2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

on December 5, 1998 was established by witnesses from

both the prosecution and defense. As additional proof of
Gemma’s demise, the prosecution presented her Certificate
of Death which was admitted by the RTC. Also, the spousal
relationship between Gemma and the appellant is undisputed.
Appellant already admitted that Gemma was his legitimate
  wife in the course of the trial
 
 
_______________
 
  *  SECOND DIVISION.
 
   
   
 
422
 
 
  422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
  People vs. Umapas

G.R. No. 215742. March 22, 2017.* of the case. In parricide involving spouses, the best
  proof of the relationship between the offender and victim is
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, their marriage certificate. However, oral evidence may also
vs. JOSE BELMAR UMAPAS y CRISOSTOMO, be considered in proving the relationship between the two as
accused-appellant. long as such proof is not contested, as in this case. Thus,
having established the fact of death and the spousal
Criminal Law; Parricide; Elements of.—Parricide is relationship between Gemma and the appellant, the
committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is remaining element to be proved is whether the deceased is
killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, killed by the accused.
or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
Remedial Law; Evidence; Hearsay Evidence Rule;
other ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate
Dying Declaration; While witnesses in general can only
spouse of the accused.
testify to facts derived from their own perception, a report in
Same; Same; In parricide involving spouses, the best open court of a dying person’s declaration is recognized as
proof of the relationship between the offender and victim is an exception to the rule against hearsay if it is “made under
their marriage certificate.—In the instant case, the fact of the consciousness of an impending death that is the subject
Gemma’s death is incontestable. The fact that Gemma died of inquiry in the case.”—While witnesses in general can
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/31
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

only testify to facts derived from their own perception, a VOL. 821, MARCH 22, 2017 423
report in open court of a dying person’s declaration is
People vs. Umapas
recognized as an exception to the rule against hearsay if it is
“made under the consciousness of an impending death that is
the subject of inquiry in the case.” It is considered as sible. Thus, in the absence of evidence showing that the
“evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost declarant could not have been competent to be a witness had
credence since no person aware of his impending death he survived, the presumption must be sustained that he
would make a careless and false accusation.” Four requisites would have been competent. Fourth, the declaration must be
must concur in order that a dying declaration may be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide,
admissible, thus: First, the declaration must concern the in which the declarant is the victim.
cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s Same; Same; Same; Same; There is ample authority for
death. This refers not only to the facts of the assault itself, the view that the declarant’s belief in the imminence of her
but also to matters both before and after the assault having a death can be shown by the declarant’s own statements or
direct causal connection with it. Statements involving the from circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of her
nature of the declarant’s injury or the cause of death; those wounds, statements made in her presence, or by the opinion
imparting deliberation and willfulness in the attack, of her physician.—Gemma communicated her antemortem
indicating the reason or motive for the killing; justifying or statement to SPO1 Garcia, identifying Umapas as the person
accusing the accused; or indicating the absence of cause for who mauled her, poured gasoline on her, and set her ablaze.
the act are admissible. Second, at the time the declaration Gemma’s statements constitute a dying declaration, given
was made, the declarant must be under the consciousness of that they pertained to the cause and circumstances of her
an impending death. The rule is that, in order to make a death and taking into consideration the severity of her
dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and wounds, it may be reasonably presumed that she uttered the
imminent death must be entered by the declarant. It is the same under the belief that her own death was already
belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of imminent. There is ample authority for the view that the
death in point of fact that renders the dying declaration declarant’s belief in the imminence of her death can be
admissible. It is not necessary that the approaching death be shown by the declarant’s own statements or from
presaged by the personal feelings of the deceased. The test is circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of her wounds,
whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival statements made in her presence, or by the opinion of her
and looked on death as certainly impending. Third, the physician. While more than 12 hours has lapsed from the
declarant is competent as a witness. The rule is that where time of the incident until her declaration, it must be noted
the declarant would not have been a competent witness had that Gemma was in severe pain during the early hours of her
he survived, the proffered declarations will not be admis- admission. Dr. Tamayo even testified that when she saw
Gemma in the hospital, she was restless, in pain and
 
incoherent considering that not only was she mauled, but
 
57% of her body was also burned. She also underwent
423 operation and treatment, and was under medication during

