PEOPLE vs.
CRESENCIO “CRESING” MARAMARA
Dying Declaration | October 22, 2019 | Pardo, J.
Nature of the Case: Appeal from RTC
SUMMARY: Information for murder was filed against the accused for firing at the
victim in a benefit dance sponsored by a school PTA of which the accused was president
and which was held in the accused’s yard. When the victim was brought to the hospital
and before he expired, he told his father that the accused shot him. TC convicted the
accused on the basis of this dying declaration of the victim to his father and of his
brother’s eyewitness account, which SC affirmed.
DOCTRINE: Requisites for a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence:
(1) That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact;
(2) That the declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of such
death;
(3) That the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify to;
(4) That the declarant thereafter dies; and
(5) That the declaration is offered in a criminal case wherein the declarant’s death is
the subject of inquiry.
Miguelito – the victim; Ricardo – the victim’s brother; eyewitness; Regarde – the victim’s father to whom the victim made his dying
declaration; Cresing – the accused; Dante – the man who boxed Ricardo while the latter was dancing with Rowena.
FACTS:
 A benefit dance was held in the yard of accused Cresing’s house, sponsored by the
Calpi Elementary School Parents-Teachers Association of which the accused was
president.
 While the victim’s brother Ricardo was dancing with Rowena, accused’s friend Dante
approached Ricardo and boxed him. Rowena ran away while Ricardo scampered
toward the fence for safety, which was just 2 meters away from the victim Miguelito.
 Then the accused took his handgun tucked in his waist and fired at the victim’s left
breast.
 Ricardo tried to help his brother but was struck in the head with an iron bar.
 When Ricardo gained consciousness, he hurried home to inform his parents.
 Their father Regarde brought the victim to the hospital where the latter died but
before the victim expired, Regarde asked who shot him and the victim replied
that it was the accused.
 An information for murder1 was filed against the accused.
 The accused’s version was that the victim and his brother approached Dante who was
dancing with Rowena and ganged up on the former, and when the accused rushed to
the scene to pacify the trio, Ricardo held his hands at his back while the victim stabbed
him 4 times.
 TC convicted the accused of murder on the basis of its assessment of:
o Ricardo’s eyewitness account of how accused shot the victim, and
o Regarder’s recollection of his son’s dying declaration
as truthful testimonies coming from credible witnesses.
 Hence, this petition.
1With the aggravating circumstances of accused evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of nighttime.
2[Not in the case but in case ma’am asks] Based on case law, a tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs
between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed
or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. The elements of death caused in a tumultuous affray are:
(a) That there be several persons;
ISSUE: W/N the deceased’s dying declaration to his father, which formed the part of
the principal bases for the accused’s conviction (along with the deceased’ brother’s
eyewitness testimony), was admissible in evidence – YES.
a) Regarder’s testimony regarding Miguelito’s identification of the accused as his
assailant qualifies as a dying declaration that is worthy of credence. See doctrine.
b) The degree and seriousness of the wounds suffered by Miguelito and the fact that his
death supervened shortly thereafter may be considered as substantial evidence
that the declaration was made by him with the full realization that he was in a
dying condition.
c) The victim’s dying declaration having satisfied all these requisites, it must be
considered as an evidence of the highest order because, at the threshold of
death, all thoughts of fabrication are stilled.
d) A victim’s utterance after sustaining a mortal wound may be considered pure
emanations of the incident.
OTHER POINTS:
a) The fact of relationship of prosecution witnesses Ricardo and Regarder to the victim
Miguelito does not necessarily place them in bad light as relationship per se does
not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto
impair the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness.
i. While revenge is a normal reaction in a person who has lost a loved one
because of a crime, it does not follow that the revenge would be directed
aimlessly so as to include innocent persons.
ii. In fact, family members who have witnessed the killing of a dear one usually
strive to remember the face of the assailant.
iii. Such relatives are naturally interested in implicating only the real culprit, for
otherwise, the latter would thereby gain immunity.
b) Art. 251 on Death Caused by Tumultuous Affray2 does not apply:
i. It was in such situation that accused came and joined the fray purportedly to
pacify the protagonists when Miguelito attacked him causing 4 stab wounds in
different parts of his body. Then the accused with his handgun shot Miguelito.
ii. Assuming that a rumble or a free-for-all fight occurred, Art. 251 cannot apply
because Ricardo and Regarder Donato positively identified accused as
Miguelito’s killer.
c) No treachery:
i. The use of a firearm is not sufficient indication of treachery. Hence, he can be
convicted only of homicide.
RULING: Affirmed with modification. Guilty of Homicide only.
(b) That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
reciprocally;
(c) That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner;
(d) That someone was killed in the course of the affray;
(e) That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and
(f) That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified.