Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

PEOPLE v DE JOYA

Nov 8, 1991 | Feliciano, J. | Petition for Certiorari | Exceptions to Hearsay Dying Declaration
PETITIONER: People of PH
RESPONDENT: Pioquinto de Joya
SUMMARY: Eulalia was stabbed to death. Her grandson found her and asked her what happened, to which she replied, Si Paqui
(de Joyas nickname). RTC convicted de Joya based on this dying declaration and other circumstantial evidence. SC Aquitted him
because this dying declaration was incomplete.
DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Completeness: A dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. To be complete in itself
does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae of the subject of his statement, but that his
statement of any given fact should be a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such
fact.

FACTS:

Pioquinto de Joya (72 y/o) was charged with


robbery with homicide

Took 2 rings, 1 necklace, 1 piece of earring


worth P550

Killed owner Eulalia Diamse (88 y/o) by


stabbing her neck and other body parts

Eulalia's 10 y/o grandson Alvin found her


bloodied. He asked her, "Apo, Apo,
what happened? She replied, "Si Paqui" (de
Joya's nickname), then died.

Corcumstantial evidence:

A beach walk step-in was found near the


victim's body. Eulalia's daughter recognized
it as footwear she gave de Joya's wife
Witness saw de Joya in Eulalias yard,
holding a bicycle and doing nothing
Two weeks before the incident, Eulalia and
de Joya quarreled because de Joya took a
bicycle without Eulalia's consent
De Joya did not visit during the 4-day wake

RTC: Convicted based on circumstances established

and the dying declaration of the deceased.


Sentenced to life imprisonment because death
penalty could not be imposed on him since he was
already 72 y/o.

ISSUE/RATIO
W/N Eulalias dying statement can be considered
as a dying declaration naming de Joya as her
killer. NO

Doctrine of Completeness: See above

Her declaration was incomplete. She was cut off by


death before she could convey a complete or
sensible communication to her grandson The words
"Si Paqui" do not constitute by themselves a
sensible sentence. Those two words could have
been intended to designate either the subject or a
verb.

If they had been intended to designate the


subject, we must note that no predicate was
uttered by the deceased.

If they were designed to designate the object


of a verb, we must note that no verb was
used by the deceased.

The phrase "Si Paqui" must, moreover, be


related to the question asked by Alvin:
"Apo, Apo, what happened?" Alvin's
question was not: "Apo, Apo, who did this
to you?"

RTC simply assumed that by uttering the words "Si


Paqui", the deceased had intended to name the
person who had thrust some sharp instrument
through and through her neck just below her ears.

Eulalia herself did not say so and we cannot


speculate what the rest of her communication might
have been had death not interrupted her

None of the other circumstantial evidence clearly


and necessarily lead to the conclusion that de Joya
robbed and killed Eulalia.

ACQUITTED.

Potrebbero piacerti anche