CASE No.

37

Jesus Geraldo and Amado Ariate vs. People of the Philippines

GR. No. 173608, November 20, 2008

Doctrine (Dying Declaration):

A dying declaration is admissible as evidence if the following circumstances are present: (a) it
concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) it is made
when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness of impending
death; (c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and (d)
the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant’s
death.

At all events, even if the victim’s dying declaration were admissible in evidence, it must identify
the assailant with certainty; otherwise it loses its significance.

Facts:

The present petition was filed by the accused-appellants Jesus Geraldo and Amado Ariate,
questioning the finding of guilt by the RTC against them for the crime of homicide against
Arthur U. Ronquillo on the basis of the latter’s dying declaration uttered to his (Arthur Ronquillo)
daughter, Mirasol.

At 3:00am, July 1, 2002, his wife, daughter Mirasol, and son Arnel, among other persons, on
being informed of the shooting of Arthur Ronquillo, repaired to where he was, not far from his
residence, and found him lying on his side and wounded. Although gasping for breath, he was
able to utter to Mirasol, within the hearing distance of Arnel, that he was shot by Badjing and
Amado.

Mirasol testified in court regarding her father’s dying declaration, which was corroborated by
her brother Arnel. On this basis, the RTC found the accused-appellants guilty of homicide for
killing the victim, Arthur Ronquillo. Said ruling was affirmed by the CA. Hence this petition filed
by the accused-appellants, arguing that the prosecution was not able to positively identify
Geraldo and Ariate as the “Badjing” and “Amado” referred to in the victim’s dying declaration.

Issue:

Whether or not the guilt of the accused-appellants were sufficiently established based on the
evidence presented in the court.

Ruling:

The Court reversed the ruling of the CA, ultimately finding for the acquittal of the
accused-appellants. The Court pointed out that based on the records, the accused-appellants
were not positively identified as “Badjing” and “Amado” being referred to in the victim’s dying
declaration. While the CA found that there was no need to further identify the
accused-appellants as “Badjing” and “Amado” since they were the only persons identified and
known as “Badjing” and “Amado” in their barangay, as a rule of law, it is the prosecution, not
petitioners, which had the burden of proving that petitioners were, at the material time, the only
ones in the barangay who bore such nicknames or aliases. Since the prosecution failed to
discharge with this duty, the Court ruled in favor of the accused-appellants.