People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo Salafranca y Bello

An ante-mortem declaration of a victim of murder, homicide, or parricide that meets the conditions of admissibility under the Rules of Court and pertinent jurisprudence is admissible either as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestae, or both. The requisites for a dying declaration are: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death at the time of the declaration; (c) the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide in which the declarant is the victim. The requisites for admissibility as part of the res gestae are: (a) the principal act is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.

Rodrigo Salafranca y Bello was charged with and tried for murder for the fatal stabbing of Johnny Bolanon. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of an eyewitness, Augusto Mendoza, then a minor of 13 years, and on the victim's statement to his uncle, Rodolfo B. Estaño, identifying Salafranca as the assailant. The case involved the application of the hearsay rule and its exceptions—dying declaration and res gestae—as well as the determination of whether treachery qualified the killing to murder. The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, governed the penalty for murder.

Past midnight on July 31, 1993, Johnny Bolanon was stabbed near the Del Pan Sports Complex in Binondo, Manila. The stabbing was personally witnessed by Augusto Mendoza, then a minor of 13 years, who was in the complex at the time. After stabbing Bolanon, the assailant ran away. Despite his wound, Bolanon was able to walk to the house of his uncle, Rodolfo B. Estaño, to seek help. Estaño rushed Bolanon to the Philippine General Hospital by taxicab. On the way to the hospital, Estaño asked Bolanon who had stabbed him, and Bolanon answered, "Rod Salafranca." At the time of the utterance, Bolanon was suffering from hard breathing, prompting Estaño to advise him not to talk anymore. Bolanon was pronounced dead at the hospital at 2:30 a.m., about ten minutes after admission to the emergency ward.

Salafranca fled after stabbing Bolanon and evaded arrest for a long period despite the issuance of a warrant. He was finally arrested on April 23, 2003, and detained at the Manila City Jail. At trial, Mendoza testified that Salafranca had attacked Bolanon from behind, encircling his left arm over Bolanon's neck and delivering stabbing blows with his right hand—one coming from the right side and another towards below the left nipple. The RTC found that this manner of attack constituted treachery, as Salafranca did not give Bolanon any opportunity to defend himself. The RTC also noted inconsistencies in Salafranca's and his witness's testimonies, as well as the fact that Salafranca had fled from his residence the day after the incident and had stayed away in Bataan for eight years until his arrest.

Salafranca denied the charge and presented an alibi, claiming he was in his home during the incident. The RTC and the CA both rejected his defenses, giving full faith to Mendoza's positive identification and Estaño's testimony regarding Bolanon's dying declaration. The lower courts found no ill motive on Mendoza's part to testify falsely against Salafranca.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Salafranca challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses who had incriminated him, insisting that the State did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Denial and Alibi: Salafranca reiterated his defenses of denial and alibi, claiming he was in his home during the incident and that the witnesses against him were unreliable.

• Positive Identification: The prosecution relied on Mendoza's eyewitness account positively identifying Salafranca as the assailant, corroborated by Estaño's testimony on the victim's dying declaration.
• Flight as Indication of Guilt: The prosecution pointed to Salafranca's unexplained flight after the stabbing, leaving his home and employment, as a circumstance highly indicative of his guilt.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the RTC and the CA correctly accorded full faith and credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Mendoza and Estaño.
• Admissibility of Ante-Mortem Statement: Whether Bolanon's statement to Estaño identifying Salafranca as his assailant was admissible as a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing of Bolanon, qualifying the crime to murder.
• Damages: Whether the heirs of Bolanon were entitled to moral, temperate, and exemplary damages in addition to the death indemnity.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Yes. The RTC and the CA correctly concluded that Mendoza and Estaño were credible and reliable, and Salafranca did not persuasively show a misappreciation or omission by the RTC that would justify reversal.
• Admissibility of Ante-Mortem Statement: Yes. Bolanon's statement identifying Salafranca as his assailant met all the requisites for admissibility both as a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae, and was thus admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
• Treachery: Yes. The method and means Salafranca employed constituted a surprise deadly attack from behind, with aggressive physical control of Bolanon's movements, ensuring the success of the attack without risk to Salafranca from any defense Bolanon might make.
• Damages: Yes. The heirs of Bolanon were entitled to moral damages of ₱50,000.00, temperate damages of ₱25,000.00, and exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00, in addition to the death indemnity of ₱50,000.00.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The determination of the competence and credibility of witnesses at trial rested primarily with the RTC as the trial court due to its unique position of observing their deportment during testimony. Absent a substantial reason to justify reversal, the CA as the reviewing court was bound by such assessment, and the Supreme Court, in turn, was in no position to undo or contradict the findings of the RTC and the CA, which were entitled to great weight and respect. Salafranca's denial and alibi were worthless in the face of his positive identification by Mendoza, especially since Salafranca did not project any ill motive that could have impelled Mendoza to testify against him unless it was upon the truth.

