People v. Salison, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 30, 1990, in Davao City, Rey Salison, Jr. (appellant) approached Rolando Valmoria, placed his arm around his shoulder, and led him behind a house where Salison boxed Valmoria. During the ensuing fistfight, co-accused Tirso Andiente, Rufino Dignaran, and Leonilo Fediles joined in mauling Valmoria. After initially leaving, they returned with Salison and continued the assault. Salison, Fediles, and Andiente then used pieces of wood to strike Valmoria on the back and head, causing him to fall. Valmoria managed to escape to his house, but the assailants followed, hitting the walls and windows. Valmoria, experiencing dizziness and bleeding, declared to the purok leader, Patricia Alcoseba, that he believed he would die and wished for his statement to be used as evidence. He identified Salison, Dignaran, Andiente, and Fediles as his attackers. Valmoria was treated for his head injuries but later died after experiencing convulsions. A necropsy confirmed the cause of death as subdural hemorrhage due to blunt external trauma. An agreement for hospital expense reimbursement was made between the parents of the victim and some accused, but no reimbursement occurred. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 16, found appellant Rey Salison, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages. The trial proceeded only against Salison as his co-accused were at large. The Petition: Appellant Rey Salison, Jr. appealed, contending that the trial court erred in finding proof of conspiracy, in holding him responsible for all injuries inflicted, and in admitting the victim's dying declaration and the parents' agreement.
Issue(s)
Whether there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused conspired in killing the victim. Whether, given the conspiracy, the accused is responsible for the death, regardless of the injuries he actually inflicted. Whether the victim's alleged dying declaration and the agreement between the parents are admissible evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding accused-appellant Rey Salison, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld, along with the civil indemnity and actual damages awarded by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conspiracy: The Court held that conspiracy was sufficiently established by the eyewitness accounts detailing the simultaneous attacks and concerted actions of the accused. The testimony of Magdalena Ayola, who witnessed the entire incident, clearly showed that Salison initiated the assault, and was later joined by the other co-accused in mauling Valmoria. The subsequent appearance of the co-accused and their collective use of pieces of wood to strike the victim, particularly on his back and head, demonstrated a common intent to inflict fatal blows. The Court reiterated the principle that direct proof of a prior agreement is not essential to prove conspiracy; it may be inferred from the parties' concerted actions and common purpose. The act of one conspirator is deemed the act of all, making all liable as co-principals. On the issue of individual responsibility given the conspiracy: The Court ruled that once conspiracy is established, all conspirators are liable as co-principals for the crime committed, regardless of the extent of their individual participation or who inflicted the fatal blow. The evidence showed that Salison was not only present but actively participated in the mauling, initiating the physical assault and later rejoining the group in using pieces of wood. Therefore, he is equally responsible for the death of Valmoria, as the collective action of the group led to the fatal injuries. On the admissibility of the dying declaration and the parents' agreement: The Court found the victim's written declaration admissible. Although it was in the Cebuano dialect and not initially accompanied by a translation, the defense did not object to its admission, thereby waiving any infirmity. The Court noted that such declarations, even if oral, are admissible, and a written statement is the best evidence. The Court also stated that even if it were not considered a dying declaration, it was admissible as part of the res gestae because it was made shortly after the startling incident under circumstances where the victim had no opportunity to contrive. The written agreement between the parents was presented as evidence but did not alter the criminal liability of the accused.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy may be inferred from the simultaneous attacks and concerted action of the accused, and all conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of their individual participation. A dying declaration, even if in a regional dialect and admitted without objection, is admissible and can be translated later. If not a dying declaration, it may still be admissible as part of the res gestae.