This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-04-22 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| A dying declaration pertains to the declarant's statements on the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death made under the consciousness of an impending death.[10] It is admissible because, as a general rule, when the person is at the point of death, every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth, and therefore, his statements, under such circumstances, deserve great weight.[11] | |||||
|
2001-12-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants could not even attribute a credible motive for Silvestre Piala to testify falsely against them. Nevertheless, proof of motive is unnecessary in view of the positive identification of the accused-appellants.[12] | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the trial court correctly sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[34] We likewise affirm the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Ariel Atienza as the same is automatically granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence other than the fact of the commission of the crime.[35] However, an additional award of P50,000.00 as moral damages should also be given in favor of the victim's heirs in accordance with our rulings in other cases.[36] | |||||
|
2001-09-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The prosecution also presented as evidence the dying declaration of the victim himself pointing to accused-appellant as his assailant. Such declaration is admissible in evidence under Rule 130, ยง37 of the Rules on Evidence which provides that, "[t]he declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death." Thus, in People v. Bacunawa,[32] this Court not only upheld the admissibility of the written dying declaration which the victim signed with his own blood but also recognized the considerable probative value of such declaration. For, at the point of death, a person no longer has any motive to tell falsehood and his mind is moved to profess only that which is true. So it must be in this case. | |||||