People of the Philippines vs Roberto Bernardo

G.R. No. 216056 – 891 Phil. 181 – Remedial Law – Evidence – Testimonial Evidence – Hearsay Rule – Exceptions; Dying Declaration

In May 2001, Roger Arquero and Rolando Licupa were walking on a rice field when all of a sudden Roberto Bernardo emerged from the hill portion of the field and suddenly shot Arquero. Bernardo ran. Licupa called for help and they were able to bring Arquero to the house of his brother. There, he was able to speak with his wife where he told her that the person who shot him was Bernardo. Thereafter, Arquero died. The wife testified in court and she narrated what Arquero told her. On the other hand, Bernardo’s version was that Arquero and several other men went to his house and opened fire; that he saw Licupa shot Arquero.

Bernardo was convicted.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bernardo may be convicted on the basis of the testimony of Arquero’s widow?

HELD: Yes. Arquero’s last words to his wife were his dying declarations. Truth often lies in the lips of a dying man. A person aware of a forthcoming death is generally considered truthful in his words and credible in his accusation. A dying man’s statements, given under proper circumstances, are treated with highest weight and credence.

In general witnesses can only testify to facts derived from their own perception (personal knowledge) otherwise, their testimony becomes hearsay which is inadmissible. An exception to the hearsay rule is a dying person’s declaration if it is “made under the consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case.” It is considered as “evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation.”

In order for a dying declaration to be admissible, the following must concur:

1) 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;

2) 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;

3) 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. 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; and

4) the declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is the victim.

All the above requisites are present in this case. Arquero’s statement that it was Bernardo who shot him pertained to the identity of the shooter. Further, considering the nature of Arquero’s wounds, nine 9 in all, he must be aware of his likely death. Arquero died the same day of the shooting. Further, Arquero immediately told his wife of the assailant’s identity before he was brought to the hospital. Thus, there was no opportunity for him to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. Neither is there evidence to show that Arquero would have been disqualified to testify had he survived. Lastly, his declaration was offered in a murder case where he was the victim.

Read full text.