FACTS:

Alfredo Paulino, a businessman and Barangay Tanod at Barangay Gulod, Quezon City, was assaulted and stabbed by several men in front of his house on March 31, 1981. Leading up to the incident, Lidovina Vallefas, the widow of Alfredo, testified that she and her husband were conversing with a person named Benny in front of their house when a group of about nine or ten individuals passed by. Lidovina identified Rodolfo Baguio a.k.a. "Bebot" among the group, someone who had previously had unpleasant dealings with her husband.

Lidovina immediately rushed into their house upon hearing her husband cry out in pain. Later, when she came out, she witnessed her husband being stabbed by Baguio and his companions. The assailants managed to escape, and Lidovina assisted her husband to his feet. In his last moments, Alfredo expressed his wish for justice, stating that if he were given a second chance at life, Baguio and Frankie (not further identified) should face accountability. Lidovina, along with two neighbors, brought Alfredo to the hospital, but he died during surgery.

Subsequently, Lidovina positively identified Baguio as one of the assailants. Baguio was then charged with murder. However, the other co-conspirators were never identified nor apprehended. During the trial, the Trial Court found Baguio guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, dismissing his alibi defense. Dissatisfied, Baguio appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, raising various issues that included the admissibility of the victim's statement, the rejection of his witness' testimony, and the use of his written statement during the police investigation.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the utterances made by the victim, Alfredo Paulino, could qualify as a dying declaration;

2. Whether the rejection of the testimony of the appellant's witness, Rodolfo Pabica, was justified;

3. Whether the use of the appellant's written statement under police investigation violated his constitutional rights.

RULING:

1. The Court held that the utterances made by Alfredo Paulino shortly after being attacked could qualify as a dying declaration. Despite the number and gravity of his wounds, the evidence showed that he was still alive and conscious during the time he was being brought to the hospital. The fact that the statement was repeated multiple times further supported its credibility.

2. The Court did not find any error in the rejection of Rodolfo Pabica's testimony. The delayed appearance of the witness raised doubts as to the reliability and truthfulness of his testimony. The Trial Court had the discretion to determine the weight and credibility of the evidence presented.

3. The Court ruled that the use of the appellant's written statement under police investigation did not violate his constitutional rights. The police officer who took down the statement testified that he had advised the appellant of his constitutional rights, including his right to remain silent and to have legal counsel. The appellant's denial of signing the statement was insufficient to discredit its admissibility.

PRINCIPLES:

• Utterances made by a victim shortly before death may qualify as a dying declaration if it is shown that the declarant was conscious, aware, and facing an imminent death.

• The weight and credibility of a witness's testimony is within the discretion of the Trial Court, which has the power to determine the reliability and truthfulness of the evidence presented.

• For a statement given under police investigation to be admissible, it must be shown that the accused was properly informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel. A mere denial of signing the statement is insufficient to discredit its admissibility.