People v. Salafranca
G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012

Facts: 

Salafranca stabbed Bolanon and ran away. Bolanon was still able to walk to the house of his uncle  Estaño in order to seek help. His uncle rushed him to the Philippine General Hospital by taxicab. On their way to the hospital Bolanon told Estaño that it was Salafranca who stabbed him. Bolanon eventually succumbed at the hospital despite receiving medical attention. The trial court convicted Salafranca of murder. The CA affirmed the findings and conclusions of the RTC, citing the dying declaration made to his uncle pointing to Salafranca as his assailant, and Salafranca’s positive identification as the culprit by Mendoza, a minor who witnessed the incident. Salafranca appealed to the SC, insisting that the State did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.


Issue: 

Whether the utterance of Bolanon is qualified as a dying declaration or part of the res gestae.


Held: 

It appears from the testimony that Bolanon had gone to the residence of Estaño, his uncle, to seek help right after being stabbed by Salafranca; that Estaño had hurriedly dressed up to bring his nephew to the Philippine General Hospital by taxicab; that on the way to the hospital, Estaño had asked Bolanon who had stabbed him, and the latter had told Estaño that his assailant had been Salafranca; that at the time of the utterance Bolanon had seemed to be having a hard time breathing, causing Estaño to advise him not to talk anymore; and that about ten minutes after his admission at the emergency ward of the hospital, Bolanon had expired and had been pronounced dead. Such circumstances qualified the utterance of Bolanon as both a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae, considering that the Court has recognized that the statement of the victim an hour before his death and right after the hacking incident bore all the earmarks either of a dying declaration or part of the res gestae either of which was an exception to the hearsay rule.

A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites concur, namely: (a) that the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death; (c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim.19

All the requisites were met herein. Bolanon communicated his ante-mortem statement to Estaño, identifying Salafranca as the person who had stabbed him. At the time of his statement, Bolanon was conscious of his impending death, having sustained a stab wound in the chest and, according to Estaño, was then experiencing great difficulty in breathing. Bolanon succumbed in the hospital emergency room a few minutes from admission, which occurred under three hours after the stabbing. There is ample authority for the view that the declarant’s belief in the imminence of his death can be shown by the declarant’s own statements or from circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of his wounds, statements made in his presence, or by the opinion of his physician.20 Bolanon would have been competent to testify on the subject of the declaration had he survived. Lastly, the dying declaration was offered in this criminal prosecution for murder in which Bolanon was the victim.

A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.

The requisites for admissibility of a declaration as part of the res gestae concur herein. Surely, when he gave the identity of the assailant to Estaño, Bolanon was referring to a startling occurrence, i.e., his stabbing by Salafranca. Bolanon was then on board the taxicab that would bring him to the hospital, and thus had no time to contrive his identification of Salafranca as the assailant. His utterance about Salafranca having stabbed him was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling occurrence. The statement was relevant because it identified Salafranca as the perpetrator.