Bathan Notes October 2017 Rem

SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE-R, Manila Instue of Law 201 !RE-BAR NOTES IN REME"IAL LA# B$% &'"GE E(L( BAT)AN CI*IL !ROCE"'RE 1. (objectve queston HOT Iem) Enumerate the appellate court’s dual funcon.  Ans. The following are the dual funcons of appellate court, viz: 



The review for correctness funcon . -

the case case is revie reviewe wed d on appeal appeal to assure assure that that subs substa tan nal al jusce jusce has has been done.

-

is conc concern erned ed with with the jusce jusce of a parcu parcular lar case. case.

-

this this pe perta rtains ins to the the doc doctr triine of of res judicaa, which decides the case and seles the th e controversy. controversy.

The instuonal funcon . -

refers refers to to the progr progressi essive ve devel developmen opmentt of the law law for gener general al applica applicaon on in the judicial system.

-

is concer ncerne ned d with with the the ar arcula ulaon and appl applic ica aon of cons onstu tuo onal nal principles, the authoritave interpretaon of statutes, and the formulaon of policy within the proper sphere of the judicial funcon.

-

this pe pertains to to sare decisis, which pertains to the precedenal value of  the case which assists in deciding future similar cases by the applicaon of  the rule or principle derived from the earlier case.

With With each each leve levell of the appell appellat ate e struc structur ture, e, the revie review w for corr correct ectnes nesss funco funcon n uniformity of judicial DIMINISHES  and the instuonal funcon, which concerns itself with uniformity administr administrao aon n and the progres progressiv sive e developm development ent of the law, law, INCREASES . (Discussed by  your your Chairma Chairman, n, Supreme Supreme Court usce! usce! the Hono Honora"l ra"le e #ucas #ucas $. %ersamin %ersamin in his oo!  ent"ed & Appeal and Re'ie( in the $hilippines! )*** ed.! p. +,,! avai"ab"e a Cenra" oo!  #u$$"y, Inc%  -.

). (objectve queston HOT Iem) hat is /slip rule0   Ans. one of the excepons to the rule that modicaon of judgment or order is not allowed a!er its nality this is allowed to correct clerical errors and ambiguies in decisions. this is allowed where disposive poron of a nal and executory judgment contains a clerical error or an ambiguity arising from an inadvertent omission, the error or ambiguity may be claried by reference to the body of the decision itself. This is generally s"i$ ru"e ru"e #so-called "nown as the s"i$  #so-called because the clerical mista"es mista"es or errors arise from (Discu cusse ssed d by your your Chai Chairm rman an,, Supreme Court usce! the accide accident ntal al slip slip or omiss omission ion (Dis Honora"le #ucas $. %ersamin in his oo! ent"ed & Appeal and Re'ie( in the $hilippines! )*** ed.! p. +)2! cin3 Castelo 's. CA! )22 SCRA 14*- . 

 

+. (objectve queston HOT Iem) Aside from slip rule! as one of the e5cepons e5cepons to the rule that modi6caon of 7ud3ment or order is not allo(ed a8er its 6nalit9! (hat is the other e5cepon   Ans. To ma"e the judgment conform to prevailing circumstances. E5ample& reinstatement of  an illegally dismissed employee is inappropriate because of the employer$s eventual closure (Discussed by your Chairman, Supreme Court usce! the Honora"le #ucas $. %ersamin in his oo! ent"ed & Appeal and Re'ie( in the $hilippines! )*** ed.! pp. +)+:+)2! citn& ;alinde< 's. Rural %an= of #lanera! Inc.! 1>, SCRA 1+)! 1+4:1+?-. 2. Discus Discusss /harml /harmless ess error0 error0 rule rule  Ans. %n an appealed decision, the errors are harmless if they do not produce substanal prejudice to the appellant. They are minor or inconse&uenal if they do not a'ect the results of the cases di'erently, even it considered by the appellate courts. When the errors are harmless, minor, or inconse&uenal, reversal on appeal should not be handed by the appellate courts. (n error is consider considered ed reversible reversible (no "on&er harm"ess)   if it is su)ciently serious or gra grave tha that the the subs substa tan nal al righ rights ts of the the appe appell llan ants ts are are prej prejudi udice ced d (Discu (Discussed ssed by your  your  Chairm Chairman, an, Supreme Supreme Court usce usce!! the Hono Honora"l ra"le e #ucas #ucas $. %ersamin %ersamin in his oo! ent"ed &  Appeal and and Re'ie( Re'ie( in the $hilippines! $hilippines! )*** )*** ed.! p. +@)- . ,. hat hat is the the mai main n tas tas= = of of th the 7ud 7udic icia iall pro proccess  ess   Ans. The orderly and peaceful resoluon of disputes among the contending pares according to a set of rules and an evolving body of jurisprudence. ( system of courts is in place to ensure ensure the fairness fairness and reasonablene reasonableness ss of the judicial process process (Discussed by your  Chairm Chairman, an, Supreme Supreme Court usce usce!! the Hono Honora"l ra"le e #ucas #ucas $. %ersamin %ersamin in his oo! ent"ed &  Appeal and and Re'ie( Re'ie( in the $hilippines! $hilippines! )*** )*** ed.! p. ,4- . @. ha hat ar are th the st sta3es 3es o off 7ud 7udiicia cial pro proccess ess   Ans. The*

