View full case

PEOPLE v. JOEMARIE CERILLA

FACTS:

The case involves the automatic review of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding the appellant guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The appellant was charged with the murder of Alexander Parreño, which occurred on April 24, 1998, in the Municipality of Leganes, Province of Iloilo. The prosecution's evidence showed that the victim, his daughter, and a neighbor went to the appellant's house and were welcomed by the appellant and his wife. Later, a blackout occurred, and as the victim and his daughter were walking home, the daughter heard an explosion and saw the appellant pointing a gun at her father. The victim died from the gunshot wound, and his dying declaration implicated the appellant as the shooter. The defense claimed alibi, stating that the appellant was at home during the incident, but this was contradicted by the prosecution's evidence. The RTC found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him accordingly.

The case involves the appellant, Joemarie Cerilla, who was convicted of murder for shooting and killing Alexander, the victim. The trial court found that the appellant shot the victim from behind while he was unarmed and walking home. The court ruled that there was treachery in the commission of the crime. The appellant's alibi and denial were deemed insufficient to discredit the positive testimonies of credible witnesses. Additionally, the appellant failed to prove the impossibility of his presence at the crime scene. An initial review of the case was elevated to the Supreme Court but was referred to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the ruling in People v. Mateo. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling but increased the amount of moral damages awarded. The parties submitted their respective supplemental briefs and the case was considered submitted for decision. The appellant argues that the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's eyewitness and the victim's dying declaration. The appellant challenges the credibility of the witnesses, but the court affirms the trial court's findings, stating that the trial court's observations are accorded high respect. The prosecution presented an eyewitness named Michelle, who positively identified the appellant as the person who shot the victim. Michelle's account was supported by the post-mortem examination, which showed the entrance wound at the back of the victim's body. The medico-legal expert concluded that the gunshot was fired from a close range. The eyewitness's identification is further corroborated by the victim's dying declaration, which is considered evidence of the highest order as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. The dying declaration provided the identity of the accused, the cause of death, and the circumstances of the assault.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the victim's dying declaration is admissible as evidence.

  2. Whether the four requisites for admissibility of a dying declaration are present in this case.

  3. Whether the dying declarations of the victim and other witnesses are admissible.

  4. Whether the identification of the accused as the assailant is credible.

  5. Whether the visibility during the crime despite a power blackout and moonless night affects the reliability of the identification.

  6. Whether the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses prevails over his alibi.

  7. Whether the absence of motive on the part of the appellant to kill the victim is a ground for acquittal.

  8. Whether the negative finding on the paraffin test is sufficient to prove that the appellant did not fire a gun.

  9. Whether the killing of the victim was qualified by treachery.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the victim's dying declaration is admissible as evidence.

  2. Yes, the four requisites for admissibility of a dying declaration are present in this case.

  3. The dying declarations of the victim and other witnesses are admissible. The statements comply with the requisites of a dying declaration, namely, it pertains to the identity of the person who shot the victim, the victim's condition was so serious that his demise occurred the following morning after a thirteen-hour operation, he would have been competent to testify had he survived, and the declaration is offered in a criminal prosecution for murder where the victim was the victim.

  4. The positive identification made by the victim in his dying declaration is sustained. The defense presented police officers who alleged that the victim stated he was not sure who shot him because it was dark. However, at that time the victim was already being readied for surgery and was no longer fit to respond to questions. The court finds the dying declaration to be more credible than the conflicting testimonies of the defense witnesses.

  5. The visibility during the crime, despite the power blackout and moonless night, does not cast doubt on the identification of the accused. The court ruled that visibility at nighttime is possible even without illumination from the moon and that a person's eyesight can adjust to the darkness. In this case, there was sufficient proximity between the witnesses and the assailant, confirmed by the presence of gunpowder nitrates on the body of the victim. The court stresses that the natural reaction of a person is to direct their sight towards the source of a startling occurrence, and the familiarity between the accused and victim further supports the credibility of the identification.

  6. The positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses prevails over his alibi.

  7. The absence of motive on the part of the appellant to kill the victim is not a ground for acquittal.

  8. The negative finding on the paraffin test is not conclusive proof that the appellant did not fire a gun.

  9. The killing of the victim was qualified by treachery.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A dying declaration is a statement made by the victim of homicide, referring to the cause and circumstances of the killing, which is uttered under a fixed belief that death is impending and is certain to follow immediately, without an opportunity of retraction and in the absence of all hopes of recovery.

  • A dying declaration is evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence.

  • A dying declaration is admissible to provide the identity of the accused and the deceased, show the cause of death, and the circumstances under which the assault was made.

  • The admissibility of a dying declaration is based on necessity and trustworthiness, as the declarant's death renders it impossible for them to take the witness stand, and the declaration is made when the party is at the point of death, silenced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth.

  • Four requisites must concur for a dying declaration to be admissible: (1) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death, (2) the declarant is under the consciousness of an impending death at the time the declaration was made, (3) the declarant is competent as a witness, and (4) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide in which the declarant is the victim.

  • Requirements for admissibility of dying declaration:

  • Pertains to the identity of the person who caused the injury or death

  • Imminent death of the declarant at the time of making the declaration

  • Competency of the declarant as a witness had they survived

  • Offered in a criminal prosecution for the death of the declarant

  • Positive identification made through a dying declaration is given more weight over conflicting testimonies.

  • Visibility during nighttime is possible without illumination from the moon, and a person's eyesight can adjust to the darkness.

  • Positive identification prevails over alibi.

  • Absence of motive does not necessarily lead to an acquittal.

  • Negative finding on the paraffin test does not conclusively prove that one did not fire a gun.

  • Treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself.