Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
An Information4 was filed before the RTC charging Palanas of the PO3 Zapanta, together with SPO2 Borre's stepson Ramil Ranola
murder of SPO2 Ramon Borre y Orio (SPO2 Borre), viz.: (Ramil), brought SPO2 Borre to the Pasig City General Hospital. On
the way to the hospital, SPO2 Borre told Ramil and PO3 Zapanta
On or about March 26, 2006, in Pasig City, and within the
that it was "Abe," "Aspog," or "Abe Palanas" - referring to his
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused [Palanas], acting in
neighbor, Palanas -who shot him. This statement was repeated to
conspiracy with one male person who is at-large, whose true
his wife, Resurreccion Borre (Resurreccion), who followed him at
identity and whereabout[s] are still unknown acted as co-principal
the hospital. At around 11 o'clock in the morning of even date, SPO2
in the killing of one SPO2 Ramon Borre y Orio, committed as
Borre died due to gunshot wounds on his head and trunk.7
follows: said male person, armed with a gun, with intent to kill and
with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident For his part, Palanas interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and claimed that on March 25, 2006 he was in Parafiaque City attending
feloniously attack, assault, and shot one SPO2 Ramon Borre y Orio to the needs of his sick father. The next day, he went to a baptism in
on his head and different parts of his body which directly caused his Tondo, Manila and stayed there from morning until 9 o'clock in the
death, and thereafter, took the firearm of the said victim, boarded a evening, after which he returned to his father in Parafiaque City. He
maintained that he was not aware of the death of SPO2 Borre until
he was informed by a neighbor that Resurreccion was accusing him that he uttered the same under a fixed belief that his own death
of killing her husband. He also denied any knowledge why was already imminent.29 This declaration is considered evidence of
Resurreccion would blame him for SPO2 Borre's death. Both RTC the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no
and CA convicted the accused. person aware of his impending death would make a careless and
false accusation.30 Verily, because the declaration was made in
HELD: extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every
The CA is also correct in admitting SPO2 Borre's statements on his motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most
way to the hospital as evidence, both as a dying declaration and as powerful considerations to speak the truth, the law deems this as a
part of the res gestae. situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to that
which is imposed by an oath administered in court.31
For a dying declaration24 to constitute an exception to the hearsay
evidence rule,25 four (4) conditions must concur: (a) the declaration In the same vein, SPO2 Borre's statements may likewise be deemed
must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the to form part of the res gestae. "Res gestae refers to the
declarant's death; (b) that at the time the declaration was made, circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main
the declarant is conscious of his impending death; (c) the declarant fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and
was competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of
criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the deliberation and fabrication. The test of admissibility of evidence as
declarant is the victim.26 On the other hand, a statement to be a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration,
deemed to form part of the res gestae,27 and thus, constitute or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the
another exception to the rule on hearsay evidence, requires the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a
concurrence of the following requisites: (a) the principal act, the res part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates any
gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements were made premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony."32 In this
before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the case, SPO2 Borre's statements refer to a startling occurrence, i. e.,
statements must concern the occurrence in question and its him being shot by Palanas and his companion. While on his way to
immediately attending circumstances.28 the hospital, SPO2 Borre had no time to contrive the identification
of his assailants. Hence, his utterance was made in spontaneity and
In the case at bar, SPO2 Borre's statements constitute a dying only in reaction to the startling occurrence. Definitely, such
declaration, given that they pertained to the cause and statement is relevant because it identified Palanas as one of the
circumstances of his death and taking into consideration the authors of the crime. Therefore, the killing of SPO2 Borre,
number and severity of his wounds, it may be reasonably presumed perpetrated by Palanas, is adequately proven by the prosecution.
PEOPLE vs. VILLAVIEZ The grounds relied upon by respondents in their Petition for
Revocation are as follows:
G.R. No. 178110, January 12, 2016
3. That the respondents[29] grossly violated the Conversion Order
AYALA LAND, INC. AND CAPITOL CITIFARMS, INC., Petitioners, v. because instead of developing the land within five years from the
SIMEONA CASTILLO issuance of the Order, it sold said land to the present possessor,
HELD: Ayala Land, Inc.