rial + and Trial involves itself with the collecon of facts, collaon of proof, weighing of evidence, and resoluon of the controversy. Re'ie( %ncludes all proceedings ta"en to review, revise, reverse, modify, or a)rm the resoluon of the controversies, or in the proper cases, to remand or to remit. %n both stages, due process must be observed (Discussed by your Chairman, Supreme Court usce! the Honora"le #ucas $. %ersamin in his oo! ent"ed & Appeal and Re'ie( in the $hilippines! )*** ed.! p. ,4- . 



>. Does appeal e5ist as a maBer of ri3ht from the decision rendered "9 a trial  court in the e5ercise of appellate 7urisdicon  Ans. o. The general rule is that appeal from the decision rendered by a trial court in the exercise of appellate jurisdicon +oes no eis as a a.e/ of /i . 4. Is there a disncon "et(een appeals as a maBer of ri3ht and as a maBer of  discreon  Ans. es, there is. (s a maer of right. This refers to the right to see" a review by a superior court of the  judgment on the merits rendered by the trial court. This is a right a!er trial in the rst instance. ( as maer of discreon. This is one which the reviewing court may or may not allow. This is the one ta"en from a decision rendered by a court in the exercise of its primary appellate jurisdicon or one ta"en to the upreme /ourt 0from 1T/ to 2T/ to /( on 2ule 34, or to / on 356. ?. Is appeal to the SC a maBer of ri3ht  Ans. o. %t is not a maer of right, ee3 in /iinal ases   where the maximum imposed penalty is death, life imprisonment or rec"usion $er$eua. 1*. Disn3uish failure to /state a cause of acon0 from /lac= of cause of acon0.  Ans. 4ailu/e o /state a cause of acon0   /efe/s o e insu5ien$ of alleaton in e 3lea+in, wile /lac= of cause of acon0   /efe/s o e insu5ien$ of faual 6asis fo/ e aton. 7ailure to state a cause may be raised in a 1oon to 8ismiss under 2ule 9:, while lac" of cause may be raised any me (a'er he anser is "ed or a'er $resenaton o* evidence). 8ismissal for failure to state a cause can be made at the earliest stages of an acon. 8ismissal for lac" of cause (+no cause o* acton) is usually made a!er &uesons of fact have been resolved on the basis of spulaons, admissions or evidence presented  # ee %athan! Recitals  citn& Da"uco 's. CA! +>? $hil. ?+? cied in Auino 's. uia  cied in Indiana Aerospace Gni'ersit9 's. CHED! April 2! )**1- + peon for cerorari may also be led if the trial court declared the defendant in default with grave abuse of discreon #ui Enterprises 's. uelli3 $harma Corporaon! et al.! March *>! )*12 citn& Sps. Delos Santos 's. ud3e Carpio! ,++ $hil. 2) Acance 's. CA! 2?+ $hil. @>@ Indiana Aerospace Gni'ersit9 's. CHeD! su$ra -. a remedy of annulment of judgment under 2ule 3@ is also available to defendant. This is true and possible when for example the case is cogniBable by the second level court but led and decided by the rst level court. Therefore, annulment of   judgment is available on ground of lac" of jurisdicon so long as the same should be led within the prescripve period.

