THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NORBERTO TANAMAN ALIAS LAMBER TANAMAN ALIAS LAMBERTO TANAMAN, VICTORIANO SEBIAL, PEDRO BULOCBULOC, ALFREDO BANAAG AND GLIC…

The fatal shooting of Sgt. Romulo Bazar of the Philippine
Constabulary in the evening of October 1, 1982, at Barangay Lorenzo Tan, Tangub
City, while on his way home carrying 2 sacks of rice bran on his head, led to
the filing of an Information for Murder on December 8, 1982 before the then
Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental (Crim. Case No. OZ-1585), later
transferred to the Regional Trial Court at Tangub City (Crim. Case No. TC-039),
against Norberto Tanaman alias Lamber Tanaman, alias Lamberto Tanaman,
Victoriano Sebial, Pedro Bulocbuloc, Alfredo Banaag, and Glicerio Banaag.

All the accused pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution evidence has been aptly summarized in the
People’s Brief as follows:

“On October 1, 1982 at or on about 8:30 p.m., Sgt. Romulo
Bazar was shot while walking on his way home at Barangay Lorenzo Tan, Tangub
City (p. 5, tsn, May 26, 1983).  Although
profusely bleeding he was able to knock on Ruben Roma’s house, shouting for
help (p. 11, id.).  Enerio Langoyan heard
the victim’s cries and proceeded to Roma’s house.  There he saw the victim ‘as if he was tired,
and his breathing was graspy due to profuse bleeding’ (p. 19, tsn, June 10,
1983).  He was immediately rushed to the
Tangub City Emergency Hospital.  On their
way thereto the victim said that it was appellant who shot him (pp. 19-20, id.)

“On even date, P/Lt. Osias Dumanjug, having received
information about the shooting rushed to the hospital.  There he questioned the victim albeit in
critical condition.  An ante-morten
statement was taken and in it, the victim identified Norberto Tanaman as his
assailant.  When asked whether he will
live, the victim replied ‘My wounds are serious and I am not sure (sic)’.  (pp. 54 to 56, tsn, Sept. 20, 1983; Exhibit
‘G’).

“Considering the seriousness of his wounds, he was transferred
to the Ozamis City Emergency Hospital for further operation.  There he expired on October 3, 1982 (p. 78,
tsn, December 6, 1983).”^[1]

The victim’s ante-mortem statement was taken by P/Lt. Osias
Dumanjug in the hospital in the latter’s own handwriting and in the Visayan
dialect which, translated into English reads as follows:

“Q – Why are you here now in the
hospital?

 A
–  I was gunned down.

Q –  Where did this happened?  (sic) date and hour?

A –   In
barangay Lorenzo Tan, Tangub City at about 8:30 o’clock in the night on Oct. 1,
1982.

Q –  How many persons fired at you?

A –   There
were four persons that gunned me.

Q –  Do you know anyone of the four that fired
their guns at you?

A –   Yes,
it is Lamber Tanaman who is from Lorenzo Tan, Tangub City.

Q –  What was the reason why they gunned you down?

A –   Because
he favored Luis Sebial when his cow was lost.

Q –  What do you feel about your wounds, will you
be saved?

A –   My
wounds are serious and I have no chance (Translated during the trial as ‘I am
not sure’ t.s.n., Sept. 20, 1983, p. 143).

Q – 
Where are your wounds and injuries of your body?

A –   In
my abdomen, at my back and in my breast.

Q –  Do you know what kind of firearms were used in
firing at you?

A –   They
were using 45 caliber.

Q –  Do you have anything more to say and you will
sign this?

A –   No
more, and I will sign.

(SGD) ROMULO BAZAR

Witnesses:

(SGD) FELIX CAMUNAY

MSGT      
PC

(SGD) SINFORIANA R. DEL CASTILLO, M.D.”^[2]

On the other hand, and as admitted in appellant’s Brief,
“the evidence for the defense consists chiefly of denial:  that they were not responsible for the
shooting and killing of the deceased, who was shot and killed by unknown
assailants.”^[3]

After trial, the lower Court rendered judgment,* the dispositive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds defendant
NORBERTO TANAMAN guilty and sentences him to RECLUSION PERPETUA, there being no
aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 
As to the other accused VICTORIANO SEBIAL, PEDRO BULOCBULOC and ALFREDO
BANAAG, GLICERIO BANAAG, the Court finds no sufficient evidence for their
conviction and therefore, acquits them.

