G.R. No. 214453. June 17, 2015.

*
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
BERNABE P. PALANAS alias “ABE,” accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Murder; Murder is defined and penalized

under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by
Republic Act (RA) No. 7659.—Murder is defined and penalized
under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No.
(RA) 7659, as follows: Art. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not
falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another,
shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua to death if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity.
Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery; There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a
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.—Treachery is a well-established concept in
criminal law. “There is treachery when the offender commits any
of the crimes against a 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.” There are two (2)
conditions therefore that must be met for treachery to be
appreciated: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives
the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to
retaliate; and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or
consciously adopted.
Same; Same; Same; The essence of treachery is that the attack
comes without warning in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected
manner, granting the victim no chance to resist or escape.—The
essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning in a
swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, granting the victim no
chance to

_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.

319

VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015 319

People vs. Palanas
 resist or escape. The attack must be sudden and unexpected
rendering the victim unable and unprepared to put up a defense.
With the foregoing in mind, the Court agrees with the findings of
the RTC and the CA that Palanas killed SPO2 Borre, and that the
qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the same. The
records show that SPO2 Borre was outside carrying his grandson
when two (2) assailants shot him. During the attack, SPO2 Borre
had no opportunity to raise any meaningful defense against his
assailants; and consequently, he suffered multiple gunshot
wounds on his head and trunk, causing his death.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Dying Declaration; Hearsay
Evidence Rule; Conditions for a dying declaration to constitute an
exception to the hearsay evidence rule.—For a dying declaration to
constitute an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, four (4)
conditions must concur: (a) the declaration must concern the
cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b)
that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is
conscious of his impending death; (c) the declarant was competent
as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case
for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the
victim. On the other hand, a statement to be deemed to form part
of the res gestae, and thus, constitute another exception to the
rule on hearsay evidence, requires the concurrence of the
following requisites: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a
startling occurrence; (b) the statements were made before the
declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements
must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Because the declaration was made
in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when
every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by
the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, the law deems
this as a situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation
equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in court.—
In the case at bar, SPO2 Borre’s statements constitute a dying
declaration, given that they pertained to the cause and
circumstances of his death and taking into consideration the
number and severity of his wounds, it may be reasonably
presumed that he uttered the same under a fixed belief that his
own death was already imminent. This declaration is considered
evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost

320

320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Palanas

credence since no person aware of his impending death would

make a careless and false accusation. Verily, because the
declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at the point
of death and when every motive of falsehood is silenced and the
mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the
truth, the law deems this as a situation so solemn and awful as
creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath
administered in court.
 Same; Same; Res Gestae; The test of admissibility of evidence
as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, 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 a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it
clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
testimony.—In the same vein, SPO2 Borre’s statements may
likewise be deemed to form part of the res gestae. “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. The test of
admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore,
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 a part of the transaction itself,
and also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or purpose
to manufacture testimony.” In this case, SPO2 Borre’s statements
refer to a startling occurrence, i.e., him being shot by Palanas and
his companion. While on his way to the hospital, SPO2 Borre had
no time to contrive the identification of his assailants. Hence, his
utterance was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the
startling occurrence. Definitely, such statement is relevant
because it identified Palanas as one of the authors of the crime.
Therefore, the killing of SPO2 Borre, perpetrated by Palanas, is
adequately proven by the prosecution.
Criminal Law; Alibi; It is axiomatic that alibi is an inherently
weak defense, and may only be considered if the following
circumstances are shown: (a) he was somewhere else when the
crime occurred; and (b) it would be physically impossible for him
to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime.—On the
other hand, the Court does not find credence in Palanas’ defense
of alibi. It is axiomatic that alibi is an inherently weak defense,
and may only be considered if the following circumstances are
shown: (a) he was somewhere else when the crime occurred; and
(b) it would be physi-

321

VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015 321

People vs. Palanas

cally impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time

of the alleged crime. In this case, the RTC correctly observed that
aside from the admission that travel from Parañaque City to
Pasig City only takes about one (1) hour, the incident occurred on
a Sunday when traffic is not usually heavy. Moreover, Palanas
had access to a motorcycle that allowed him to travel faster on the
date and time of the incident. Under the circumstances, there is
the possibility that Palanas could have been present at the locus
criminis at the time of the shooting. Accordingly, his defense of
alibi must fall.
Same; Penalties; Section 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9346
provides that “[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with
reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole
under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (ISL), as amended.”—Anent the proper penalty to
be imposed upon Palanas, Section 3 of RA No. 9346 provides that
“[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua,
or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by
reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No.
4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.” Pursuant thereto, Palanas should be sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility
for parole.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
  Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
 
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-
appellant Bernabe P. Palanas alias “Abe” (Palanas)
assailing the Decision2 dated January 16, 2014 of the Court
of Appeals

_______________

1  See Notice of Appeal dated January 30, 2014; Rollo, pp. 19-21.
2  Id., at pp. 2-18. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with
Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang,
concurring.