JNKE IN REMEDL K A$$EA# IN DEAG#& there is no need to secure an order of  li!ing an order of default because ling a noce of appeal is considered as a post judgment remedy. The remedial measures are available to a party in default if the order declaring him in default is not a patent nullity or void, because if the order declaring him in default is a clear and patent nullity, his available remedy is certorari  under 2ule :5C. 1). hat a"out moons for summar9 7ud3ment or 7ud3ment on the pleadin3! are these remedies a'aila"le on the part of the plain if defendant failed to 6le ans(er   Ans. o. ling of moons for summar9 7ud3ment or 7ud3ment on the pleadin3   are not proper. The reason is obvious. 7or these remedies to apply, it presupposes that an answer is

led. 7or summary judgment to apply there must exists a genuine issue Narra Inte3rated  Corporaon 's. CA! +22 SCRA >41 cied in  ood echnolo39 Corporaon 's. Euita"le %an=in3 Corporaon! 2,1 SCRA >)2- . Dudgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegaons of the adverse party$s pleading Municipalit9 of i(i 's. %eto! @)2 SCRA @)+- .

1+. Are the remedies of moon to set aside order of default! moon for ne( trial! and peon for relief from 7ud3ment alterna'e or cumula'e   Ans. The said remedies are not alternave or cumulave. The remedies are mutually exclusive. This is to compel defendants to remedy their default at the earliest possible opportunity. 8epending on when the default was discovered and whether a default judgment was already rendered, a defendant declared in default may avail of only one of the three 0>6 remedies. Thus, if a defendant discovers his or her default before the trial court renders  judgment, he or she shall le a moon to set aside order of default. %f this moon to set aside order of default is denied, the defendant declared in default cannot await the rendion of   judgment, and he or she cannot le a moon for new trial before the judgment becomes nal and executory, or a peon for relief from judgment a!er the judgment becomes nal and executor #ui Enterprises 's. uelli3 $harma Corporaon! et al.! March *>! )*12- .

12. hat is the remed9 of the defendant if his default declaraon is improper   Ans. Eeon for certorari  under 2ule :5 to declare the nullity of judgment by default is also available if the trial court improperly declared a party in default, or even if the trial court properly declared a party in default, if grave abuse of discreon aended such declaraon 0;uan- . Ere-trial in civil acons is mandatory De'elopment %an= of the $hilippines 's. CA! 1@? SCRA 2*?-. %t is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the pares and to ta"e the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering Interlinin3 Corporaon 's. $hilippine rust Compan9! 2)4 $hil. ,42 and   $ermanent  Concrete $roducts! Inc. 's. eodoro! 1+, $hil. +@2 cied in #CQ Industries Inc. 's. $lanters De'elopment %an=! No'em"er )+! )**>- . %t is a tool to assist the trial court in the orderly and expedious conduct of trials $ioneer Insurance and Suret9 Corp. 's. Hontanosas! >4 SCRA 22> citn& Rice and Corn  Administraon 's. Kn3 Ante! 11 SCRA @+@! cied in Loun3 's. CA! )*2 SCRA ,42- . %t is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the pares. %t thus paves the way for a less cluered trial and resoluon of the case. %ts main objecve is to simplify, abbreviate and expedite the trial, or totally dispense with it Interlinin3 Corporaon 's. $hilippine rust Compan9! +>4 SCRA ,)1! citn& he cases o*  A"u"a=ar 's. A"u"a=ar! +1>  SCRA )@2 inio 's. Man SCRA 2@* Son 's. Son! ),1 SCRA ,,@- . %ts purpose is to obviate the element of surprise Co 's. CA! +,+ $hil. +*, cied in #CQ  Industries Inc. 's. $lanters De'elopment %an=! ,+4 SCRA @+2- . The reason for ma"ing pre-trial mandatory is that pre-trial conferences bring the pares together, thus ma"ing possible an amicable selement or doing away with at least the non-essenals of a case from the beginning $ioneer Insurance and Suret9 Corp. 's. Hontanosas! >4 SCRA 22> citn& %or7a 's. Ro5as! >+ $hil. @2>! cied in Loun3 's. CA! Decem"er 2! 1??1- . %t is primarily intended to ma"e certain that all issues necessary to the disposion of a case are properly raised #CQ Industries Inc. 's. $lanters De'elopment %an=!

