PEOPLE vs DUNIG FACTS: Two witnesses who saw the killing Victim also saw the assailant shortly

before she died. Pacifico Dunig was charged with murder of Marilyn Canatoy (14 years old) in Bulacan. He allegedly stabbed the victim. Witnesses state they saw Dunig kill victim while she was asleep in a bamboo bed (there was a sleepover at Atty. Andrades rest house). They all rushed back to their house. This was around 3 in the morning. One witness even heard victim say Nanay sinasaksak ako ni Pico (Dunig). In fact, the victim herself went to her mother and said Nanay, bigayn niyo ako ng katarungan. Sinaksak ako ni Pico before she died. Dunigs defense was an alibi. He claims he was not at the reset house, but in a separate nipa hit. TC found him guilty.

ISSUE: W/N the dying declaration can be exempted from the hearsay rule? NO. W/N Dunig is guilty? NO. REVERSED HELD: A dying declaration is entitled to the highest credence on the theory that a person who knows he is on the verge of death is not likely to make a false accusation. However, the declaration, albeit presumably in good faith, may still be based on an erroneous identification of the declarant's killer. In the case at bar, it has been established by the testimonies of the Montes sisters that the resthouse was dark. Like the other there girls who were sleeping with her, Marilyn could not possibly have seen the person who was attacking her. At best, she could probably only surmise it was Dunig, but that was a most uncertain identification. A surmise is not evidence. A man's honor and liberty cannot be forfeited because the victim supposedly pointed to him as her killer although she could not possibly have seen the person who was stabbing her in the dark. At that, we cannot even be certain that the dying Marilyn really made that declaration against Dunig.

PEOPLE vs DIVINA (I think this is more correct) FACTS:

These are two consolidated cases. One is an appeal from judgment, the other is a petition for certiorari due to grave abuse of discretion Accused Belarmino Divina and Mecrito Baga appealed decision convicting them of murder and frustrated murder. Concepcion Baillo was murdered and Jaime Baillo sustained gunshot wounds. Crime was held in Negros Oriental. Mr. Ambrocio Baillo, wife Concepcion and son Jaime came from a flea market and while crossing the street was shot from behind without any warning. Ambrocio was able to run away to his house. Told his other son to come back for the mom and sibling. He then reported it to the police. Jaime told them that the accused went to them holding the gun. It turns out Conception was a witness against the Divinas in another pending case. Divinas alibi was that he was out drinking that night with other people. Bagas defense was that he was praying the rosary with his family after plowing the field that day. Divina also states that as per the police blotter, the time of day (7.40 pm) made it imposible for Jaime to see the accused in the crime scene without light/torch. TC found them guilty of murder and frustrated murder qualified by treachery. Both filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Approval of Bail Bond.

ISSUE: W/N they are guilty?

HELD: Divina YES. But for Baga, prosecution did not meet beyond reasonable doubt standards (conspiracy not proved).

The rule is well-established that the failure to reveal or disclose at once the identity of the accused does not necessarily affect much less impair, the credibility of the witness. The initial reluctance of witnesses to

volunteer information about a criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved in criminal investigations due to fear of reprisal is common and has been judicially declared not to affect credibility. On the issue of conspiracy, We hold that it was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Nowhere in the trial court's decision was there any mention of any act of the accused that may be construed as an overt act in the furtherance of conspiracy. Absent such an evidentiary basis, We cannot accept the finding of implied conspiracy. Moreover, although motive is unnecessary when the assailant has been positively identified, 22 in this case, accused Belarmino Divina has the motive to commit the crime charged because the victim Concepcion Baillo was shown to be a witness against the former's brothers in another criminal case. RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC: A police blotter is a book which records criminal incidents reported to the police. Entries in official records, as in this case of a police blotter, are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. They are not conclusive. It is undisputed that the alleged time of the commission of the crime, i.e., 7:40 in the evening of June 17, 1988, was supplied only by the parish priest Fr. Badoy who was neither present when the shooting incident happened nor presented as a witness during the trial. The information supplied is therefore hearsay and does not have any probative value.

PEOPLE vs DIVINA FACTS: Teodoro Divina is appealing his conviction for the crime of rape. Victim was Rosalie Divina, wife of accused Teodoros cousin. It was alleged she was raped when they were alone in the house and Teodoro was drunk and under the influence of drugs. It was done at knifepoint. He only stopped when she begged that her husband might see them. When victims husband arrived, they fled in a tricycle and she eventually revealed she was raped. Initially, husband taught they were having an affair. Accused claims they were having an affair (alibi). Defense witness claims they often saw the accused and victim together at the house of Madonna. Divina was found guilty by the TC.

ISSUE: W/N Divina is guilty?

HELD: NO. REVERSED. Complainants testimony in this case is uncorroborated. It is true that the lone testimony of the rape victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction; and that evidence is weighed, not counted. In each case, however, we must carefully evaluate the probative value of the victims testimony and measure it against the evidence for the defense. In the case at bar, accused-appellants defense is corroborated by the testimony of an apparently disinterested witness, Crystalline Arcilla. She testified that she accompanied accused-appellant and complainant on their dates. She also narrated how accused-appellant confronted complainant when the latter told his wife about their illicit affair. We believe otherwise for the following reasons: (a) the prosecution failed to refute the allegation of accused-appellant that he and private complainant were lovers; (b) no witness was presented to rebut the testimony of Crystalline Arcilla, who stated that she saw accused-appellant shouting in front of private complainants house on the night of the incident; (c) neither was the prosecution able to debunk accused-appellants claim that it was common knowledge in their community that he might be the father of one of private complainants children.

Further, victims husbands reaction is indicative of his suspicion of an existing affair. He was suspicious instead of feeling outrage that his wifes honor was besmirched.

DE LEON vs PEOPLE FACTS: Petition for reviewing seeking the reversal of Flavio de Leons conviction for the crime of homicide. Victim was Benjamin Aguinaldo (jeepney driver) who was shot 9 times. NBI had 3 witnesses. They stated that Flavio de Leon, Gregorio de Leon and Apolonio Santos were 3 out of 5 men who kidnapped the victim. Ramos (witness) claimed victim was taken while he was en route to returning his jeepney to the owner, Isidro. TC found them guilty. IAC affirmed. MR was denied. Meanwhile, Flavio de Leon died during the pendency of his appeal. Present appeal involves the remaining two accused G. de Leon and Santos.

ISSUE: (RELEVANT) W/N the TC erred in admitting the NBI Sworn Statements and Preliminary Investigation Testimonies of witnesses? W/N these testimonies should be given credence and weight?

HELD: NO. TC did not err. Testimonies admissible. Conviction affirmed. The issue as to the admissibility of the sworn statements and testimonies of Reyes and Quinto deserves scant consideration at this stage of the case because this Court had already put the issue to rest when it denied the petition for certiorari earlier filed by herein petitioners questioning the decision of the Court of First Instance to admit the transcripts in question. By the express provision of section 1 (f) Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, the testimonies given by witnesses during the preliminary investigation of the case on trial should be admitted into evidence when such testimony was taken by question and answer in the presence of defendant or his attorney, and there was an opportunity for the defendant to cross examine the witness "who is dead or incapacitated to testify or cannot with due diligence be found in the Philippines" (People v. Villaluz, 125 SCRA 116 [l983]).