322

322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Palanas

(CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04925, which affirmed

the Decision3 dated October 20, 2010, of the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig City, Branch 157 (RTC) in Criminal Case
No. 133352-H finding Palanas guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder under the Revised Penal Code
(RPC).
 
The Facts
 
An Information4 was filed before the RTC charging
Palanas of the murder of SPO2 Ramon Borre y Orio (SPO2
Borre), viz.:

On or about March 26, 2006, in Pasig City, and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused [Palanas], acting
in conspiracy with one male person who is at-large, whose true
identity and whereabout[s] are still unknown acted as coprincipal
in the killing of one SPO2 Ramon Borre y Orio, committed as
follows: said male person, armed with a gun, with intent to kill
and with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault, and shot one SPO2 Ramon Borre y
Orio on his head and different parts of his body which directly
caused his death, and thereafter, took the firearm of the said
victim, boarded a motorcycle driven by the accused who
thereafter, drove the motorcycle away from the scene of the crime.
Contrary to Law.5

 
The prosecution presents the following version of the
facts:
At around 6:40 in the morning of March 26, 2006, SPO2
Borre took his five (5)-month-old grandson outside his
residence at Block 14, Kenneth Street corner Eusebio
Avenue, Pasig City. PO3 Leopoldo Zapanta (PO3 Zapanta),
who slept at SPO2 Borre’s residence, was watching
television when four

_______________

3  CA Rollo, pp. 27-41. Penned by Pairing Judge Nicanor A. Manalo, Jr.
4  Id., at pp. 11-12.
5  Id.

323

VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015 323

People vs. Palanas

(4) successive gunshots rang out. PO3 Zapanta looked

through the open door of SPO2 Borre’s house and saw two
(2) men armed with .38 caliber revolvers standing a meter
away from SPO2 Borre. He saw Palanas deliver the fourth
shot to SPO2 Borre, but he could not identify the other
shooter. Thereafter, the two (2) assailants fled on a
motorcycle.6
PO3 Zapanta, together with SPO2 Borre’s stepson Ramil
Ranola (Ramil), brought SPO2 Borre to the Pasig City
General Hospital. On the way to the hospital, SPO2 Borre
told Ramil and PO3 Zapanta that it was “Abe,” “Aspog,” or
“Abe Palanas” — referring to his neighbor, Palanas — who
shot him. This statement was repeated to his wife,
Resurreccion Borre (Resurreccion), who followed him at the
hospital. At around 11 o’clock in the morning of even date,
SPO2 Borre died due to gunshot wounds on his head and
trunk.7
For his part, Palanas interposed the defense of denial
and alibi. He claimed that on March 25, 2006 he was in
Parañaque City attending to the needs of his sick father.
The next day, he went to a baptism in Tondo, Manila and
stayed there from morning until 9 o’clock in the evening,
after which he returned to his father in Parañaque City. He
maintained that he was not aware of the death of SPO2
Borre until he was informed by a neighbor that
Resurreccion was accusing him of killing her husband. He
also denied any knowledge why Resurreccion would blame
him for SPO2 Borre’s death.8
 
 The RTC’s Ruling
 
In a Decision9 dated October 20, 2010, the RTC
convicted Palanas of the crime of Murder and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered
him to pay the heirs of SPO2 Borre the amounts of: (a)
P50,000.00 as civil

_______________

6  Rollo, p. 3.
7  Id., at pp. 3-4.
8  CA Rollo, pp. 31-32.
9  Id., at pp. 27-41.

324

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Palanas

indemnity; (b) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; (c)

P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (d) P2,464,865.0710 as
actual damages.11
The RTC found that the prosecution had established
beyond reasonable doubt that Palanas and his companion
were the ones who killed SPO2 Borre through the positive
identification of the eyewitnesses to the incident. Moreover,
SPO2 Borre’s statements that Palanas shot him
constituted an ante mortem statement and formed part of
the res gestae, and, thus, admissible as evidence against
Palanas. It further opined that treachery attended SPO2
Borre’s killing as he had no inkling that the attack would
take place, and that he was in no position to mount any
feasible defense.12 The RTC, however, did not appreciate
evident premeditation because of the absence of the
following elements: (a) the time when the offender
determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly
indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and
(c) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and
execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.13
On the other hand, the RTC gave no credence to
Palanas’ defense of alibi. It observed that it was not
physically impossible for Palanas to be at the locus criminis
as his own witness even stated that the distance between
Pasig City and Parañaque City could be traversed in less
than one (1) hour.14

