TITLE: People vs.

De Joya
CITATION: 203 SCRA 343, G.R. No. 75028 November 8, 1991
TOPIC: Dying declaration

FACTS:
X was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. During trial, the victim’s grandson A testified that
immediately after the incident, he asked her “What happened” and the victim answered “Si Paki!” and
then she died. When A was asked during his testimony who is Paki, he pointed X. Is A’s dying declaration
admissible in evidence against X?

ANSWER:
No.

Jurisprudence provides that a dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. To be

complete in itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae
of the subject of his statement, but that his statement of any given fact should be a full expression of all
that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact. The reason upon is that since
the declarant was prevented (by death or other circumstance) from saying all that he wished to say, what
he did say might have been qualified by the statements which he was prevented from making.

In the case at bar, A asked “What happened?” and not “Who did this to you?”. The victim’s answer “Si
Paki!” was incomplete. The courts cannot speculate what the rest of her statement might be. It cannot be
assumed that the victim intended to say that it was X who stabbed her.
TITLE: Marturillas vs. People
CITATION: 487 SCRA 273, G.R. No. 163217 April 18, 2006
TOPIC: Dying declaration

FACTS:
X was charged with the crime of homicide for killing Y. Y’s neighbor testified that after being shot in the
chest, Y went to him and shouted “Tabangi ko pre, gipusil ko ni Kapitan.” Shortly, Y’s wife came out from
their house and shouted “Kapital, ngano imong gipatay ang akong bana?” X objected to the admissibility
of the dying declaration on the ground that it Y’s statement did not expressly show that he was conscious
of his impending death. Is X correct?

ANSWER:
No.

The law does not require the declarant to state explicitly a perception of the inevitability of death. The
perception may be established from surrounding circumstances, such as the nature of the declarant’s
injury and conduct that would justify a conclusion that there was a consciousness of impending death.

In this case, even if Y did not make an explicit statement of that realization, the degree and seriousness
of the words and the fact that death occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as sufficient evidence
that the declaration was made by the victim with full consciousness of being in a dying condition.
TITLE: Parel vs. Prudencio
CITATION: 487 SCRA 405, G.R. No. 146556 April 19, 2006
TOPIC: Declaration Against Interest

FACTS:
X filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Y alleging that X is the owner of a
certain residential house and that he allowed Y’s parents to occupy the second floor. In 1985, X wrote Y a
notice for them to vacate the house but Y refused. For his defense, Y alleged that his parents are co-
owners of the said house. During trial, an affidavit was presented which was executed by Y’s father in
1973 stating that he is not the owner of the subject house but X. Can the court admit the affidavit in
evidence?

ANSWER:
Yes.

The rules of court provides that the declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against
the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to the declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the
declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his
successors-in-interest and against third persons.

In the case at bar, the affiant was Y’s father and had adequate knowledge with respect to the subject
covered by his statement. In said affidavit, Y’s father categorically declared that while he is the occupant
of the residential building, he is not the owner of the same as it is owned by X. It is safe to presume that
he would not have made such declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it is prejudicial to himself as
well as to his children’s interests as his heirs.