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/31

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

the said period. Given the circumstances Gemma was in, Same; Same; Hearsay Evidence Rule; Evidence is
even if there was sufficient lapse of time, we could only hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part
conclude that at the time of her declaration, she feared that on the competency and credibility of some persons other than
her death was already imminent. While suffering in pain due the witness by whom it is sought to produce.—Evidence is
to thermal burns, she could not have used said time to hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part
contrive her identification of Umapas as her assailant. There on the competency and credibility of some persons other than
was, thus, no opportunity for Gemma to deliberate and to the witness by whom it is sought to produce. However, while
fabricate a false statement. the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by
Same; Same; Circumstantial Evidence; Direct evidence another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth
of the actual killing is not indispensable for convicting an of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay
accused when circumstantial evidence can also sufficiently evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the
establish his guilt.—Direct evidence of the actual killing is statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the
not indispensable for convicting an accused when statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made.
circumstantial evidence can also sufficiently establish his Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is
guilt. The consistent rule has been that circumstantial relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the
hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown.
  As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the
  statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement
itself may constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially
424
relevant as to the existence of such a fact. This is the doctrine
of independently relevant statements. Thus, all these
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED requisites to support a conviction based on circumstantial
People vs. Umapas evidence, not to mention the dying declaration of the
deceased victim herself, are existing in the instant case.
Criminal Law; Alibi; It is axiomatic that alibi is an
evidence is adequate for conviction if: (a) there is more
inherently weak defense, and may only be considered if the
than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
following circumstances are shown: (a) he was somewhere
inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the
else when the crime occurred; and (b) it would be physically
combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a
impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, conviction based
the alleged crime.—It is axiomatic that alibi is an inherently
on circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided that the
weak defense, and may only be considered if the following
circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which
circumstances are shown: (a) he was somewhere else when
leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the
the crime occurred; and (b) it would be physically impossible
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.
All these requisites, not to mention the dying declaration of  
the deceased victim herself, are present in the instant case.  
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/31
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

425 the part of the police officers who testified against him. In
fact, appellant did not even question the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses. When police officers have no motive
VOL. 821, MARCH 22, 2017 425
to testify falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to
People vs. Umapas uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of
their duties. Thus, the testimonies of said police officers
deserve full faith and credit.
for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the
alleged crime. The requirements of time and place must be Same; Findings of Fact; Factual findings of the trial
strictly met. It is not enough to prove that appellant was court and its observation as to the testimonies of the
somewhere else when the crime happened. They must also witnesses are accorded great respect, if not conclusive effect,
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it was most especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of —This Court has consistently conformed to the rule that
the crime at the approximate time of its commission. Unless findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is deserve great weight. Factual findings of the trial court and
negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law. its observation as to the testimonies of the witnesses are
accorded great re-
Same; Denials; A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a
weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative evidence,  
which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than  
the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on
affirmative matters.—A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently 426
a weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative
evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify
on affirmative matters. Under the circumstances, there is the People vs. Umapas
possibility that appellant could have been present at the locus
criminis at the time of the incident considering that where he spect, if not conclusive effect, most especially when
claimed to have gone fishing and his residence are both in affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case. The reason
Kalakhan. Accordingly, appellant’s defense of alibi must fall. for this is that trial courts are in a better position to decide the
Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; question of credibility, having heard the witnesses
When police officers have no motive to testify falsely against themselves and having observed firsthand their demeanor
the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of and manner of testifying under grueling examination. In the
regularity in the performance of their duties.—The court a absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the
quo also correctly accorded credence to the testimonies of part of the trial judge, the trial court’s evaluation of the
the prosecution witnesses who are police officers. Appellant credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.
failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill motive on