_______________

10  Id., at p. 41. The RTC provided a breakdown of the amount awarded

as actual damages:

11  Id.
 12  Id., at pp. 36-39.
13  Id., at p. 36.
14  Id., at pp. 38-39.

325

VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015 325

People vs. Palanas

Dissatisfied, Palanas appealed his conviction to the

CA.15
 
The CA’s Ruling
 
In a Decision16 dated January 16, 2014, the CA affirmed
the RTC’s ruling with modification increasing the amounts
awarded to the heirs of SPO2 Borre to P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.   
The CA found all the elements of the crime of Murder to
be present, giving probative weight to the dying declaration
of SPO2 Borre that it was Palanas who shot him. It also
found the presence of treachery as SPO2 Borre was in no
position to defend himself when he was successively shot.17
Aggrieved, Palanas filed the instant appeal.18
 
The Issue Before the Court
 
The issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not
Palanas’ conviction for the crime of Murder should be
upheld.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7659,19 as
follows:

_______________

15  See Notice of Appeal dated February 18, 2011; id., at p. 42.

16  Rollo, pp. 2-18.
17  Id., at pp. 11-16.
18  See Notice of Appeal dated January 30, 2014; id., at pp. 19-21.
19  Entitled “An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous
Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as Amended,
Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes” (approved on
December 13, 1993).

326

326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Palanas

 
 Art. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
x x x x

 
Treachery is a well-established concept in criminal law.
“There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against a 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.”20 There are two (2) conditions therefore that must
be met for treachery to be appreciated: (a) the employment
of means of execution that gives the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the
means of execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted.21
The essence of treachery is that the attack comes
without warning in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected
manner, granting the victim no chance to resist or escape.
The attack must be sudden and unexpected rendering the
victim unable and unprepared to put up a defense.22
With the foregoing in mind, the Court agrees with the
findings of the RTC and the CA that Palanas killed SPO2
Borre, and that the qualifying circumstance of treachery
attended

_______________

20  Item 16, Article 14 of the RPC.

21   See People v. Umawid, G.R. No. 208719, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA
597, citing People v. Lacaden, 620 Phil. 807, 824; 605 SCRA 784, 800
(2009).
22  See People v. Warriner, G.R. No. 208678, June 16, 2014, 726 SCRA
469.

327

VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015 327

People vs. Palanas

the same. The records show that SPO2 Borre was

outside carrying his grandson when two (2) assailants shot
him. During the attack, SPO2 Borre had no opportunity to
raise any meaningful defense against his assailants; and
consequently, he suffered multiple gunshot wounds on his
head and trunk, causing his death.23
The CA is also correct in admitting SPO2 Borre’s
statements on his way to the hospital as evidence, both as a
dying declaration and as part of the res gestae.
For a dying declaration24 to constitute an exception to
the hearsay evidence rule,25 four (4) conditions must
concur: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and
surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b)
that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is
conscious of his impending death; (c) the declarant was
competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in
a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where
the declarant is the victim.26 On the other hand, a
statement to be deemed to form part of the res gestae,27 and
thus, constitute another exception to the

_______________

23  Rollo, pp. 3-5.

24  Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 37. Dying declaration.—The declaration of a dying person,
made under the consciousness of an impending death, 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.
25  “Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or
in part on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the
witness by whom it is sought to produce.” (See Espineli v. People, G.R. No.
179535, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 365) See also Section 36, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court.
26   People v. Salafranca, G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012, 666
SCRA 501, 512.
27  Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 42. Part of res gestae.—Statements made by a person while a
startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto with respect to

328

328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Palanas

rule on hearsay evidence, requires the concurrence of

the following requisites: (a) the principal act, the res gestae,
is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements were made
before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c)
the statements must concern the occurrence in question
and its immediately attending circumstances.28
In the case at bar, SPO2 Borre’s statements constitute a
dying declaration, given that they pertained to the cause
and circumstances of his death and taking into
consideration the number and severity of his wounds, it
may be reasonably presumed that he uttered the same
under a fixed belief that his own death was already
imminent.29 This declaration is considered evidence of the
highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no
person aware of his impending death would make a
careless and false accusation.30 Verily, because the
declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at
the point of death and when every motive of falsehood is
silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful
considerations to speak the truth, the law deems this as a
situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation
equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in
court.31
In the same vein, SPO2 Borre’s statements may likewise
be deemed to form part of the res gestae. “Res gestae refers
to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out
of the

