The Importance of Contemporaneous Awareness of Death in Dying Declarations

G.R. No. 249859, July 06, 2022

Imagine a scenario where a person, after being attacked, identifies their assailant but isn’t truly aware they are about to die. Can this statement be used as evidence in court? This question brings us to the core of this case, which clarifies the critical distinction between a dying declaration and res gestae—two exceptions to the hearsay rule. This case underscores that for a statement to qualify as a dying declaration, the declarant must have a contemporaneous belief in their imminent death. If not, the statement may still be admissible under the res gestae exception, provided it meets specific criteria.

Legal Context: Hearsay Rule and Its Exceptions

In Philippine law, the hearsay rule generally prohibits the admission of out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, there are several exceptions to this rule, recognizing that certain out-of-court statements can be reliable under specific circumstances. Two notable exceptions are dying declarations and res gestae.

A dying declaration, as outlined in Section 31, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, is:

SECTION 31. Dying declaration. — The declaration of a dying person, made under a consciousness of an impending death, may be received in a criminal case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.

For a statement to be considered a dying declaration, the declarant must have a fixed belief in their inevitable and imminent death. This belief must be contemporaneous with the making of the statement.

On the other hand, res gestae, as outlined in Section 42, Rule 130, encompasses statements made during or immediately before or after a startling event, concerning the circumstances of that event.

SECTION 42. Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.

The elements of res gestae are:

• The principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence.
• The statement was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise.
• The statement concerns the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances.

For example, imagine a car accident where a driver, immediately after the crash, exclaims, “The brakes failed!” This statement could be admitted as part of res gestae because it was made spontaneously during a startling event and relates to the cause of the accident.

Case Breakdown: People vs. Yulo and Bueno

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Mark Anthony Yulo and Mark Ryan Bueno revolves around the murder of Felix Sabasan. Here’s how the events unfolded:

• On January 2, 2005, Felix Sabasan was stabbed multiple times outside his house.
• Lucena Abayon, a neighbor, witnessed the crime and identified Mark Anthony Yulo and Mark Ryan Bueno as the assailants.
• Felix, when asked by his father Nehemias who stabbed him, responded, “Tata Manukan and Nonoy.”
• Felix died while receiving treatment at the hospital.

During the trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Yulo and Bueno of murder, relying on Abayon’s eyewitness testimony, Yulo’s admission to another neighbor, Cristy Cardinal, and Felix’s statement to his father as a dying declaration. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, but the case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction, clarified that Felix’s statement to his father could not be considered a dying declaration because there was no evidence that Felix had a contemporaneous belief in his imminent death when he made the statement.

As the Court stated:

The records are bereft of any indication that Felix harbored a “fixed belief of his inevitable and imminent death” at the time he identified Yulo and Bueno as his assailants.

However, the Court ruled that the statement was admissible as part of res gestae, meeting all the necessary elements. The Court emphasized that:

All these elements are present in the instant case. First, the stabbing of Felix constituted a startling occurrence. Second, there was not enough time for him to contrive or devise a false accusation when he identified accused­ appellants since it was only moments after the attack when his father asked him who stabbed him. Finally, the statement concerns the stabbing incident which led to the death of the declarant, Felix.

Practical Implications: Key Takeaways for Legal Practice

This case provides critical guidance on how to assess the admissibility of statements made by victims in criminal cases. It underscores the importance of establishing a contemporaneous awareness of impending death for a statement to qualify as a dying declaration. If this element is missing, the statement may still be admissible under the res gestae exception, provided it meets the required criteria.

Key Lessons:

• For a dying declaration to be admissible, the declarant must have a fixed belief in their imminent death at the time the statement is made.
• If the “fixed belief” element is absent, consider whether the statement qualifies as part of res gestae.
• Ensure that all elements of res gestae are met: startling occurrence, spontaneity, and relevance to the event.

This distinction can significantly impact the outcome of a case, especially when direct evidence is limited.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the hearsay rule?

A: The hearsay rule prohibits the admission of out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It’s based on the idea that such statements are less reliable because the person who made them was not under oath and was not subject to cross-examination.

Q: What makes a dying declaration an exception to the hearsay rule?

A: A dying declaration is considered an exception because it’s believed that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to lie, as they are presumed to be concerned with their eternal fate.

Q: What is the key difference between a dying declaration and res gestae?

A: The main difference is the declarant’s state of mind. A dying declaration requires a contemporaneous belief in imminent death, while res gestae focuses on the spontaneity and timing of the statement in relation to a startling event.

Q: Can a statement be admissible under both exceptions?

A: No, a statement can only be admitted under one exception. If it doesn’t meet all the requirements of a dying declaration, it can be assessed under res gestae, and vice versa.

Q: What happens if a statement meets neither exception?

A: If a statement meets neither exception, it is considered inadmissible hearsay and cannot be used as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

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