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/31

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

Criminal Law; Parricide; Penalties; Parricide, under  

Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), is punishable 427
by two (2) indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to death.
However, with the enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 9346,
the imposition of the penalty of death is prohibited.— VOL. 821, MARCH 22, 2017 427
Parricide, under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, is People vs. Umapas
punishable by two indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to
death. However, with the enactment of Republic Act No.
H.C. No. 05424. The CA affirmed with modification
9346 (RA 9346), the imposition of the penalty of death is
the Decision2 dated October 10, 2011 of the Regional
prohibited. Likewise, significant is the provision found in
Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City in Criminal Case
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code stating that in the
No. 611-98 which convicted appellant Jose Belmar
absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the
Umapas y Crisostomo of parricide.
commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be imposed.
The facts are as follows:
Applying these to the instant case, there being no
In the evening of November 30, 1998, around 11
aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the commission of
o’clock, appellant mauled his wife Gemma Gulang
the offense, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly
Umapas (Gemma) and, with the use of alcohol
imposed by the court a quo.
intended for a coleman or lantern, doused her with it
and set her ablaze at their home located at Lower
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Kalakhan, Olongapo City. Gemma was brought to
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
James L. Gordon Memorial Hospital for treatment by a
    Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-
certain Rodrigo Dacanay who informed the attending
appellee.
hospital personnel, which included Dr. Arnildo C.
   Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
Tamayo (Dr. Tamayo), that it was appellant who set her
PERALTA, J.: on fire.3 Gemma was found to have suffered the
  following injuries: contusions on the left cheek and on
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 the lower lip, lacerations on right parietal area and on
dated February 26, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) the left temporal area, and thermal burns over 57% of
in C.A.-G.R. CR- her body.4 Due to the severity of the injuries, the
victim died on December 5, 1998 from multiple organ
failure secondary to thermal burns.5
_______________
The police authorities were unable to talk to
1  Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Associate Gemma immediately after the incident as they were
Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez, concurring; Rollo, prevented from doing so by the attending physician at
pp. 2-10. the hospital’s emergency room. But the following day,
December 1, 1998, around 1:30 p.m., SPO1 Anthony
  Garcia (SPO1 Garcia) was able to interview the victim
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/31
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821
6
at her hospital bed. Though she spoke slowly with himself with a bottle of alcohol intended for a coleman, did
eyes closed, Gemma was said to be coherent and then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inflict
agreed to give a statement about the incident which multiple injuries upon the different parts of the body of his
included her identifying her husband, Umapas, as her lawfully wedded wife Gemma G. Umapas by then and there
assailant.7 pouring the said alcohol on the different parts of the body of
said Gemma G. Umapas, setting her body ablaze, resulting in
_______________ the immediate death of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
2  CA Rollo, pp. 36-41.
3  Records, pp. 281-282.  
4  Id., at p. 114. Appellant, for his part, narrated that on November
5  Id., at p. 18. 30, 1998, he was with a certain Rommel fishing in
6  Id., at p. 286. Kalakhan.11 They left at 5 o’clock in the afternoon and
7  Id., at pp. 286-287. returned at 2 o’clock in the morning the following day
to their residence at 195 Lower Kalakhan, Olongapo
  City.12 When appellant went home, there was a
  commotion, but he claimed not to know what the
commotion was all about. There were many people in
428
the vicinity of their house. He then learned from the
neighbors who were
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Umapas _______________

8   Id., at p. 290.
Gemma was asked if she felt that she was dying, and 9   Id., at pp. 289-288.
she said “yes.”8 SPO1 Garcia reduced her statement in 10  Id., at pp. 1-2.
writing and the same was attested thru the victim’s 11  Id., at p. 252.
thumbmark. A nurse who was present when the 12  Id., at pp. 252-253.
statement of the victim was taken signed as witness.9
On January 5, 1999, an Information10 was filed  
against appellant Jose Belmar Umapas y Crisostomo  
for parricide. The Information alleged —
429
That on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of November,
1998, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the
VOL. 821, MARCH 22, 2017 429
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, Jose
Belmar C. Umapas, with intent to kill, taking advantage of People vs. Umapas
his superior strength and with evident premeditation, arming
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/31
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

