When the dying tells a tale and points a finger

“Truth sits upon the lips of dying men.”

These words by poet Matthew Arnold have been upheld several times by the Supreme Court when it strongly considered dying declarations—testimonies made by persons in the throes of death—in convicting the victims' killers.

On All Saints' and All Souls' days, Filipinos remember their departed loved ones, some gone quietly, others using their last breaths to tell on their slayers.

‘Gie and Jay’

In November 1998, Jay mauled his wife Gie, doused her with alcohol intended for a lantern, and set her on fire at their home in Olongapo City.

After she was brought to the hospital, a certain Rod told the attending personnel that Gie informed him it was Jay who set her ablaze. She suffered contusions on the left cheek and on her lower lip, lacerations on the right parietal area and on the left temporal area, and thermal burns over 57% of her body.

Gie died from her injuries on December 5, 1998. Before passing away, Gie repeated her dying declaration to a police officer on December 1, 1998, saying that it was her husband who attacked her. Their daughter also told a police officer that it was her father who set her mother on fire.

Jay, however, claimed that he was somewhere else and that his wife only pointed to him as the killer as she suspected him of womanizing. However, the Supreme Court said denial is “a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence.”

“Indeed, the incriminating circumstances, including the antemortem statements of [Gie], when taken together, constitute an unbroken chain of events enough to arrive at the conclusion that indeed appellant… was guilty [of] the killing of his wife,” the Supreme Court said.

Due to this, Jay was sentenced to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua or imprisonment from 20 years to 40 years in 2017.

Dying declaration

According to Section 37 of the Rules of Court, a dying declaration is a “declaration… made under the consciousness of an impending death, [and] may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.”

As a rule, dying declarations are hearsay and are inadmissible as evidence.

For a dying declaration to be exempted from the hearsay evidence rule, it must meet the following requisites:

-That the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death;

-That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of an impending death;

-That the declarant is competent as a witness;

-That the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim.

In People V. Umapas, the Court explained that the first requirement refers to the facts of the assault and the matters both before or after the assault that have a direct causal connection to it.

“Statements involving the nature of the declarant's injury or the cause of death; those imparting deliberation and willfulness in the attack, indicating the reason or motive for the killing; justifying or accusing the accused; or indicating the absence of cause for the act are admissible,” the Supreme Court said.

The Court also stressed that the declarant must be aware of his impending death.

“It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders the dying declaration admissible… The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly impending,” it said.

In convicting Jay, the Court said it may be reasonably presumed that Gie made her dying declaration under the belief that her death was already imminent as these can be shown from her own statements, circumstantial evidence such as the nature of her wounds, statements made in her presence, or by the opinion of the physician.

Meanwhile, the Court said that for the third rule if the declarant would not have been a competent witness had they survived, the declarations would not be admissible.

“Thus, in the absence of evidence showing that the declarant could not have been competent to be a witness had he survived, the presumption must be sustained that he would have been competent,” it said.

According to the Supreme Court, “a dying declaration is considered as evidence of the highest order since no person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation.”

This decision has set the jurisprudence on the details of the requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration, meaning it has set the precedent and will be cited in future cases.

‘Leticia and Eden’

Meanwhile, another case of a dying declaration involved Leticia and her live-in-partner, Eden, who in her dying moments, accused Leticia’s nephew, Rick, of attempting to kill them and setting fire to their home in Bulacan in October 2007.

Witnesses said that as soon as Eden was carried out of their burning home, she said Rick hit them on the head and burned their house. She then repeatedly asked witnesses to not leave her alone with Rick as he would kill her.

Rick, for his part, denied the crime, saying he saw a man coming out of their terrace. This was corroborated by his witness, who said that he saw an unidentified bloodied man coming out.

However, in ruling over the case, the Supreme Court said the identification of the eyewitnesses carries more weight than his denial.

“Without doubt, therefore, the dying declarations of [Eden] to numerous witnesses that it was [Rick] who had attacked her and her partner and eventually set their house on fire are admissible in evidence,” it said.

“The Court thus holds that the CA did not err in affirming [Rick’s] conviction, as his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is well to stress that the positive identification of the eyewitnesses carries more weight than an accused's defense of denial,” it added.

“Mel and Alto’

However, if even one of the requisites is not met, the dying declaration will be inadmissible in court as shown in the case of Mel and Alto, who were accused of shooting police officer Manny in Cotabato in 1997.

Manny, the victim, supposedly told his nephew he had been waylaid by the two accused. His nephew said Manny also told a policeman that the assailants were the duo.

However, the surgeon on duty that day said that Manny told him he did not know who shot him while another doctor said that Manny remained silent when asked about the individuals who attacked him.

Ali, the victim’s girlfriend and companion at the time of the shooting, also testified that Manny told her he did not know who shot him.