• Admissibility of Ante-Mortem Statement: The Court found that all the requisites for a dying declaration were met: Bolanon's statement concerned the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death; he was conscious of his impending death, having sustained a stab wound in the chest and experiencing great difficulty in breathing; he would have been competent to testify had he survived; and the declaration was offered in a criminal prosecution for murder in which Bolanon was the victim. The Court noted that the declarant's belief in the imminence of death can be shown by circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of his wounds. The requisites for admissibility as part of the res gestae also concurred: the stabbing was a startling occurrence; Bolanon had no time to contrive his identification while on board the taxicab; and his utterance identified Salafranca as the perpetrator. The test of admissibility as part of the res gestae is whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as part of the transaction itself, and whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.

• Treachery: Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Mendoza's uncontested eyewitness account showed that Salafranca attacked Bolanon from behind, encircling his left arm over Bolanon's neck and delivering stabbing blows, which constituted a surprise deadly attack that ensured success without any retaliation or defense on Bolanon's part.

• Damages: The damages to be awarded when death occurs due to a crime may include: (a) civil indemnity ex delicto; (b) actual or compensatory damages; (c) moral damages; (d) exemplary damages; and (e) temperate damages. Moral damages of ₱50,000.00 were warranted to assuage the mental anguish and emotional sufferings of the surviving family, and the Court was bound to award such damages despite the absence of allegation and proof of mental anguish, as a violent death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. Temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 were warranted when actual damages for burial and related expenses were not substantiated by receipts. Exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00 were proper because the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance of treachery; the Court explained, citing People vs. Catubig, that the term "aggravating circumstances" in the Civil Code is to be understood in its broad or generic sense, and an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to exemplary damages.

• Dying Declaration — A dying declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when: (a) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death at the time of the declaration; (c) the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide in which the declarant is the victim. The declarant's belief in the imminence of death can be shown by the declarant's own statements or from circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of his wounds. In this case, all requisites were met, and the victim's statement identifying Salafranca was admissible as a dying declaration.

• Res Gestae — A declaration or utterance is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. The test of admissibility is whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as part of the transaction itself, and whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. The victim's statement made while being transported to the hospital, in reaction to the startling stabbing, qualified as part of the res gestae.

• Treachery — Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. A surprise deadly attack from behind, with aggressive physical control of the victim's movements, constitutes treachery. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the murder conviction.

• Exemplary Damages in Criminal Cases — Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed in criminal cases as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The term "aggravating circumstances" is understood in its broad or generic sense, encompassing both ordinary and qualifying aggravating circumstances. Thus, even when treachery is a qualifying circumstance absorbed in murder, the heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages.

• "An ante-mortem declaration of a victim of murder, homicide, or parricide that meets the conditions of admissibility under the Rules of Court and pertinent jurisprudence is admissible either as a dying declaration or as a part of the res gestae, or both." — This opening statement articulates the central evidentiary holding of the case, establishing that the victim's statement may be admitted under either or both exceptions to the hearsay rule.

• "A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites concur, namely: (a) that the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death; (c) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim." — This passage provides the canonical enumeration of the requisites for admissibility of a dying declaration, which the Court applied to the facts of the case.

• "The term res gestae has been defined as 'those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible when illustrative of such act.' In a general way, res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication." — This passage defines the doctrine of res gestae and explains its rationale, grounding the admissibility of spontaneous declarations made under the excitement of a startling occurrence.

• "The term 'aggravating circumstances' used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Catubig, explains why exemplary damages are due even when the aggravating circumstance is qualifying rather than ordinary, as the distinction affects only the criminal, not the civil, liability of the offender.

• People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621 — Controlling precedent on the award of exemplary damages in criminal cases, holding that an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code.
• People vs. Labagala, G.R. No. 184603, August 2, 2010, 626 SCRA 267 — Cited for the requisites of admissibility of a dying declaration.
• People vs. Peralta, G.R. No. 94570, September 28, 1994, 237 SCRA 218 — Cited for the requisites for admissibility of a declaration as part of the res gestae.
• People vs. Loste, G.R. No. 94785, July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA 614 — Cited for the proposition that a statement of the victim an hour before death and right after the incident bore the earmarks of either a dying declaration or part of the res gestae.
• People vs. Resuma, G.R. No. 179189, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 728 — Cited for the principle that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is binding on appellate courts absent substantial reason for reversal.
• People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012 — Cited for the enumeration of damages awardable when death occurs due to a crime.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — The provision defining and penalizing murder, under which Salafranca was convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
• Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining treachery, which the Court applied in affirming the murder conviction.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — The provision on the application of indivisible penalties, cited in the RTC's disposition.
• Article 29, Revised Penal Code — The provision on preventive imprisonment, pursuant to which Salafranca was credited with the full extent of his preventive imprisonment.
• Article 2206(3), in relation to Articles 2217 and 2219, Civil Code — The provisions governing the award of moral damages for the death of a victim, which the Court applied in awarding ₱50,000.00 in moral damages.
• Article 2229, Civil Code — The provision permitting exemplary damages "by way of example or correction for the public good," which the Court applied in awarding ₱30,000.00 in exemplary damages.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — The provision allowing exemplary damages in criminal cases when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, which the Court interpreted broadly to include qualifying circumstances such as treachery.
• Article 107, Revised Penal Code — Cited in relation to the civil liability arising from the crime.

Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice (Chairperson); Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice; Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Associate Justice; Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Associate Justice (vice Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, who was on sick leave, per Special Order No. 1203 dated February 17, 2012).