outside their house that his wife was brought to the _______________
hospital but was not told why. His four children were
13  Id., at pp. 253-256.
in their house and they told him that their mother is in
14  Id., at p. 269.
the hospital. When he learned about this, appellant
15  Id., at p. 270.
allegedly dressed up to go to the hospital, but he was
16  Id., at p. 36.
not able to go because he was stopped by the people
from the barangay. He was instead brought to the  
police precinct and was detained.13  
Appellant later on learned that he was a suspect in
his wife’s death. He claimed that he was not able to 430
talk to his wife before she died or visit her at the
hospital. He was not even able to visit the wake of his 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
wife because he was already detained. He, however,
believed that his wife pointed him as the one who did People vs. Umapas
wrong to her because his wife suspected him of
womanizing while he was working at EEI.14 Appellant formed by one Rodrigo Dacanay that the victim was
averred that they had petty quarrels and his wife was doused by her husband, appellant, with one hundred
always hot tempered, and she even asked him to percent (100%) alcohol and set on fire.17 Due to the
choose between work and family. Appellant added that severity of the burns, he thought that the victim had a
he just chose to ignore her and took a vacation. While slim chance of surviving. He also authenticated the
he was on vacation from work, he earned a living by medical certificate he issued on the victim’s injuries.18
fishing. He maintained that he was out fishing, and not SPO1 Garcia testified that on December 1, 1998,
in their house, on November 30, 1998 when the while the victim was being treated at the hospital, he
incident occurred.15 was able to obtain the statement of the victim who
On June 7, 1999, upon arraignment, appellant identified appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.16 Trial ensued. SPO1 Garcia reduced the victim’s statement in writing
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, which, due to the victim’s inability to use her hands,
namely, Dr. Tamayo, SPO1 Garcia and PO1 Rommel was marked merely by her thumb. The statement was
Belisario (PO1 Belisario). On the other hand, the witnessed by a hospital nurse.19
defense presented the lone testimony of the appellant. PO1 Belisario, on the other hand, testified that he
Dr. Tamayo testified that he gave medical treatment was prevented by the hospital personnel from talking
to the victim Gemma G. Umapas who suffered to the victim because of the severity of the latter’s
contusions and lacerations in her head and second injuries. At the crime scene, he was told by the
degree burns over fifty-seven percent (57%) of her victim’s daughter, Ginalyn Umapas, that her mother
body. Dr. Tamayo testified that he was in- was set ablaze by appellant. He, however, admitted
that he failed to reduce Gemma’s daughter’s statement
in writing.20
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/31
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

Appellant, testifying on his behalf, denied setting moral damages and Php25,000.00 as temperate damages.
his wife on fire and claimed he was out fishing with a SO ORDERED.23
friend he identified as a certain Rommel.21 He further
claimed that his wife probably pointed to him as her  
assailant to get back at him due to his alleged The RTC was unconvinced by the defense of alibi
womanizing.22 While appellant intended to present and denial interposed by appellant.
another witness, the defense eventually rested its case Unperturbed, appellant appealed the trial court’s
on July 25, 2011 when no other witness was available decision before the Court of Appeals.
to corroborate the appellant’s testimony. On February 26, 2014, in its disputed Decision,24
On October 10, 2011, the RTC found the appellant the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed
guilty of the crime of parricide. The dispositive portion the appealed decision of the trial court with
of the decision reads in this wise: modification, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The

_______________ assailed Decision dated October 10, 2011 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 74, in Criminal
17  Id., at p. 276.
Case No. 611-98 is hereby AFFIRMED with
18  Id., at pp. 277-278.
MODIFICATION that in addition to the damages awarded
19  Id., at pp. 288-289.
by the court a quo to the heirs of the victim, the accused-
20  Id., at pp. 244-245.
appellant is likewise ordered to pay the amount of
21  Id., at p. 270.
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages awarded
22  Id., at p. 269.
shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
  of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
  SO ORDERED.

431  
Hence, this appeal.
VOL. 821, MARCH 22, 2017 431
_______________
People vs. Umapas
23  CA Rollo, pp. 36-41.
IN VIEW THEREOF, accused JOSE BELMAR 24  Rollo, pp. 2-10.
UMAPAS y CRISOSTOMO is found GUILTY beyond
 
reasonable doubt of the crime of PARRICIDE, and sentenced
 
to suffer the imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.
Accused is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the victim 432
Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, Php50,000.00 as

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/31

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the best proof of the relationship between the offender
People vs. Umapas and victim is their marriage certificate. However, oral
evidence may also be considered in proving the
relationship between the two as long as
I
 
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN _______________

CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BASED ON 25   People v. Macal, G.R. No. 211062, January 13, 2016, 780
THE ALLEGED DYING STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM SCRA 656.
GEMMA UMAPAS, ADMITTING THE SAME AS A 26  Rollo, p. 121.
DYING DECLARATION AND PART OF RES GESTAE. 27  Records, p. 251.
 