“The Court further orders accused NORBERTO TANAMAN to pay the
heirs of victim the sum of P30,000.00.

“SO ORDERED.”

The accused Norberto Tanaman (hereinafter referred to as
Appellant) has interposed the present appeal with the following Assignments of
Error:

“I

“The trial court erred in not holding that the ante-mortem
statement, Exhibit ‘G’, is inadmissible in evidence.

“II

“The trial court erred in not holding that the deceased was
shot and killed by unknown persons.

“III

“The trial court erred in not holding that the guilt of the
accused-appellant has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

The resolution of this appeal hinges on the issue of
admissibility of the ante-mortem statement of the victim.  The defense argues against its admissibility
on the ground that it was not made under consciousness of an impending death
since the victim, in reply to the question “What do you feel about your
wounds, will you be saved?” answered “my wounds are serious and I am
not sure”.

The submission is without merit. 
All the earmarks for the validity of a dying declaration are present,
namely:  (1) it must concern the cause
and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (2) at the time it was
made the declarant was under a consciousness of an impending death; (3) the
declarant was a competent witness; and (4) the declaration is offered in
evidence in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the
declarant is the victim.^[4]

It is true that, in response to a question whether he would survive,
the victim replied that “he was not sure”.  However, for the validity of an ante-mortem
statement, it is not indispensable that the declarant expressly state that he
has lost all hope of recovery.  It is
sufficient that circumstances are such as to inevitably lead to the conclusion
that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant would not expect to
survive the injury from which he actually died.^[5]
The degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death supervened
thereafter constitute substantial evidence of the victim’s consciousness of his
impending death.^[6]

The seriousness of the victim’s condition is shown by the fact
that he had suffered five (5) gunshot wounds, two (2) at the back, one (1) in
the chest which was fatal as it involved the respiratory organ, one above the
umbilicus, and the other on the right hip bone. 
The physician who examined him in the hospital testified that, upon
admission, his blood pressure was 60/40 and that the patient was in a very
serious condition.^[7]
In fact, the victim’s condition necessitated his transfer from the Tangub City
Emergency Hospital to the Ozamiz City Emergency Hospital for “further
management”.  There he expired on
October 3, 1982 or two (2) days after the incident.

In the case of People vs. Reyes^[8]
when the declarant therein was asked whether he believed he would die of his
wounds, he answered “opo, seguro po.” This Court held that although
these words could mean that he might die but not that he would surely die, they
could also mean that he was sure or certain of death.  As they could mean both things, considering
the seriousness of the declarant’s wounds, eighteen (18) of them all told,
which caused his death two (2) days later, it may be said that the declarant
had expressed by those words, his belief that he was going to die.  Similarly, in the case at bar, since the
answer of the victim could be interpreted both ways, and considering the degree
and gravity of his gunshot wounds followed by his death two (2) days later, it
may be said that the words he had used and the circumstances mentioned, taken
together, constitute substantial evidence of the victim’s consciousness of his
impending death.

There should be no question either about the veracity of the
ante-mortem statement.  P/Lt. Osias Dumanjug,
the Station Commander, who took the same was a disinterested witness.  He described in detail the manner in which he
had taken down the statement in his own handwriting, the questions he had
propounded and the answers given by the victim, as well as the latter’s
identification of the Appellant.  Sgt.
Felix Camunay, also confirmed in open Court that he witnessed the taking of the
dying declaration and saw the victim affix his signature.  Considering that, as testified to by said
witness, he was a “compadre” of Appellant^[9]
and that the latter was at one time an “asset” of the PC, and
formerly a member of the INP, there is every reason to believe that he would
not testify against Appellant if his testimony were not, in fact, the truth.

Besides, even if the
victim’s statement were not admissible as an ante-mortem declaration, it may
still be considered as part of the res gestae, having been made
immediately subsequent to a startling occurrence regarding the circumstances
thereof, when the victim did not have time to contrive or devise a falsehood.^[10]
As such, it is also competent evidence to support conviction.