,+4 SCRA @+2- , and the courts to ma"e full use of the pre-trial proceedings primarily so that all issues necessary to the early disposion of a case can be properly determined and to explore all avenues towards a compromise or selement of the case Marne< 's. ud3e De #a Merced! 1>2 SCRA 14)- . The purpose of entering into a spulaon of facts is to expedite trial and to relieve the pares and the court as well of the costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable in&uiry. %ts main objecve is to simplify, abbreviate and expedite the trial, or totally dispense with it Interlinin3 Corporaon 's. $hilippine rust Compan9! 2)4 $hil. ,42 cied in #CQ Industries Inc. 's. $lanters De'elopment %an=! No'em"er )+! )**>- . o, to obviate the element of surprise, pares are expected to disclose at the pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact they intend to raise at the trial Calte5 $hilippines-! Inc. 's. CA! Au3ust 1*! 1??) cied in #CQ Industries Inc. 's. $lanters De'elopment %an=! ,+4 SCRA @+2- . The pares are bound to honor the spulaons they made during the pre-trial Interlinin3 Corporaon 's. $hilippine rust Compan9! March @! )**)8, and also bound by the representaons and statements in their respecve pre-trial briefs Item A.) f-! A.M. No. *+:1*:*?:SC! ;uidelines to "e K"ser'ed "9 rial Court ud3es and Cler= of Courts in the Conduct of $re:rial and Gse of Deposion:Disco'er9 Measures- . (ccording to $hilippine $r9ce Assurance Corporaon 's. CA! )+* SCRA 1@2 , the pretrial is mandatory in any acon, the main objecve being to simplify, abbreviate and expedite trial, if not to fully dispense with it. Kence, consistent with its mandatory character the 2ules oblige not only the lawyers but the pares as well to appear for this purpose before the court.

)). hat are the eects if counsel andPor part9 fails to 6le pre:trial "rief   Ans. The lawyer$s failure to le brief for his client certainly constutes inexcusable and fatal negligence on the part of the lawyer %allesteros! Sr. 's. AB9. Apia3! A.C. No. ,>@*- , and a ground for dismissal of the case Spouses Soriano 's. AB9. Re9es! A.C. No. 2@>@- . 7or this reason, respondent$s failure to submit the pre-trial brief to the court within the given period constutes negligence which entails disciplinary acon. ot only is it a derelicon of duty to his client but to the court as well Spouses Soriano 's. AB9. Re9es! A.C. No. 2@>@- . (n aorney is bound to protect his client$s interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. ( failure to le brief for his client certainly constutes inexcusable negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed commied a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to the court not to delay ligaon and to aid in the speedy administraon of jusce ;alen 's. AB9. $a3uiri3an! 2)4 $hil. ,?* citn& an 's. #apa=! +,* SCRA >2! cied in %allesteros! Sr. 's. AB9. Apia3! 2>1 SCRA 111- . Lut if the pre-trial brief was led to the court and service to the adverse party through registered mail and the same were not received by the court and the adverse party at least three days prior to the scheduled pre-trial, the non-receipt of the court and the adverse party copy of their pre-trial brief was considered as beyond the control of the one who served the

same via registered mail, and the trial court has the discreon to li! the order of dismissal a!er giving credence to the party movant$s explanaon Repu"lic 's. Kleta! ,+* SCRA ,+2- .

)+. Can trial 7ud3e ac'el9 parcipate in the conduct of pre:trial If 9es (hat are the trial court’s dues durin3 the conduct of pre:trial   Ans. %n a pre-trial, the judge is not a passive arbiter+ he is an acve parcipant who constantly see"s avenues through which trial can be expedited, simplied or even avoided by a resort to alternave modes of dispute resoluon iu 's. Middleton! +1* SCRA ,4*- . (s regards contents of pre-trial brief, the trial court has the power to mou $ro$rio dismiss the case (com$"ain or couner1c"aim) for failure of a party to address and discuss with sincerity and candor and in enre good faith his o'er or counter o'er for the purpose of  entering into an amicable selement, and failure to state the tenor or character of the tesmony of the witnesses. Kowever, an order of dismissal may be a subject of legal in&uiry by the aggrieved party. %f a party fails to comply, the court can mou $ro$rio dismiss the case on two grounds* 1- failure to comply with the rules of court+ and )- failure to comply with the order of the court.