Respondents argue that they raised the issue regarding the Notice 6. That the respondents likewise committed gross
of Acquisition in their Petition for Revocation, particularly in misrepresentation of the fact in that they made it appear before the
paragraph 5 thereof, which states: DAR that the landholding in question has been duly reclassified
from agricultural uses such as residential, commercial and
That the subsequent application for conversion filed by respondents industrial, when in truth and in fact, the Municipality of Silang does
was a mere ploy to cover up the said illegal transaction and to not have an approved town plan/zoning ordinance as of 24 October
evade the coverage of the property under the Comprehensive 1997 as per Certification issued by CAROLINA A, CASAJE, Officer-In-
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Charge, Board Secretariat of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB).
Respondents cannot gloss over the fatal defect of its claim from the
nonexistence of the Notice of Acquisition just by reducing the issue 8. That the respondents likewise failed to comply with the
to "CARP coverage." As stated above, they are contending that undertaking to pay/effect complete payment of the disturbance
petitioners' application for conversion was a ploy to cover up the compensation of tenant-farmers in the subject landholding xxx[32]
illegality of the Deed of Absolute Sale and Partial Redemption
between CCFI and ALL What they repeatedly claimed was that ALI While the Decision has extensively discussed the error committed
fraudulently concealed the sale agreement from the DAR. Three by the CA in passing upon and ruling on a new issue on appeal, we
DAR Secretaries, including Secretary Garilao who issued the did not grant the Petition for Review on this technical ground alone.
Conversion Order, rightly found these allegations baseless. This We went over the records and found no admissible proof presented
point was also raised and judiciously passed upon in the OP Order to support respondents' claim that a Notice of Acquisition had been
dated 26 September 2003. In contrast, the Notice of Acquisition is a issued. What was attached to the Petition for Review filed before
separate issue altogether which has never been raised in the the CA was a mere photocopy of the Notice of Coverage. The
proceedings below. purported Notice of Acquisition was never offered in evidence
before the DAR and never became part of the records even at the
proceedings a quo. Hence, we found that the CA committed undertook to obtain DAR approval for CARP exemption or
reversible error when it gave credence to a mere assertion of the conversion to non-agricultural use;
tenant-farmers.
(2) CCFI's letter-request dated May 7, 1996 addressed to the DAR
As a prelude to our ruling that new issues cannot be raised for the Regional Director for the lifting of the Notice of Acquisition;
first time on appeal, we contemplated the scenario in which the
(3) BSP's request in 1995 made in behalf of MBC for exemption of
farmers had submitted the proper document to the CA. We then
said, assuming arguendo they did, the appellate court could not the subject property from CARL coverage, and the letter-denial of
have reversed the OP Decision based on nothing more than this DAR Secretary who directed the distribution of the land to qualified
submission, as the issue of the Notice of Acquisition had never been farmer beneficiaries;
raised before the administrative agency concerned. (4) the Decision dated October 11, 1996 of Executive Secretary
As contended by the OSG and as exhaustively discussed in our Ruben D. Torres on the appeal of BSP from the DAR Secretary's
Decision, the CA decided an issue raised for the first time on appeal. denial of its request for exemption, in which the DAR was directed
It held that the DAR had issued a Notice of Acquisition, which served to defer proceeding with the distribution of lands already covered
by CARL and petitioner was granted the opportunity to present
as a perpetual ban on the conversion of the subject lands. However,
respondents never attached a copy, certified or otherwise, to their proof that the lands are qualified for exemption or conversion; and
1) Petition for Revocation, 2) Motions for Reconsideration in the (5) MBC's request for DAR clearance in October 1997 to sell its
proceedings a quo, or 3) Appeal Memorandum to the OP. This is landholdings placed under CARL coverage, which includes the
because they never raised the purpose of the notice as an issue in subject property.
their Petition for Revocation of the Conversion Order or in their
Motion for Reconsideration before the OP. What they repeatedly With the exception of item 2, there was no reference to a Notice of
argued was that fraud had been perpetrated by CCFI and ALL Acquisition in any of these documents. According to the Dissent of
Justice Villarama, considering the attendant circumstances, the
Respondents expressed their agreement with the point made by letter-request of CCFI for the lifting of the Notice of Acquisition
Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. in his Dissenting Opinion that the constituted an admission against interest of the fact that the notice
coverage of the land under CARL was confirmed by the following was issued.
documents:
The concept of admissions against interest is governed by Section
(1) the stipulation/condition in the Deed of Partial Redemption and 26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Deed of Absolute Sale, both dated August 25, 1995, in which CCFI
Sec. 26. Admissions of a party. - The act, declaration or omission of
a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.