Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

The People of the Philippines vs .

Andres Ancasan
G.R. No. 28620 February 24, 1928

Facts:

In May 3, 1927, Andres Mandaya, Venancio Lancian, Domingo Bancailan, Andres Ancasan, Eugeniano
Felizardo attended the celebration of the last day of novenario that took place in the house of Faustino
Lancian in the municipality of Baga nga, Province of Davao. As Bancailan and Felizardo sang a duet,
Felizardo sang a higher pitched that irked Bancailan eliciting him to throw Felizardo down on the floor.
His efforts did not meet with success and he himself fell down with Felizardo on top of him. With that
scenario, Ancasan who is a friend of Bancailan struck Felizardo on the back of the head with a heavy
cudgel, that was the cause of his death due to tetanus infection.

Ancasan was found guilty by the trial court and was sentenced with reclusion temporal of twelve years
and one day, as well as accessory penalties prescribe by law. While Domingo Bancailan was acquitted
with the costs de oficio.

Ancasan appealed with his counsel making two assignments of error: (1) The trial court believed the
prosecution’s witness testimony and declaring the appellant guilty of the crime charged in the
information and, (2) that the court made a mistake in considering Felizardo’s wife testimony that was
made shortly before his death.

Wherein, the testimony of Felizardo’s widow that while he was suffering from the wound of the incident,
Felizardo pointed that it was Andres Ancasan who struck him. That prior to losing consciousness and
dying, he entrusted his children to his wife.

Issue :
Whether or not Ancasan’s appeal on two assignments of error is valid.

Held :
The appeal of Ancasan’s appeal is not valid based on the two assignments of error. The testimony of
the witness for the prosecution is reasonable and no reason to doubt its authenticity, thus making it
valid. As for the second assignment of error, it is not necessary to the validity or admissibility of a dying
declaration that the declarant expressly state that he has lost all hope of recovery; it is sufficient that
the circumstances are such as to lead inevitably to the conclusion that at the time the declaration was
made, the declarant did not expect to survive the injury from which he actually died. With Felizardo
entrusting his children to his wife asserts that he had lost hope of recovery at the time the declaration
was made and his statement was therefore admissible in evidence as a dying declaration.

Furthermore, as Felizardo was struck from behind, the aggravating circumstance of treachery is
present, though there is a probability that it was not his intention to kill Felizardo as he was intoxicated
during that time.

The two mitigating circumstances more than offset aforesaid aggravating circumstance and brings the
penalty down to reclusion temporal.