People v. Laquinon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Gregorio Laquinon was charged with murder for the killing of Pablo Remonde. The prosecution presented evidence that on November 13, 1972, at around 11:30 PM, gunshots were heard. Samama Buat, the barrio captain, found Pablo Remonde lying on the riverbank with his hands tied behind his back. Remonde identified Gregorio Laquinon as his assailant and stated he did not know if he would survive. Remonde was brought to the hospital and died on November 16, 1972, due to bullet wounds. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and costs. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant argued that the deceased's ante-mortem statement was inadmissible as a dying declaration because the deceased was not under the consciousness of impending death and was not a competent witness. He also presented a defense where he claimed he was ordered by his CO, Noli Cabardo, to fetch the victim, and that Cabardo shot the victim when the latter attempted to escape after admitting to spending money meant for provisions.
Issue(s)
Whether the ante-mortem statement of the deceased is admissible as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestae. Whether the deceased was a competent witness and whether his dying declaration was credible. Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, considering the defense presented and the evidence of treachery.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, with modifications to the indemnity. The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the ante-mortem statement: The Court held that the dying declaration of the deceased Pablo Remonde was not admissible as an ante-mortem declaration because the deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or not. The declaration failed to show that the deceased believed himself in extremis, "at the point of death when every hope of recovery is extinct." However, the Court admitted the statement as part of the res gestae since it was made immediately after the incident, and the deceased had no sufficient time to concoct a charge against the accused. The testimony of Barrio Captain Samama Buat that the place was dark and the victim stated he was shot by members of the KM strengthened the statement, as the accused was a member of the KM. On the competency of the deceased as a witness and the credibility of his dying declaration: The Court found that the fact that the deceased named Cristino Nerosa, the son of Suelo Maravillas, as one of those who shot him in his dying declaration did not make the deceased an incompetent witness nor render the declaration incredible. The accused's testimony that he and Nerosa separated and that he alone brought the deceased to Noli Cabardo was not corroborated and appeared to be an attempt to free Nerosa from criminal liability. The Court also noted that at the time the deceased made his statement, Cabardo was still alive, and it was unlikely the deceased would name the accused, with whom he had no quarrel, if it were not the truth. On the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt: The Court was satisfied with the findings of the trial court that the accused was responsible for the killing. The accused's version of the events, where he claimed Noli Cabardo shot the victim, was found to be incredible. The Court reasoned that it was unlikely for the deceased, with his hands tied and in a place covered by thick bushes, to attempt to flee. Furthermore, if the deceased had tried to flee, he would have been hit on the side or back, not frontally as indicated by the single gunshot wound in the abdomen. The Court also found it suspicious that the accused presented an outlandish defense pointing to Cabardo, who was already dead, to free himself from responsibility. The Court concluded that the accused employed means or force that tended directly and specially to insure the execution of the offense without risk to himself, qualifying the crime as murder due to treachery, as the victim was shot while his hands were tied behind his back.
Main Doctrine
A dying declaration, while not admissible as an ante-mortem statement due to the declarant's doubt of impending death, may be admitted as part of the res gestae if made immediately after the incident without sufficient time to concoct a charge.