)2. Is there a need to conduct second or another set of pre:trial a8er the complaint  is amended hat a"out if the pares a3reed to another set of pre:trial  Ans. There is no need to have another pre-trial if there had already been a pre-trial conducted prior to the ling of an amended complaint as the conduct of another one would be impraccal, useless and me-consuming to call another pre-trial $ioneer Insurance and  Suret9 Corp. 's. Hontanosas! >4 SCRA 22>- . When the issues had been joined and when the court itself had been sased that a hearing on the merits is the next step to conduct a!er the pre-trial, and the pares had previously agreed to disagree to another pre-trial, there is no need to conduct another one as it will serve no purpose for the court to call again for another pre-trial. %t would be impraccal, useless and me-consuming $ioneer Insurance and Suret9 Corp. 's. Hontanosas- . %f the court sets the case for second pre-trial despite the pares$ disagreement, acon for second pre-trial seIng is tantamount to acon without authority, and if, let say defendant failed or did not appear on the said second pre-trial, plain' can not be allowed to present evidence e01$are because second pre-trial is not mandatory Firon ransportaon Co.! Inc.! 2** SCRA ,>*- . ame is true if pares agreed to have second set of pre-trial a!er the rst, because conduct of second pre-trial is impraccal, useless and me-consuming, thus, not mandatory. Therefore, if defendant fails to appear during the second pre-trial, plain' is not entled to present evidence e01$are.

),.  Are parties and lawyers appearance during pre-trial conference mandatory? If yes, is there an exception?  Yes. Parties and lawyers appearance during pre-trial conference is mandatory, their presence cannot be excused, except : 



a valid excuse; and appearance of a representative on behalf of a party who is fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and documents (Durban Apartments Corporation vs !ioneer Insurance ,"#$ %C&A '').

The non-appearance of a party and counsel may be excused if* 096 a valid cause is shown+ or 046 there is an appearance of a representave on behalf of a party fully authoriBed in wring to enter into an amicable selement, to submit to alternave modes of dispute resoluon, and to enter into spulaons or admissions of facts and of documents. What constutes a valid cause is subject to the courtFs sound discreon and the exercise of such discreon shall not be disturbed except in cases of clear and manifest abuse Gltra Mar Aua Resource! Inc. 's. erminda Construcon Ser'ices! ;.R. No. 1?1+,+- . The case of De'elopment %an= of the $hilippines 's. CA , .232 case, the Kigh /ourt made to emphasiBe that of 2ule 9, 2ules of /ourt provides that . The subject-maer of the acon is a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against person of unsound mind+ 3. Kis tesmony refers to any maer of fact of which occurred before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind 0 Sun3a:Chan 's. Chua!  Au3ust 1,! )**16.

+?. hat is the o"7ect or purpose of the rule dead man’s statute-   Ans. The object and purpose of the rule is to guard against the temptaon to give false tesmony in regard to the transacon in &ueson on the part of the surviving party and further to put the two pares to a suit upon terms of e&uality in regard to the opportunity of  giving tesmony. 9 %t is designed to close the lips of the party plain' when death has closed the lips of the party defendant, in order to remove from the surviving party the temptaon to falsehood and the possibility of cous claims against the deceased  ; oi 's. CA! Septem"er )+! 1?4@- . 2*. A mere (itness (ho is not included in the enumeraon under Secon )+ of  Rule 1+* prohi"ited from tesf9in3. 1ere witnesses who are not included in the above enumeraon are not prohibited from tesfying as to a conversaon or transacon between the deceased and a third person, if he too" no acve part therein, because the rule is exclusive and cannot be construed to extend its scope by implicaon so as to dis&ualify persons not menoned therein Sanson 's. CA! April ))! )**+ 6. 21. 4ailu/e o seasona6l$ in9o:e +is;uali4ORMAL O44ER .