II  
   
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
433
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE
THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. VOL. 821, MARCH 22, 2017 433

  People vs. Umapas

We affirm appellant’s conviction.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; such proof is not contested, as in this case. Thus,
(2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the having established the fact of death and the spousal
deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether relationship between Gemma and the appellant, the
legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other remaining element to be proved is whether the
ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate deceased is killed by the accused.
spouse of the accused.25=  
In the instant case, the fact of Gemma’s death is Conviction based on
incontestable. The fact that Gemma died on December dying declaration
5, 1998 was established by witnesses from both the  
prosecution and defense. As additional proof of While witnesses in general can only testify to facts
Gemma’s demise, the prosecution presented her derived from their own perception, a report in open
Certificate of Death which was admitted by the RTC.26 court of a dying person’s declaration is recognized as
Also, the spousal relationship between Gemma and the an exception to the rule against hearsay if it is “made
appellant is undisputed. Appellant already admitted under the consciousness of an impending death that is
that Gemma was his legitimate wife in the course of the subject of inquiry in the case.” It is considered as
the trial of the case.27 In parricide involving spouses, “evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/31

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

credence since no person aware of his impending death ings of the deceased. The test is whether the declarant
would make a careless and false accusation.”28 has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on
Four requisites must concur in order that a dying death as certainly impending. Third, the declarant is
declaration may be admissible, thus: First, the competent as a witness. The rule is that where the
declaration must concern the cause and surrounding declarant would not have been a competent witness
circumstances of the declarant’s death. This refers not had he survived, the proffered declarations will not be
only to the facts of the assault itself, but also to matters admissible. Thus, in the absence of evidence showing
both before and after the assault having a direct causal that the declarant could not have been competent to be
connection with it. Statements involving the nature of a witness had he survived, the presumption must be
the declarant’s injury or the cause of death; those sustained that he would have been competent. Fourth,
imparting deliberation and willfulness in the attack, the declaration must be offered in a criminal case for
indicating the reason or motive for the killing; homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant
justifying or accusing the accused; or indicating the is the victim.29
absence of cause for the act are admissible. Second, at In the present case, all the above mentioned
the time the declaration was made, the declarant must requisites of a dying declaration were met. Gemma
be under the consciousness of an impending death. The communicated her antemortem statement to SPO1
rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration Garcia, identifying Umapas as the person who mauled
admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent her, poured gasoline on her, and set her ablaze.30
death must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief Gemma’s statements constitute a dying declaration,
in impending death and not the rapid succession of given that they pertained to the cause and
death in point of fact that renders the dying declaration circumstances of her death and taking into
admissible. It is not necessary that the approaching consideration the severity of her wounds, it may be
death be presaged by the personal feel- reasonably presumed that she uttered the same under
the belief that her own death was already imminent.31
_______________ There is ample authority for the view that the
declarant’s belief in the imminence of her death can be
28  People v. Maglian, 662 Phil. 338, 346; 646 SCRA 770, 778 shown by the declarant’s own statements or from
(2011). circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of her
wounds, statements made in her presence, or by the
 
opinion of her physician.32 While more than 12 hours
 
has lapsed from the time of
434
_______________

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 29   See People v. Cerilla, 564 Phil. 230, 242; 539 SCRA 251,
People vs. Umapas 263-264 (2007).
30  Records, p. 117.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/31
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

31  Id., at p. 120. Gemma rendered involuntary declaration. Lastly, the

32   People v. Salafranca, 682 Phil. 470, 482; 666 SCRA 501, dying declaration was offered in this criminal
512-513 (2012), citing M. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: prosecution for parricide in which Gemma was the
Evidence § 7074, Interim Edition, Vol. 30B, 2000, West Group, St. victim. It has been held that conviction or guilt may be
Paul, Minnesota; citing Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 100; based mainly on the antemortem statements of the
Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 151 (sense of impending deceased.35 In the face of the positive identification
death may be made to appear “from the nature and extent of the made by deceased Gemma of appellant Umapas, it is
wounds clear that Umapas committed the crime.
 
  Conviction based on cir-
  cumstantial evidence
435  
Direct evidence of the actual killing is not
indispensable for convicting an accused when
VOL. 821, MARCH 22, 2017 435 circumstantial evidence can also
People vs. Umapas
_______________
the incident until her declaration, it must be noted that
inflicted, being obviously such that he must have felt or known that
Gemma was in severe pain during the early hours of
he could not survive”); Webb v. Lane, 922 F.2d 390, 395-396 (7th
her admission. Dr. Tamayo even testified that when she
Cir., 1991); United States v. Mobley, 491 F.2d 345 (5th Cir., 1970).
saw Gemma in the hospital, she was restless, in pain
33  Records, pp. 275-276, 279-281.
and incoherent considering that not only was she
34  Id., at p. 279.
mauled, but 57% of her body was also burned.33 She
35  People v. Serrano, 58 Phil. 669, 670 (1933).
also underwent operation and treatment, and was under
medication during the said period.34 Given the  
circumstances Gemma was in, even if there was  
sufficient lapse of time, we could only conclude that at
the time of her declaration, she feared that her death 436
was already imminent. While suffering in pain due to
thermal burns, she could not have used said time to 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
contrive her identification of Umapas as her assailant.
There was, thus, no opportunity for Gemma to People vs. Umapas
deliberate and to fabricate a false statement.
Moreover, Gemma would have been competent to sufficiently establish his guilt. The consistent rule has
testify on the subject of the declaration had she been that circumstantial evidence is adequate for
survived. There is nothing in the records that show that conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance;

