PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
JUAN BRIOSO must be noted, however, that Antonios affidavit did not contain the seal of
and MARIANO TAEZA, defendants-appellants.
[G.R. No. L-28482. January 30, 1971.]
REYES, J.B.L., J p:
Nature of the case:
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Abra, in its Criminal
Case No. 626, finding the two appellants Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza
guilty of murder, and sentencing each to suffer life imprisonment and to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Silvino Daria in the sum of
P6,000.00 but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to
pay the costs.
Facts:
Silvino Daria and his wife Susana Tumalip were in their house on
December 23 1966. Daria was making rope while Tumalip was applying
candle wax to a flat iron. Cecilia Bernal, their niece and neighbour, was
alarmed by the barking of dogs. When she peeped through a crack in the
wall of her house, she saw appellants Juan Brioso and Mario Taeza walking
in the direction of the spouses house with Brioso carrying a long gun and
Taeza, a short weapon. She testified that she saw appellants point the gun
at the bamboo wall of the house and fired two shots. Tumalip testified that
right after Daria was shot, she rushed to his side and he told her it was
Brioso and Taeza who shot him. He died one hour later. After a few days,
Tumalip and Bernal executed affidavits naming herein appellants as the
killers.
For their defense, Briosos alibi was that during that day, he was with his
cousin, Flores, milling sugar the entire day. Flores was presented to
corroborate Briosos alibi, but their testimonies varied. Taezas alibi, was
that he was playing his guitar at the clinic with Antonio, son of the
deceased, along with some other companions, around the time the
shooting happened. This was corroborated by the affidavit of Antonio. It
the Fiscals office. Neither was he presented as a witness during trial. The
trial court convicted the appellants for the murder of Daria.
Issue:
1. WON the court was correct in relying on the testimonies of Bernal
and Tumalip.
2. WON the court was correct in not admitting the affidavit of Antonio
for being hearsay.
Ruling:
1. Yes. The testimony of Bernal was corroborated by the
declaration of the victim himself, who told his wife that it
was Brioso and Taeza who shot him. The declaration is
admissible under the rule on ante-mortem statements.
Judging from the nature and extent Darias wounds, he must have
realized the seriousness of his condition, and it can be safely
inferred that he made such statements under the
consciousness of an impending death.
2. Yes. Antonios affidavit was properly rejected as hearsay
evidence. The said affidavit was neveridentified by the
supposed affiant and there was no opportunity for
prosecution to cross-examine him because he was not
presented during trial. As stated in the case of People v.
Mariquina affidavits are generally rejected in a judicial
proceedings as hearsay, unless the affidavits themselves are
placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the sentence under appeal is affirmed, with
the sole modification that the amount of the indemnity is increased to
P12,000.00.