The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally o'ered. The purpose for which the evidence is o'ered must be specied. %f the evidence is not formally o'ered, it has no probave value and must be excluded by the court Spouses Kn3 's. CA! +@1 $hil. ++4-. 8ocumentary and object evidence shall be o'ered a!er the presentaon of a partyFs tesmonial evidence. uch o'er shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in wring. %t re&uires that such o'er shall be done orally unless allowed by the /ourt to be done in wring Heirs of $asa3 's. Spouses $arocha! April )>! )**>- (

2@. e'idence.

Reason for necessit9 of formal oer of documentar9 andPor o"7ect 

The 2ules of /ourt provides that Rthe court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally o'ered.R ( formal o'er is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their ndings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence o'ered by the pares at the trial. %ts funcon is to enable the trial judge to "now the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenng the evidence. Mn the other hand, this allows opposing pares to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility  #ee $asa3-. The rule on formal o'er of evidence is intertwined with the constuonal guarantee of  due process. Eares must be given the opportunity to review the evidence submied against them and ta"e the necessary acons to secure their case  #ee Repu"lic 's. ;imene3 of 2ule 9>4 of the 2ules of /ourt should prevail.

24.

Disn3uish res 3estae from d9in3 declaraon.

(ns. The term res &esae  has been dened as those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a parcular ligated act and which are admissible when illustrave of such act. %n a general way, res &esae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declaraons that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberaon and fabricaon. The rule on res &esae encompasses the exclamaons and statements made by either the parcipants, victms, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately a!er the commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a s$onaneous reacon or uerance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. ( declaraon or an uerance is deemed as part of the res &esae and thus admissible in evidence as an excepon to the hearsay rule when the following re&uisites concur, to wit* 0a6 the principal act, the res &esae, is a startling occurrence+ 0 b6 the statements are made before the declarant had me to contrive or devise+ and 0c6 the statements must concern the occurrence in &ueson and its immediately aending circumstances. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res &esae is, therefore, whether the act, declaraon, or exclamaon is so inmately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characteriBes as to be regarded as a part of the transacon itself, and also whether it clearly negaves any premeditaon or purpose to manufacture tesmony.

( dying declaraon, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admied when the following re&uisites concur, namely* 0 a6 that the declaraon must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants death+ 0 b6 that at the me the declaraon is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death+ 0c6 that the declarant is competent as a witness+ and 0d 6 that the declaraon is o'ered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a vicm.

2?. (your chairman8s *avorie) The tesmony of the witness that Lolanon 0vicm6 had gone to the residence of Hstao 0witness6, his uncle, to see" help right a!er being stabbed by alafranca 0accused6+ that Hstao had hurriedly dressed up to bring his nephew to the Ehilippine Peneral Kospital by taxicab+ that on the way to the hospital, Hstao had as"ed Lolanon who had stabbed him, and the laer had told Hstao that his assailant had been alafranca+ that at the me of the uerance Lolanon had seemed to be having a hard me breathing, causing Hstao to advise him not to tal" anymore+ and that about ten minutes a!er his admission at the emergency ward of the hospital, Lolanon had expired and had been pronounced dead. uch circumstances &ualied the uerance of Lolanon as both a dying declaraon and as part of the res &esae. WK LMTK 2H PHT(H (8 8%P 8H/N(2(T%MS Lecause, the statement of the vicm an hour before his death and right a!er the hac"ing incident bore all the earmar"s either of a dying declaraon or part of the res &esae $eople 's. Salafranca! e"ruar9 ))! )*1)- %

,*. %n $eople 's. Fillarico! April 2! )*11 ,  the statement of Kaide to his mother 0Nolita6 that he had just been shot by the &rou$ of Lerng u@ered in he immediae a'ermah o* he shootn& here he as he victm  was a true part of the res &esae. %t was considered by the )i Cou/ as reliable as part of the res &esae for being uered in s$onaneiy and on"y in reacton o he sar"in& occurrence: 7irst, the principal act the shoong of Kaide was a startling occurrence. econd, his statement to his mother about being shot by the group of Lerng was made  be*ore Kaide had me to contrive or to devise considering that it was uered immediae"y a'er the shoong. (nd, third, the statement directly concerned the startling occurrence itself and its aending circumstance 0that is, the idenes of the assailants6.