People v. Hillado, quite well before the inci
G.R. No. 122838[,] dent so that
promulgated on May 24, they became familiar wit
1999[,] citing the case h each others face and
of People v. Oliano, physical features. x x
visibility at nighttime is x [52]
possible not only at the
exact minute and date
when the moon is full as Moreover, the prosecution
indicated in the witnesses were not shown to be
calendar. Thus, a impelled by ill motive to testify falsely
persons nocturnal against appellant. Besides, Susan,
eyesight, is not Michelle and Novie Mae, being
necessarily diminished immediate relatives of the deceased,
just because there is no would naturally be interested in having
illumination from the the real culprit punished.[53]
moon, because it is a fact
that our eyes can The positive identification of
actually adjust to the appellant must necessarily prevail over
his alibi.[54] It was not physically not attended by any other aggravating
impossible for appellant to have been circumstance, the proper imposable
present at the scene of the crime at the penalty is reclusion perpetua.
time of its commission. The distance of
his house, where he supposedly was, We deem it proper to further
from the locus criminis is only 120-150 impose exemplary damages in the
meters, more or less.[55] amount of P25,000.00 which is
recoverable in the presence of an
Appellant counters that there aggravating circumstance, whether
was absence of any motive on his part qualifying or ordinary, in the
to kill the victim; that it was not clearly commission of the crime.[58]
proven that he fired a gun, based on the WHEREFORE, the Decision of
paraffin test; and that he appeared the Court of Appeals dated 26 October
calm and composed and showed no 2006, affirming with modification the
indication of guilt when he was invited Regional Trial Court Judgment dated 15
by the police officers shortly after the August 2000 finding appellant, Joemari
commission of the crime. Cerilla, guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of murder, is AFFIRMED with the
Time and again, we have ruled MODIFICATION that appellant is further
that a negative finding on paraffin test ordered to pay the heirs of Alexander
is not a conclusive proof that one has Parreo P25,000.00 as exemplary
not fired a gun because it is possible for damages.
a person to fire a gun and yet bear no
traces of nitrates or gunpowder, as SO ORDERED.
when the culprit washes his hands or
wears gloves.[56] The trial court
correctly rejected the result of the DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
paraffin test in light of the positive
identification of appellant.
WE CONCUR:
The trial court held that the
killing was qualified by treachery
because Alexander, who was unarmed, ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
was suddenly and unexpectedly shot Associate Justice
from behind by appellant without any
risk to the latter from any defense
which the former might make. There
was no opportunity given to Alexander
to repel the assault or offer any defense
of his person. There was not the ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO
slightest provocation on his part.[57] We MORALES
agree with the findings of the trial Associate Justice Associate Justice
court. The presence of treachery was
evident in the execution of the crime.
Appellant suddenly, and without
warning, shot Alexander from his back.

Under Article 248 of the Revised

Penal Code, as amended by Republic PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Act No. 7659, murder is punishable Associate Justice
with reclusion perpetua to
death. Because the killing of Alexander, ATTESTATION
although qualified by treachery, was
I attest that the conclusions in the [3]
Penned by Judge Tito G.
above Decision had been reached in Gustilo.
consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of [4]
CA rollo, p. 10.
the Courts Division.
[5]
TSN, 15 October 1998, p. 4.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice [6]
Id. at 5-6.
Acting Chairperson
[7]
Id. at 6-7.

[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]

Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon and [22]

Id. at 39.
concurred in by Associate Justices
Pampio A. Abarintos and Priscilla [23]
Id. at 44-45.
Baltazar-Padilla.
[24]
Id. at 41.
Twentieth
[2]
Division, Court
of Appeals Cebu City. [25]
Id. at 42.
 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July
[26]

7, 2004, 464 SCRA 640. See People v. Sagario, et al.,

[42]

121 Phil. 1257 (1965); People v.

[27]
Rollo, pp. 16-17. Araja, et al., 192 Phil. 412 (1981).

[28]
Id. at 21.
See People v. Elizaga, G.R.
[43]
[29]
Id. at 22-27. No. 78794, 21 November 1988.

People v. Aguila, G.R. No.

[30]
People v. Manguera, 446 Phil.
[44]

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).

People v. Malejana, G.R. No.

[54]

145002, 24 January 2006, 479 SCRA

610.

[55]
CA rollo, p. 42.

[56]
People v. SPO 1Brecinio, 469
Phil. 654, 665 (2004).

[57]
CA rollo, pp. 44-45.

People v. Dulanas, G.R. No.

[58]

159058, 3 May 2006, 489 SCRA 58.