_______________

the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res

gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the
issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res
gestae.
28   People v. Villarico, Sr., 662 Phil. 399, 418; 647 SCRA 43, 58-59
(2011).
29  People v. Cerilla, 564 Phil. 230, 240; 539 SCRA 251, 262 (2007).
30  Id., citing People v. Cortezano, 425 Phil. 696, 715; 375 SCRA 95, 112
(2002).
31   Id., at p. 241, citing United States v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530, 549 (1909);
People v. Saliling, 161 Phil. 559, 572-573; 69 SCRA 427, 438 (1976).

329

VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015 329

People vs. Palanas

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. The test of
admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is,
therefore, 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 a part of
the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates
any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.”32
In this case, SPO2 Borre’s statements refer to a startling
occurrence, i.e., him being shot by Palanas and his
companion. While on his way to the hospital, SPO2 Borre
had no time to contrive the identification of his assailants.
Hence, his utterance was made in spontaneity and only in
reaction to the startling occurrence. Definitely, such
statement is relevant because it identified Palanas as one
of the authors of the crime. Therefore, the killing of SPO2
Borre, perpetrated by Palanas, is adequately proven by the
prosecution.33
On the other hand, the Court does not find credence in
Palanas’s defense of alibi. It is axiomatic that alibi is an
inherently weak defense,34 and may only be considered if
the following circumstances are shown: (a) he was
somewhere else when the crime occurred; and (b) it would
be physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis
at the time of the alleged crime.35 In this case, the RTC
correctly observed that aside from the admission that
travel from Parañaque City to Pasig City only takes about
one (1) hour, the incident
_______________

32  See People v. Gatarin, G.R. No. 198022, April 7, 2014, 721 SCRA 16,
citing People v. Salafranca, G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012, 666
SCRA 501, 514.
33  Id.
34   People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA
376, 394, citing People v. Abulon, 557 Phil. 428, 447; 530 SCRA 675, 696
(2007).
35   People v. Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011, 658 SCRA
842, 847.

 
330

330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Palanas

occurred on a Sunday when traffic is not usually heavy.

Moreover, Palanas had access to a motorcycle that allowed
him to travel faster on the date and time of the incident.36
Under the circumstances, there is the possibility that
Palanas could have been present at the locus criminis at
the time of the shooting. Accordingly, his defense of alibi
must fall.
Anent the proper penalty to be imposed upon Palanas,
Section 3 of RA 934637 provides that “[p]ersons convicted of
offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason
of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No.
4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, as amended.” Pursuant thereto, Palanas should be
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
without eligibility for parole.38
Finally, to conform with prevailing jurisprudence, the
Court increases the amounts of damages awarded to the
heirs of SPO2 Borre, as follows: (a) P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (c)
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,39 all with interest at
the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of
finality of judgment until the same are fully paid.40
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision
dated January 16, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04925 finding accused-appellant Bernabe
P. Palanas alias “Abe,” GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Murder as defined and punished under
Article 248 of the

_______________

36  CA Rollo, pp. 38-39.

37  Entitled “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines” (approved on June 24, 2006).
38   See People v. Arguta, G.R. No. 213216, April 22, 2015, 756 SCRA
376. See also People v. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA
530, 540.
 39   People v. Serenas, 636 Phil. 495, 512-513; 622 SCRA 485, 502
(2010).
40  See People v. Balute, G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015, 748 SCRA
172.

331

VOL. 759, JUNE 17, 2015 331

People vs. Palanas

Revised Penal Code is hereby AFFIRMED WITH

MODIFICATION, in that he is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole,
and ordered to pay the heirs of SPO2 Ramon Borre y Orio
the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00
as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and
P2,464,865.07 as actual damages, all with legal interest at
the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of
judgment until full payment.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.

Appeal denied, judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—The statement of the victim an hour before his

death and right after the hacking incident bore all the
earmarks either of a dying declaration or part of the res
gestae either of which was an exception to the hearsay rule.
(People vs. Salafranca, 666 SCRA 501 [2013])
The rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration
admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death
must be entered by the declarant. (People vs. Quisayas, 721
SCRA 16 [2014])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.