ALEJANDRO FUENTES, JR., vs CA G.R. No.

111692

Facts:

Malaspina while at a benefit dance was stabbed and before he died he muttered that Alejandro Fuentes,
Jr. stabbed him.

Witnesses Osok and Toling who were with the victim testified that they saw Fuentes stabbed Malaspina.

Fuentes raised the following to deny the said stabbing:

1. He was conversing with Malaspina when the latter was stabbed.

2. He insisted that he is innocent and that his cousin Zoilo Fuentes Jr. aka “Jonie” was the one who
stabbed Malaspina. That after the incident out of fear he went to his brother’s house where he
met Zoilo and the latter confessed to him.
3. That Zoilo Fuentes, Jr also made a confession to their uncle, Felicisimo, that he stabbed
Malaspina.
4. Alejandro presented a witness named Nerio Biscocho, who during the cross-examination,
testified that Alejandro Fuentes, Jr and “Jonie Fuentes” are one and same person.

Note: Based on the case, Zoilo is nowhere to be found. He never appeared and Alejandro together with
his uncle Felicisimo were trying to have the court admit their testimonies that Zoilo made a self-
confession to him and to his uncle Felicisimo and that he was a victim of mistaken identity.

RTC’s decision: Alejandro Fuentes guilty of murder qualified with treachery.

CA: Affirmed RTC’s decision. Hence this review.

Issue:

Whether or not the declaration particularly against penal interest attributed to Zoilo Fuentes Jr. is
admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Ruling:

No.

There are three (3) essential requisites for the admissibility of a declaration against interest: (a) the
declarant must not be available to testify; (b) the declaration must concern a fact cognizable by the
declarant; and (c) the circumstances must render it improbable that a motive to falsify existed.

The admission against penal interest cannot be accepted in the instant case is that the declarant is not
"unable to testify." There is no showing that Zoilo is either dead, mentally incapacitated or physically
incompetent which Sec. 38 obviously contemplates. His mere absence from the jurisdiction does not
make him ipso facto unavailable under this rule. For it is incumbent upon the defense to produce each
and every piece of evidence that can break the prosecution and assure the acquittal of the accused.
Other than the gratuitous statements of accused-appellant and his uncle to the effect that Zoilo admitted
having killed Malaspina, the records show that the defense did not exert any serious effort to produce
Zoilo as a witness. Lest we be misunderstood, 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 thus increasing the probability of its fabrication; 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.