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/31

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived 36   People v. Sañez, 378 Phil. 573, 584; 320 SCRA 805, 815
have been proven; and (c) the combination of all (1999); People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, February 8, 1994,
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction 229 SCRA 754; People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 92537, April 25,
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, conviction based on 1994, 231 SCRA 737; People v. Retuta, G.R. No. 95758, August 2,
circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided that 1994, 234 SCRA 645.
the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain
which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that  
points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as  
the guilty person. All these requisites, not to mention 437
the dying declaration of the deceased victim herself,
are present in the instant case.36
In the instant case, the testimonies of: (1) SPO1 VOL. 821, MARCH 22, 2017 437
Belisario that during his investigation immediately People vs. Umapas
after the crime was reported, he went to the crime
scene and was able to talk to Ginalyn Umapas, the such statement, and the truth and falsity thereof is
daughter of the victim, wherein the latter told him that immaterial. In such a case, the statement of the witness
Umapas was the one who set her mother ablaze inside is admissible as evidence and the hearsay rule does not
their house, (2) Dr. Tamayo that a certain Rodrigo apply.
Dacanay told him that Umapas was the one who Evidence is hearsay when its probative force
mauled and set Gemma ablaze, and (3) SPO1 Garcia depends in whole or in part on the competency and
that he took the statement of Gemma which he reduced credibility of some persons other than the witness by
into writing after the same was thumbmarked by whom it is sought to produce. However, while the
Gemma and witnessed by the hospital nurse, can be all testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by
admitted as circumstantial evidence. While Ginalyn another person given for the purpose of establishing
Umapas and Rodrigo Dacanay or the hospital nurse the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly
were not presented to prove the truth of such hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of
statements, they may be admitted not necessarily to placing the statement on the record is merely to
prove the truth thereof, but at least for the purpose of establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of
placing on record to establish the fact that those such statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or
statements or the tenor of such statements, were made. falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact
Thus, the testimonies of SPO1 Belisario, Dr. Tamayo, that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule
and SPO1 Garcia are in the nature of an independently does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a
relevant statement where what is relevant is the fact matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the
that Ginalyn Umapas and Rodrigo Dacanay made statement is not secondary but primary, for the
statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is
_______________ circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/31

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

fact. This is the doctrine of independently relevant substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such
statements. Thus, all these requisites to support a defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of
conviction based on circumstantial evidence, not to any weight in law.39 A mere denial, like alibi, is
mention the dying declaration of the deceased victim inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving
herself, are existing in the instant case.37 negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater
We, likewise, do not find credence in appellant’s evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible
defense of alibi. It is axiomatic that alibi is an witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.40 Under
inherently weak defense, and may only be considered the circumstances, there is the possibility that appellant
if the following circumstances are shown: (a) he was could have been present at the locus criminis at the
somewhere else when the crime occurred; and (b) it time of the incident considering that where he claimed
would be physically impossible for him to be at the to have gone fishing and his residence are both in
locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime.38 The Kalakhan.41 Accordingly, appellant’s defense of alibi
requirements of time and place must be strictly met. It must fall.
is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere The court a quo also correctly accorded credence to
else when the crime the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who are
police officers. Appellant failed to present any
_______________ plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the
police officers who testified against him. In fact,
37   Espineli v. People, G.R. No. 179535, June 9, 2014, 725 appellant did not even question the credibility of the
SCRA 365, 375. prosecution witnesses. When police officers have no
38   People v. Palanas, G.R. No. 214453, June 17, 2015, 759 motive to testify falsely against the accused, courts are
SCRA 318, 329-330; People v. Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the
11, 2011, 658 SCRA 842, 847. performance of their duties.42 Thus, the testimonies of
said police officers deserve full faith and credit.
 
