People v. Tanaman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 1, 1982, Sgt. Romulo Bazar was shot while on his way home. Bleeding profusely, he managed to reach a neighbor's house and identified the appellant, Norberto Tanaman, as his assailant. He was rushed to the hospital where he gave an antemortem statement identifying Tanaman. He was later transferred to another hospital and expired on October 3, 1982. An Information for Murder was filed against Norberto Tanaman and others. Procedural History: All accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court found Norberto Tanaman guilty of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, acquitting the other accused for insufficiency of evidence. The court ordered Tanaman to pay civil indemnity. The Petition: The accused-appellant, Norberto Tanaman, appealed the decision, assigning errors concerning the admissibility of the antemortem statement, the identification of unknown assailants, and the sufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the antemortem statement of the deceased is admissible in evidence. Whether the deceased was shot and killed by unknown persons. Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court finding accused-appellant Norberto Tanaman guilty of Murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is affirmed. The civil indemnity awarded is also affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the antemortem statement: The Court held that the antemortem statement, Exhibit "G", is admissible as a dying declaration. All the requisites for its validity were present: it concerned the cause and circumstances of the declarant's death, was made under consciousness of impending death, the declarant was competent, and it was offered in a murder case where the declarant was the victim. The victim's response "My wounds are serious and I am not sure" to the question of survival, coupled with the seriousness of his five gunshot wounds and his subsequent death two days later, sufficiently indicated his consciousness of impending death, even without an express statement of lost hope. The Court cited People vs. Saliling, People vs. Ancasan, People vs. Serrano, and People vs. Obngayan in support of this principle. Furthermore, even if not admissible as a dying declaration, the statement was admissible as part of the res gestae as it was made immediately after a startling occurrence regarding its circumstances, allowing no time for fabrication, as per Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and People vs. De Gracia, et al. On the identification of the assailant: The Court found that the deceased was not shot by unknown persons. The antemortem statement directly identified the appellant, Norberto Tanaman, as the assailant. This identification was corroborated by other evidence, including the victim's wife's testimony that her husband wrote "Lamber Tanaman" on a piece of paper in the hospital, and the testimony of Enerio Langoyan who stated the victim told him "it was Lamberto Tanaman who shot me." The defense's contention that the victim wanted the appellant to testify against his aunt was deemed not credible, especially since the victim had already passed away on the date the appellant claimed this request was made. On the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt: The Court concluded that the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The antemortem statement identifying the appellant as the aggressor, corroborated by other testimonial and documentary evidence, satisfied the test of moral certainty. The Court also noted the aggravating circumstance of treachery, as the victim was shot from behind, which absorbed nocturnity. The defense's reliance on mere denials was insufficient against the strong prosecution evidence. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding of guilt, citing People vs. Libed regarding witness credibility.
Main Doctrine
An antemortem statement is admissible as a dying declaration if it concerns the cause and circumstances of the declarant's death, made under consciousness of impending death, by a competent witness, and offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide where the declarant is the victim. The victim's statement identifying the assailant, even if not expressly stating loss of hope for recovery, is sufficient if the circumstances, including the seriousness of the wounds and subsequent death, indicate consciousness of impending death. Such a statement may also be admissible as part of the res gestae.