This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-11-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Four requisites must concur in order that a dying declaration may be admissible, thus: first, the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death. This refers not only to the facts of the assault itself, but also to matters both before and after the assault having a direct causal connection with it. Statements involving the nature of the declarant's injury or the cause of death; those imparting deliberation and willfulness in the attack, indicating the reason or motive for the killing; justifying or accusing the accused; or indicating the absence of cause for the act are admissible.[40] Second, at the time the declaration was made, the declarant must be under the consciousness of an impending death. 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 the dying declaration admissible. It is not necessary that the approaching death be presaged by the personal feelings of the deceased. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly impending.[41] Third, the declarant is competent as a witness. The rule is that where the declarant would not have been a competent witness had he survived, the proffered declarations will not be admissible. Accordingly, declarations made by a child too young to be a competent witness or by a person who was insane or incapable of understanding his own statements by reason of partial unconsciousness are not admissible in evidence.[42] Thus, in the absence of evidence showing that the declarant could not have been competent to be a witness had he survived, the presumption must be sustained that he would have been competent.[43] Fourth, the declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is the victim.[44] Anent this requisite, the same deserves no further elaboration as, in fact, the prosecution had caused its witnesses to take the stand and testify in open court on the substance of Alexander's ante mortem statement in the present criminal case for murder. | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a victim on the verge of death, are entitled to the highest degree of credence and respect.[38] Persons aware of an impending death have been known to be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous in their accusations.[39] The dying declaration is given credence, on the premise that no one who knows of one's impending death will make a careless and false accusation.[40] Hence, not infrequently, pronouncements of guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the dying declaration of the deceased victim.[41] | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We sustain the trial court's award to the victim's heirs of the sum of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 for rape and P50,000.00 for the death of the victim. This is in line with our recent ruling in People vs. Manguera.[18] In addition, they are entitled to moral damages of P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof since the anguish and pain they endured are evident.[19] | |||||
|
2004-01-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Considering that at the time of the commission of the crime, the appellant was a minor under the parental authority of his parents, the Spouses Manuel and Julieta Darilay are primarily and directly liable for the damages sustained by the heirs of the victims Marilyn and Ailyn Arganda.[40] Consequently, the Spouses Manuel and Julieta Darilay are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, in Criminal Case No. RTC'97-201, to pay to the heirs of the victim Marilyn Arganda, the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;[41] P50,000.00 as moral damages;[42] and P28,000.00 as exemplary -damages.[43] The prosecution failed to adduce evidence in support of actual damages; hence, the heirs of the victim are not entitled thereto. They are, however, entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[44] | |||||