Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

PHILIPPINE CASES

XVII. DYING DECLARATION

1. People v. Tabarnero, G.R. No. 168169, February 24, 2010 –Claire


DOCTRINE
A dying declaration is entitled to the highest credence, for no person who knows of his
impending death would make a careless or false accusation. When a person is at the
point of death, every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most
powerful consideration to speak the truth.
FACTS
Father and son Alberto and Gary Tabarnero were charged and convicted with
the murder of Ernesto Canatoy by the Bulacan RTC. The Tabarnero’s had allegedly
stabbed Ernesto with a fan knife several times, ultimately resulting in his death.
Gary was the sweetheart of Ernesto’s stepdaughter Mary Jane Acibar, and had
lived with her family until sometime in 1999. This is where the story diverges.
According to the defendants, Gary and Mary Jane were live-in partners. Gary
left the house shortly before the incident, after a misunderstanding occurred with Ernesto
when the latter stopped the planned marriage between Gary and his pregnant partner. At
11:40pm on October 23, 1999 Gary was overcome with emotion over the separation,
went to Ernesto’s house and began shouting and pleading with him what had he done
wrong and that he loved Mary Jane. Ernesto had come outside and struck him with a lead
pipe, missed, was embraced by Gary, and then Ernesto strangled Gary. Gary felt a knife
tucked at Ernesto’s back, and overcome, Gary took the blade and stabbed Ernesto. After
Ernesto fell to the ground, Alberto arrived and asked his son what happened, to which
Ernesto replied that he had stabbed Ernesto and that they should leave.
According to the plaintiffs, Gary just lived with them, they did not know he
had no relationship with Mary Jane, and upon finding this out Ernesto turned his away
from their home. On that night, Emerito Acibar, Mary Jane’s brother, had heard the
shouting and ignored it. He later heard a “kalabog” and Ernesto’s shouts for help. He saw
four assailants stabbing the victim several meters from the door. The assailants fled after
he shouted for help. He brought his stepfather to the hospital and then reported the
incident to the police. SP02 Morales joined him in the hospital.While in the presence of
two doctors on duty, SPO2 Morales asked Ernesto who stabbed him. Ernesto answered
that the assailants were the father and son, Gary and Alberto Tabarnero from Longos,
Bulacan.
The Taberno’s appealed the case to the SC, which remanded it to the CA,
which affirmed the case. Case now in SC in this present appeal.
ISSUE
(1) Whether any justifying or mitigating circumstance can be appreciated in favor of
Gary.
(2) Whether Alberto is guilty as principal.
(3) Whether the killing was qualified by treachery.
(4) Whether the amount of damages is proper.
HELD
(1) NO. Neither circumstance of self-defense or incomplete self-defense can be
appreciated as the element of unlawful aggression is missing in this case and there
was no other independent evidence introduced aside from the testimony of the
accused.

Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requirement in a claim of self-


defense or incomplete self-defense. Nor can it be said that the accused voluntarily
surrendered to the police, since he surrendered more than six months after the
crime was committed and did so only to clear his name.
Nor can voluntary surrender be considered mitigating as there was a
delay of six months before surrendering, negating the spontaneity of the act.
Jurisprudence holds that the pending warrant for the arrest of the accused and the
latter’s surrender more than one year after the incident were considered by the
Court as damaging to the plea. Gary surrendered almost one year and six months
from the October 23, 1999 incident, and almost one year and one month from the
issuance of the warrant of arrest against him on March 27, 2000.

(2) YES. Eyewitness testimony of Emercito relayed in court and the dying
declaration of the victim, relayed to SP02 Morales, pinpointed him as one of the
assailants who overpowered and stabbed the victim.
Ernesto categorically told SP02 Morales that it was “the father and son,
Gary and Alberto Tabarnero from Longos, Bulacan” who stabbed him. While
Ernesto was not able to testify in court, his statement is considered admissible
under Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court as a dying declaration, one of
the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
[In order to be accepted, it] must be shown that a dying declaration was
made under a realization by the decedent that his demise or at least, its imminence
-- not so much the rapid eventuation of death -- is at hand. This may be proven
by the statement of the deceased himself or it may be inferred from the nature and
extent of the decedent’s wounds, or other relevant circumstances.”
In the case at bar, Ernesto had nine stab wounds which caused his death
within the next 48 hours. At the time he uttered his statement accusing Gary and
Alberto of stabbing him, his body was already very rapidly deteriorating, as
shown by his inability to speak and write towards the end of the questioning.
A dying declaration is entitled to the highest credence, for no person who
knows of his impending death would make a careless or false accusation. When a
person is at the point of death, every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind
is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth.
It is hard to fathom that Ernesto, very weak as he was and with his body
already manifesting an impending demise, would summon every remaining
strength he had just to lie about his true assailants, whom he obviously would
want to bring to justice.

(3) YES. Though Emercito did not see the first stab to the victim, treachery was
amply demonstrated by the restraint upon Ernesto, which effectively rendered
him defenseless and unable to effectively repel, much less evade, the assault. The
court cited several cases upholding this doctrine. Even assuming there was no
treachery, there was abuse of superior strength qualifying the killing to murder.
There was abuse of superior strength in the act of the accused in stabbing Ernesto
while two persons were holding him, it clearly shows the deliberate use of
excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked.

(4) YES, in part. Actual damages of P55,600 was proper even without proof of
receipts is proper as the defense admitted the expense; Civil indemnity ex delicto
should be raised to P75,000 in light of Article 2206 and recent jurisprudence;
exemplary damages (P25,000; Article 2230) and moral damages (P50,000)
were proper.

S-ar putea să vă placă și