This Court has consistently conformed to the rule
 
that findings of the trial court on the credibility of
438 witnesses deserve great weight. Factual findings of the
trial court and its observation as to the testimonies of
the witnesses are accorded great respect, if not
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED conclusive effect, most especially when
People vs. Umapas
_______________
happened. They must also demonstrate by clear and
39   People v. Sato, G.R. No. 190863, November 19, 2014, 741
convincing evidence that it was physically impossible
SCRA 132, 140; People v. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529, 564; 680 SCRA
for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the
386, 421 (2012).
approximate time of its commission. Unless

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/31

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

40  People v. Estrada, 624 Phil. 211, 217; 610 SCRA 222, 227- Parricide, under Article 246 of the Revised Penal
228 (2010). Code, is punishable by two indivisible penalties,
41  Records, pp. 252-253. reclusion perpetua to death. However, with the
42  People v. Buenaventura, 677 Phil. 230, 240; 661 SCRA 216, enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346), the
225-226 (2011). imposition of the penalty of death is prohibited.
Likewise, significant is the provision found in Article
  6345 of
 

439 _______________

43  People v. Colorada, G.R. No. 215715, August 31, 2016, 802

VOL. 821, MARCH 22, 2017 439 SCRA 71 (Resolution).
People vs. Umapas 44  Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.—Circum-
stantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more
than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case. The
derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances
reason for this is that trial courts are in a better position
is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
to decide the question of credibility, having heard the
45  In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of
witnesses themselves and having observed firsthand
two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the
their demeanor and manner of testifying under grueling
application thereof: x x x.
examination. In the absence of palpable error or grave
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall
trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses
be applied. x x x.
will not be disturbed on appeal.43
All told, based on the foregoing, this Court finds the  
established circumstances, as found by the trial court  
and the appellate court, to have satisfied the
requirement of Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of 440
Court.44 Indeed, the incriminating circumstances,
including the antemortem statement of Gemma, when 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
taken together, constitute an unbroken chain of events
enough to arrive at the conclusion that indeed appellant People vs. Umapas
Umapas was guilty for the killing of his wife Gemma.
  the Revised Penal Code stating that in the absence of
Penalty mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the
  commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be
imposed. Applying these to the instant case, there

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/31

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 821

being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the 48  People v. Paycana, Jr., 574 Phil. 780, 791; 551 SCRA 657,
commission of the offense, the penalty of reclusion 668 (2008).
perpetua was correctly imposed by the court a quo.
In conformity with People v. Ireneo Jugueta,46 the  
Court deems it proper to modify the amounts of  
damages awarded to the heirs of Gemma Umapas, as 441
follows: Civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to
P75,000.00; Moral damages from P50,000.00 to
P75,000.00; and temperate damages in the amount of VOL. 821, MARCH 22, 2017 441
P50,000.00.47 We, likewise, award exemplary damages People vs. Umapas
in the amount of P75,000.00 on account of
relationship, a qualifying circumstance, which was All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate
alleged and proved, in the crime of parricide.48 All of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality
with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum of this Judgment until fully paid.
from the date of finality of judgment until the same are Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the
fully paid. Department of Justice for its information and
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The appropriate action. Costs against the appellant.
Decision dated February 26, 2014 of the Court of SO ORDERED.
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05424 finding
appellant Jose Belmar Umapas y Crisostomo GUILTY Carpio (Chairperson), Mendoza, Leonen and
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide, as Martires, JJ., concur.
defined and punished under Article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code, is hereby AFFIRMED with Appeal denied, judgment affirmed with
MODIFICATION, in that he is sentenced to suffer the modification.
penalty of reclusion perpetua. The appellant is also
hereby ORDERED to INDEMNIFY the heirs of the Notes.—It has been settled that the commission of
deceased the following amounts of: parricide is punished more severely than homicide
a. Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; since human beings are expected to love and support
b. Php75,000.00 as moral damages; those who are closest to them. (Manulat, Jr. vs. People,
c. Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and 766 SCRA 683 [2015])
d. Php50,000.00 as temperate damages. The crime of Parricide is punishable by the
indivisible penalties of reclusion perpetua to death.
(People vs. Guting, 770 SCRA 334 [2015])
_______________
 
46  G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331. ——o0o——
47  Supra note 25.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/31 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b1ac50e9360d74f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/31