Dying Declarations: How Victim Statements Can Prove Homicide

G.R. No. 110129, August 12, 1997

Imagine a scenario: a person, gravely wounded and knowing death is near, identifies their attacker. Can this statement alone lead to a conviction? The answer lies in the legal concept of a “dying declaration.” This case, People of the Philippines vs. Edelciano Amaca, delves into the admissibility and weight of such declarations in Philippine courts. It highlights how a victim’s final words, made under the belief of impending death, can be crucial evidence, but also underscores the importance of proper charging and proof in criminal cases.

In this case, the Supreme Court grappled with the conviction of Edelciano Amaca for murder, based largely on the dying declaration of the victim, Wilson Vergara. While the Court acknowledged the validity of the dying declaration, it ultimately found Amaca guilty only of homicide, emphasizing the critical role of proper legal procedure and the burden of proof in criminal prosecutions.

Legal Context: Dying Declarations and the Rules of Evidence

Philippine law recognizes the inherent truthfulness in statements made by individuals who believe they are about to die. This is enshrined in Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which outlines the requirements for a dying declaration to be admissible as evidence. It is an exception to the hearsay rule, which generally prohibits the admission of out-of-court statements.

The rationale behind this exception is that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to fabricate a story. As the Supreme Court noted, “when a person is at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth.”

For a statement to qualify as a dying declaration, the following elements must be present:

• The declarant (the person making the statement) must be conscious of their impending death.
• The declarant must have been a competent witness had they survived.
• The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death.
• The declaration must be offered in a criminal case where the declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry.
• The declaration must be complete in itself.

Furthermore, the Revised Penal Code defines the crimes of murder and homicide. Murder, under Article 248, involves the unlawful killing of a person with qualifying circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. Homicide, under Article 249, is simply the unlawful killing of a person without any of the qualifying circumstances that would elevate it to murder.

Case Breakdown: From Shooting to Supreme Court Ruling

The story begins on October 1, 1990, when Wilson Vergara was shot. Responding to the incident, Police Officer Bernardo Mangubat found Vergara at a clinic, awaiting transport to a hospital. Vergara, identifying himself as Nelson (sic) Vergara, stated he was shot by CVO Amaca and Ogang. He did not know why he was shot but felt he was about to die. Police Officer Mangubat reduced Vergara’s statements into writing and had the victim affix his thumbmark, using his own blood, in the presence of Wagner Cardenas.

Vergara died the following day. Amaca was charged with murder, with the information alleging evident premeditation. He pleaded not guilty, presenting an alibi defense claiming he was on duty at a CAFGU detachment at the time of the shooting.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Amaca of murder, relying heavily on Vergara’s statement as a dying declaration. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the RTC’s conclusion that the crime was murder. The Court emphasized that the information only charged Amaca with murder qualified by evident premeditation, not treachery.

“The Constitution requires that the accused must be informed of the ‘nature and cause of the accusation against him,’” the Court stated. Since treachery was not alleged in the information, it could not be used to qualify the crime as murder. Even if treachery existed, the Court could not consider it because of the prosecution’s failure to include it in the charge.

The Supreme Court also considered the defense of alibi, however, found it unconvincing because the distance between the detachment where Amaca claimed to be and the crime scene was relatively short, making it possible for him to commit the crime and return to his post within a reasonable time.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Amaca guilty only of homicide. Furthermore, because the victim’s mother had executed an affidavit of desistance, waiving her right to pursue civil indemnity, no damages were awarded.

Practical Implications: Lessons for Criminal Law and Procedure

This case underscores several important principles in criminal law and procedure:

• The Importance of Proper Charging: The prosecution must clearly and accurately state all the elements and qualifying circumstances of the crime in the information. Failure to do so can prevent a conviction for a higher offense, even if the evidence supports it.
• The Weight of Dying Declarations: Dying declarations are powerful evidence, but their admissibility depends on strict adherence to the requirements of the Rules of Court.
• The Weakness of Alibi: Alibi is a weak defense, especially when the accused could have been present at the crime scene despite their claimed location.
• Waiver of Civil Liability: A waiver by the victim’s heirs of their right to pursue civil indemnity in a criminal case is binding and prevents the court from awarding damages.

Key Lessons:

• Prosecutors must ensure accuracy and completeness when filing criminal charges.
• Defense lawyers should carefully scrutinize the information to identify any deficiencies.
• Individuals should be aware of their rights and the consequences of waiving them.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a dying declaration?

A: A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning the cause and circumstances of their death. It is admissible as evidence in court, even though it is hearsay.

Q: What are the requirements for a statement to be considered a dying declaration?

A: The declarant must be conscious of their impending death, the statement must concern the cause and circumstances of their death, and the declarant must have been competent to testify had they survived.

Q: Can a person be convicted of murder based solely on a dying declaration?

A: Yes, a conviction for murder can be based on a dying declaration, provided the declaration is credible, meets all the legal requirements, and is supported by other evidence. However, the prosecution must also prove all the elements of murder, including any qualifying circumstances.

Q: What is the difference between murder and homicide?

A: Murder is the unlawful killing of a person with qualifying circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person without any of these qualifying circumstances.

Q: What happens if the victim’s family waives their right to pursue civil damages?

A: If the victim’s family waives their right to pursue civil damages, the court cannot award damages in the criminal case. However, other compulsory heirs, if any, may still file an independent civil action to recover damages.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.