Though Mel and Alto were initially found guilty by a regional trial court, the Supreme Court said that the admission of the dying declaration of Manny, which was the basis of its conviction, did not comply with the requirements.

According to the court, Manny was not aware of his impending death at the time he made the dying declaration against the two. The court pointed out that Manny’s vital signs were stable prior to his operation.

“As previously stated, the trial court based its judgment of conviction on the alleged ante mortem statements of the victim and the apparent weakness of the defense put up by the two accused-appellants. As it now stands however, the weakness of the alibi of the two accused-appellants cannot be held against them in view of the absence of a clear and positive identification of them as the perpetrators of the crime,” it said.

The court also expressed doubt that Manny had uttered the alleged dying declaration in the first place, saying that the testimonies of the nephew and the investigator contradicted the testimonies of the witnesses of the defense and also the prosecution.

Due to this, the Court acquitted Mel and Alto in 2000.

‘Ed and Ange’

Meanwhile, in another case, even though the court did not consider the dying declaration of a 98-year-old blind woman, the accused was still imprisoned due to the testimonies of the witness.

In December 2000, Ed was accused of attacking 98-year-old Ange, a blind woman, with a long bolo in the province of Leyte. A witness said Ed had looked for a fight and hacked Ange on the neck when he received no response.

Ange’s son, Efren, later saw his mother being dragged by the accused by the armpit. Upon approaching, he was also hacked by Ed, injuring three fingers on his right hand. Lowell, Ange’s other son, said his mother told him that it was Ed who inflicted the wound.

In denying the crime, Ed claimed that the two brothers were fighting and then later tried to attack him after he tried to pacify them. He said Ange was already injured when he saw her.

He also claimed that he was injured but was unable to produce the medical certificate, saying that it was with his mother at that time.

“As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the requisite that the declarant must be competent as a witness is lacking, making the dying declaration inadmissible. The defense established that the victim was blind. Since the prosecution failed to establish the familiarity between the victim and accused-appellant, it is highly doubtful that the former could positively identify her assailant despite her old age and lack of sight,” it said.

“Nonetheless, without even taking into account the victim's dying declaration, the guilt of accused-appellant was still established beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution presented several witnesses, including an eyewitness,” it added.

Due to this, the SC said that the denial of the accused cannot prosper. It sentenced Ed to imprisonment of 20 to 40 years, or reclusion perpetua, for murder in 2016.

‘Personal reality’

For Dr. Darren Dumaop, an associate professor at the Department of Psychology at De La Salle University and a member of the Psychological Association of the Philippines, while it is not logical for a person to lie on his deathbed, their dying declaration may be based on their “personal reality” and should not be taken at face value.

“Kasi although wala na talagang rason at maaring hindi naman nag sisinungaling yung dying person, but it doesn’t mean na representative ng reality yung sinabi niya. Representative yun ng kanyang personal reality… Maaring nag re-reflect yun sa tunay na reality. In other words, it should be tried further. It should not be taken as it is,” he said.

(Although they have no reason to and they may not be lying, it doesn’t mean that what they are saying is representative of reality. It's representative of their personal reality. And it can reflect the true reality. In other words, it should be tried further. It should not be taken as it is.)

Dumaop also said that individuals who lose loved ones due to old age or a disease process their grief differently from those whose loved ones were taken from them due to a crime.

According to Dumaop, individuals may feel emotions less intensely due to “affective forecasting.”

“Kasi yung natural death meron tayo kasing ano affective forecasting, ibig sabihin may expectation tayo sa mararamdaman natin sa future. So yung mga tao na, let’s say matanda na ‘yung parent mo. Hindi mo naman inaasahan na mamatay siya agad, but of course, meron ka nang clue,” he said.

(In a natural death, we have affective forecasting, which means that we have an expectation of what we will feel in the future. Let’s say your parents are already old. You are not expecting them to pass away any time soon but, of course, you already have a clue.)

“So kapag nangyari na yung bagay na yun na wala na nga yung parent mo, ‘yung expectation mo na negative emotion, based sa literature, less yung intensity na mararamdaman mo siya. Ganon din sa positive emotion,” he added.

(So once it happens, and they’re gone, your expectation of the negative emotion, based on the literature, is less in intensity. The same also applies to positive emotions.)

However, he said that there is a mixture of grief, sadness, and anger in losing loved ones due to crimes.

“So iba pa rin ‘yun sa sudden death na halimbawa inatake lang, walang masyadong trigger ng anger. Pero pagka naging biktima ng crime, di ba, maha-highlight doon ‘yung morality, 'yung unfairness. This is unfair, this should not happen to good people, magtri-trigger yun ng anger. So iba talagang experience yun. Ibang psychological experience yun,” Dumaop said.

(That is still different from a sudden death, for example, a heart attack. There’s not much of a trigger for anger. But if they are victims of crime, it will highlight the morality, the unfairness.)—LDF, GMA Integrated News