That Appellant was, in fact, identified by the victim is further
shown by the fact that Appellant was picked up for interrogation early the
following morning, as confirmed by the Appellant himself.  Then, too, the “spot report”
(Exhibit “M”) prepared by the police on October 2, 1982, the day
after the incident, also identified Appellant as one of the culprits, even
though the first entry in the police blotter was that the victim was shot by
four (4) unidentified armed men (Exhibit “L”).  The victim’s wife also testified that while
her husband lay wounded in the hospital she asked him to write down on a piece
of paper the name of his assailant and he wrote “Lamber Tanaman” in
the presence of Fr. Rojo, who administered the last rites, Dra. Castillo, Felix
Camunay, and some nurses.^[11]
The victim’s handwriting was uneven and was not in a straight line but slanted
downwards to the right (Exhibit “I”). 
Enerio Langoyan, a prosecution witness and a CHDF member, who helped
bring the victim to the hospital in a motorcab, reaffirmed on cross-examination
that the latter told him that “it was Lamberto Tanaman who shot me”.^[12]
The victim’s statement spontaneously made immediately after he was shot naming
Appellant as the author of the aggression is legal evidence as part of the res
gestae.

Another prosecution witness, Edgardo Manisan, testified that soon
after he had heard gunshots, he saw all the accused, led by Appellant, running
near his house (the witness’), with Victoriano Sebial carrying a sack;^[13]
that he overheard Tanaman say “he was hit” after which Appellant’s
companions laughed;^[14]
and that Appellant had threatened him during the hearing in the Municipal Court
on October 13, 1982 with the words “pray that I will die in prison because
if I will live, I will escape and will kill you all” for which reason he
evacuated to Dumaguete for a while.^[15]
And while this witness is related to the victim that fact alone does not
destroy a witness’ credibility.^[16]

Against this array of prosecution evidence, and the victim’s
ante-mortem statement being proof of identification of the aggressor, the
defense contention that the victim was shot and killed by unknown persons is
clearly wanting of credibility. 
Appellant’s testimony that the victim pointed to him as the culprit
because, while in the hospital, the victim wanted him to testify against his
(the victim’s) aunt, which he refused, neither rings with truth considering not
only that such a request would have been farfetched, but also that the victim
was in a very serious condition at the time and was in no position to make any
such request besides the fact that Appellant averred that he was asked to so
testify on October 3 when, as a matter of fact, the victim had already passed
away on October 3, and the ante-mortem statement was taken on October 1.

The victim was shot from behind and the qualifying aggravating
circusmtance of treachery, therefore, existed. 
No other modifying circumstances may be appreciated as treachery absorbs
nocturnity.

In fine, as against the mere denials of Appellant, the ante–mortem
statement of the victim identifying his assailant, corroborated by other
evidence on record, satisfy the test of moral certainty and point to the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed.  Costs against
accused-appellant Norberto Tanaman.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and
Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 1-2, Rollo, p. 62.

^[2]
Exhibits “G”, “G-2” and “G-3”.

^[3]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 3.

* Penned by
Judge Isacio A. Pelaez.

^[4]
People vs. Saliling, L-27974, February 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 427.

^[5]
People vs. Ancasan, 53 Phil. 779, 781 [1928]; People vs. Serrano,
58 Phil. 669, 670 [1933].

^[6]
People vs. Obngayan, L-29201, January 31, 1974, 55 SCRA 465, 475-476.

^[7]
Exhibit “E”, t.s.n., July 19, 1983, pp. 134-136.

^[8]
52 Phil. 538 (1928).

^[9] T.s.n.,
October 25, 1983, pp. 67-68.

^[10]
Section 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court; People vs. De Gracia, et al.,
L-21419, September 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 197, 205-206.

^[11]
T.s.n., December 6, 1983, p. 76.

^[12]
T.s.n., June 10, 1983, pp. 20 and 26.

^[13]
T.s.n., July 19, 1983, pp. 34-36.

^[14] ibid.,
p. 36.

^[15] ibid.,
pp. 38; 45.

^[16]
People vs. Libed, L-20431, June 23, 1965, 14 SCRA 410.