People of The Philippines V. Ramil Rarugal Alias "Amay Bisaya," G.R. No. 188603 January 16, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
RAMIL RARUGAL alias "AMAY BISAYA,"

G.R. No. 188603 January 16, 2013
Related Rules of Court

Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court (Dying declaration)
FACTS: On or about the 19th day of October, 1998, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-
named appellant, with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, did, then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon
the person of one Arnel M. Florendo, by then and there stabbing him with a bladed weapon,
hitting him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal
wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of the said Arnel M. Florendo.
Based on the testimonies of witnesses presented by the prosecution, the RTC found that on the
night of October 19, 1998 at around 9:45 p.m., while victim Arnel Florendo (Florendo) was
cycling along Sampaguita Street, Barangay Capari, Novaliches, Quezon City, appellant, with the
use of a long double-bladed weapon, stabbed Florendo; thus, forcibly depriving him of his
bicycle. Immediately thereafter, appellant hurriedly fled the scene. This incident was witnessed
by Roberto Sit-Jar, who positively identified appellant in court.
Florendo arrived home bleeding. He was quickly attended to by his siblings, including his brother
Renato. When Renato recounted the events of that night to the court, he testified that Florendo
told him and his other relatives that it was appellant who had stabbed him. They then took
Florendo to Tordesillas Hospital but had to transfer him to Quezon City General Hospital, due to
the unavailability of blood. It was there that Florendo died on October 26, 1998 with the family
spending about P2,896.00 for his hospitalization and P25,000.00 for his funeral.
Petitioner‘s contention: In his defense, appellant denied that he stabbed Florendo since he was
at that time working as a farm administrator for the town mayor in Pangasinan. He said he was
living with his cousin in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan on October 19, 1998, where he had been staying
since 1997. He stated that during the period 1997 to 1998, he did not visit Manila at any point.
On cross-examination, appellant stated that he was arrested in front of his house in Novaliches,
Quezon City.
Ruling of the Trial Court:
He was found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as defined under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Witness Sit-Jar positively identified appellant as the
assailant of Florendo. In view of the positive identification made by Sit-Jar, the denial and alibi
made by [appellant] has no leg to stand on. Under prevailing jurisprudence alibis and denials are
worthless in light of positive identification by witnesses who have no motive to falsely testify.
Moreover, Florendo did not immediately die after he was stabbed by the appellant. Florendo,
apparently conscious that he could die of his wound, identified his assailant as the appellant
Ramil Rarugal. Under the rules, statements made by a person under the consciousness of an
impending death is admissible as evidence of the circumstances of his death. The positive
identification made by the victim before he died, under the consciousness of an impending death
is a strong evidence indicating the liability of herein appellant.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the May 29, 2006 decision of the RTC. It stated that
witness Sit-Jar‘s positive identification of appellant as the one who stabbed Florendo takes
precedence over appellant‘s defense of denial and alibi. Moreover, appellant failed to adduce
evidence to show that Sit-Jar had any improper motive to falsely testify against him.
Hence, present petition.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the dying declaration of the victim can be given credence. Whether or not the
appellant is guilty of murder.
HELD:
First Issue: Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 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.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the statement of Florendo made to his brother Renato
has complied with the requisites of a dying declaration. It is important to note that Florendo,
after being stabbed by appellant twice on the chest, went home and under labored breathing,
told Renato that it was appellant who had stabbed him. Clearly, the statement made was an
expression of the cause and the surrounding circumstances of his death, and under the
consciousness of impending death. There being nothing in the records to show that Florendo was
incompetent, he would have been competent to testify had he survived. It is enough to state
that the deceased was at the time competent as a witness.

People of The Philippines V. Ramil Rarugal Alias "Amay Bisaya," G.R. No. 188603 January 16, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines V. Ramil Rarugal Alias "Amay Bisaya," G.R. No. 188603 January 16, 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines V. Ramil Rarugal Alias "Amay Bisaya," G.R. No. 188603 January 16, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

RAMIL RARUGAL alias "AMAY BISAYA,"

Related Rules of Court

Ruling of the Trial Court:

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

Hence, present petition.

You might also like