You are on page 1of 2

FUENTES V.

CA

Facts:
Alejandro Fuentes seeks a reversal of the decision affirming his conviction for
murder.
Victim Julieto Malaspina was at a benefit dance in Agusan del Sur when
petitioner approached him. Fuentes called the victim and placed his right arm on
the shoulder of the latter saying, Before, I saw you with a long hair but now you
have a short hair. Suddenly, petitioner stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a
hunting knife. Before the victim succumbed to the gaping wound on his
abdomen, he muttered that Fuentes stabbed him.
Fuentes on the other hand claims that it was his cousin Zoilo alias Jonie Fuentes
who knifed the victim. He said that he was compelled to run away when he heard
that somebody with a bolo and spear would kill all those from San Isidro because
Jonie was from that place. Since he was also from there, he sought refuge in his
brothers house. Also, Jonie admitted that he was the one who stabbed
Malaspina.
RTC: Found Fuentes guilty of murder.
CA: Affirmed the judgment of the RTC.
Hence, this petition for review.

Issues and Held:


WoN the CA erred when it held that Fuentes was positively identified as the
killer- NO.
o Fuentes: There are inconsistencies between the testimonies of the
witnesses. Toling said that he Fuentes stabbed the victim in the right
lumbar region while the physician said in the left lumbar region.
o SC: These inconsistencies are inconsequential. What is important is that
3 witnesses positively identified petitioner as the knife wielder. Also, these
witnesses have all known Fuentes for quite some time and have no ill
motives against him.
o Fuentes: It was his cousin Jonie Fuentes who killed Malaspina.
o SC: This is too incredible. No less than petitioners own witness, Nerio
Biscocho, who claimed that he also saw the killing, testified that Alejandro
Fuentes and Jonie Fuentes are one and the same person.
Biscocho admitted that he himself called petitioner Jonie, as some
of his friends did, but that Malaspina called him Junior.
o Fuentes: His cousin Zoilo Fuentes confessed to the murder, which is a
declaration against interest and therefore an exception to the hearsay
rule.
Given to Felicisimo Fuentes, their uncle, which was in turn relayed
to policeman Conde.
Felicisimo testified that Zoilo confessed that he killed the victim in
retaliation and even showed him the knife he used. He asked for
help in finding a lawyer, securing bail, and working out a
settlement with the victims relatives.
However, the next day, he fled town.
Conde testified that he met Felicisimo who informed him of the
disclosure by Zoilo. He then personally went to the barangay to
investigate. However, he was told by the townsfolk that Zoilo had
already fled.
o SC: The declaration against penal interest attributed to Zoilo Fuentes is
not admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.
One of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule is that
pertaining to declarations against interest. There are 3 essential
requisites for the admissibility of such:
The declarant must not be able to testify
The declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the
declarant
The circumstances must render it improbable that a motive
to falsify existed
People v. Toledo: Holgado and Morales engaged in a duel.
Morales was killed almost instantly. Holgado who was previously
wounded gave a sworn statement before the municipal president
declaring that when he and Morales dueled, there was nobody
else present. 1 month later Holgado died from his wounds. The
court here did not reach an accord on the admissibility of the
sworn statement, but Justice Malcolm was of the position that the
court erred in not admitting it as a statement of fact against penal
interest.
The Toledo case cannot be applied in the instant case which is
remarkably different.
Patent unworthiness of the statement in the case at bar-
Zoilo who is related to petitioner had every reason to
prevaricate. The same can be said of petitioner and their
uncle Felicisimo.
The admission of the statement may be shocking to the
sense of justice. There is nothing, absolutely noting, that
can bind Zoilo legally to his statement.
The declarant is not unable to testify. There is no showing
that he is dead, mentally incapacitated, or physically
incapacitated, which Sec. 38 obviously contemplates. His
mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make him ipso
facto unavailable under this rule. The records show that
the defense did not exert any serious effort to produce
Zoilo as a witness.
o The court is always for the admission of evidence
that would let an innocent declaration of guilt by the
real culprit. But this can be open to abuse, as when
the extrajudicial statement is not even
authenticated; it is made to persons who have
every reason to lie and falsify; and it is not
altogether clear that the declarant himself is unable
to testify. Thus, exclusion is the prudent course as
explained in Toledo.
Court also ruled that CA correctly determined the murder to be qualified by
treachery. However, it erred in imposing the penalty. It should have been medium
period of reclusion perpetua. The court also erred in its award of actual damages,
since it was not supported by evidence on record.

You might also like