Facts:
The appellant was accused of murder of Valmoria. Valmoria relates the events that transpired between the herein appellant and himself to Alcoseba who reduced it into writing in which the victim affixed his signature. Appellant maintains that the written statement by the victim (Valmoria) is inadmissible as evidence since it was in the Cebuano regional language and was not accompanied with a translation in English or Pilipino and not to be considered as a dying declaration for the victim is not under the consciousness of the impending death.
The appellant was accused of murder of Valmoria. Valmoria relates the events that transpired between the herein appellant and himself to Alcoseba who reduced it into writing in which the victim affixed his signature. Appellant maintains that the written statement by the victim (Valmoria) is inadmissible as evidence since it was in the Cebuano regional language and was not accompanied with a translation in English or Pilipino and not to be considered as a dying declaration for the victim is not under the consciousness of the impending death.
Issue:
Whether or not the statement is admissible as evidence as a dying declaration.
Held:
The court held that the statement made in oral form, are not rendered inadmissible as they may even be communicated by means of signs. If such declarations have thereafter been reduced to writing and signed by the declarant, the writing is generally held to be the best evidence, and it must be produced.
More than once, this Court has taken into consideration documents written in a Philippine dialect, unaccompanied by the required translation but which had been admitted in evidence without objection by the accused.In those instances, the Court merely ordered official translations to be made. It is true that Section 33, Rule 132 of the revised Rules of Court now prohibits the admission of such document in an unofficial language but we believe that in the interest of justice, such injunction should not be taken literally here, especially since no objection thereto was interposed by appellant, aside from the fact that appellant, the concerned parties and the judicial authorities or personnel concerned appeared to be familiar with or knowledgeable of Cebuano in which the document was written. There was, therefore, no prejudice caused to appellant and no reversible error was committed by that lapse of the trial court.
The court held that the statement made in oral form, are not rendered inadmissible as they may even be communicated by means of signs. If such declarations have thereafter been reduced to writing and signed by the declarant, the writing is generally held to be the best evidence, and it must be produced.
More than once, this Court has taken into consideration documents written in a Philippine dialect, unaccompanied by the required translation but which had been admitted in evidence without objection by the accused.In those instances, the Court merely ordered official translations to be made. It is true that Section 33, Rule 132 of the revised Rules of Court now prohibits the admission of such document in an unofficial language but we believe that in the interest of justice, such injunction should not be taken literally here, especially since no objection thereto was interposed by appellant, aside from the fact that appellant, the concerned parties and the judicial authorities or personnel concerned appeared to be familiar with or knowledgeable of Cebuano in which the document was written. There was, therefore, no prejudice caused to appellant and no reversible error was committed by that lapse of the trial court.
Also, the written declaration was duly presented during the trial and the person who reduced the victim's declaration into writing was thoroughly questioned by the court and the prosecutor, and cross-examined by the defense counsel. The witness was able to explain and discuss what was written in the declaration and how she came to prepare the same. Significantly, everything written in that declaration of the victim was confirmed by the Government's eyewitnesses. Appellant's argument regarding the inadmissibility of the declaration on a mere technicality would mean the loss of a vital piece of evidence that could yield the true facts and give retributive justice in the murder of Valmoria.
Appellant likewise argues that the declaration made by the victim before the purok leader can not be considered as a dying declaration because it was not made by the deceased "under the consciousness of an impending death." As earlier narrated, at the time the deceased made the declaration he was in great pain. He expressed a belief on his imminent death and the hope that his declaration could be used as evidence regarding the circumstances thereof. A person would not say so if he believes he would recover and be able to testify against his assailants. At all events, assuming that declaration is not admissible as a dying declaration, it is still admissible as part of the res gestae, since it was made shortly after the startling incident and, under the circumstances, the victim had no opportunity to contrive.
No comments:
Post a Comment