C3h- 2 Dying Declaration

People v. Gatarin & Quisayas

GR No. 198022
April 7, 2014

Eduardo Quisayas (Quisayas) was accused of robbery with homicide. Prosecution presented 5
witnesses:
- Maria Castillo (Maria) – Januario’s wife
- Howel Umali (Umali) – who allegedly saw haw the accused mauled the victim
- SP03 Gregorio Mendoza (SP03 Mendoza) – saw victim lying on the floorand testified on
the dying declaration of Januario
- Dr. Catalino Rasa, Jr. (Dr. Rasa, Jr.) – attended the victim when he was brough to the
hospital.
- PO1 Rogelio DIzon Coronel (P01 Coronel) - saw the accused running fast near the crime
scene and testified on Januario’s ante mortem statement.

PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:
Umali was riding a bicycle on his way home when he saw Januario Castillo (Januario) was
being mauled by 2 persons opposite of Dom’s Studio in Poblacion, Mabini, Batangas. He stayed
infornt of the churvh till the 2 persons ran.

While doing their patrol on board their vehicle, SP03 Mendoza and P01 Coronel saw 2
running men, and asked why they were running, the latter did not respond, hence the policemen
chased them. However, the policemen failed to apprehend them, hence they continued to patrol
the area, where they then found Januario severely wounded. On the way to the hospital, SP03
Mendoza asked who did this to him, Januario sateed that it was “Jay-R and his uncle” who stabbed
him.
Upon reaching Zigzag Hospital, Dr. Raza, Jr. attended him and found him in a critical
condition. The fatal wounds caused by a bladed weapon were found, which then caused Januario’s
death.
A case was filed against Quisayas while his partner was still at large. Prosecution presented
witnesses as who then stated the facts of the case and corroborated each other. Including which
Maria testified that she learned of her husband’s death, the amount of money stolen, and the
expenses and loss incurred by reason of her husband’s death.

Quisayas denied all the allegations and alleged that he had never been to Batangas and htat
he was from Samar, but has been residing in Cupang, Muntinlupa city since 1987, and that he only
heard about the place form his employer. Prosecution then presented a rebuttal witness,
Bienvenido Cpaonpon (Caponpon) who was a resident of the area and stated that Quisayas did live
in Batangas as he had rented a room.
 RTC rendered judgment against Quisayas as guilty, giving credence to SP03 Mendoza’s
question which yielded a res gestae answer from Januario. The CA affirmed, but included the same
answer as a dying declaration. Hence appealed to the SC.

Note:
- it was later found out in the cross examination of Maria that it was her niece, Josephine
Borbon (Borbon) who told her of her husbands incident and death, and that it was their
former helper Sonny Gatarin, and Eduardo Quisayas his uncle.
- That Januario delivered bottled goods/sari-sari store as a means of living. (failed to prove
by prosec)
- Reason why Januario was carrying 20k was because he recently sold a pair of earrings. (but
prosecution was not able to prove the same)

- Cross examination of SP03 Mendoza and P01 Coronel yielded that they merely asked who
stabbed him but did not inform Januario his condition during that time.

ISSUE:
Whether the statement made by Jauario was a dying declaration

HELD:
No. Lack of knowledge of impending death by Januario

perpetrators. The trial and appellate courts also relied on the statement of Januario as to
the circumstances of his death, testified to by PO1 Coronel and SPO3 Mendoza as dying declaration
and as part of res gestae.

A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay

character, may nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites concur, namely:
(a) the declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the
declarant’s death;
(b) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a
consciousness of impending death;
(c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and
(d) the statements.

The rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable
and imminent death must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and not
the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders a dying declaration admissible. The test is
whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly
impending. Thus, the utterances made by Januario could not be considered as a dying declaration.