28. People v.
Briosa (37 SCRA 336 [1971])
Facts: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Abra, in its Criminal Case No. 626, finding the two
appellants Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza guilty of murder of Silvino Daria.
On 23 December 1966, between 8 and 9 in the evening, the spouses Silvino Daria and Susana
Tumalip were in their house at barrio Tiker, Tayum, Abra. The husband was making rope in the
annex of their house, while the wife, four meters away, was applying candle wax to a flat iron.
Silvino Daria was using a lamp where he worked. Outside, the night was bright because of the
moon overhead.
Cecilia Bernal, a niece and neighbor of the spouses, was alarmed by the barking of dogs. She
peeped through a crack in the wall of her house and saw appellants herein pass southward in
the direction of the house of Silvino Daria that was six meters away. Brioso was carrying a long
gun. Her suspicions awakened, she went downstairs and, shielded by the fence, witnessed each
appellant point a gun at the bamboo wall of Daria’s house. Two detonations followed, and
thereafter she heard Daria moaning and his wife call for help, saying her husband had been
shot. Bernal went to the house and found the victim prostrate, wounded and unable to speak.
The widow, however, testified that right after being shot, she rushed to her husband’s side and
he told her that he was shot by Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza. Silvino Daria expired one hour
later as a result of gunshot wounds in the abdomen and leg. A few days later, Cecilia Bernal and
the widow, Susana Tumalip, executed affidavits pointing to the two accused as the killers .
The motive for the killing appears to have been the disapproval by the spouses Silvino and
Susana Daria of Mariano Taeza’s courtship of their daughter, Angelita. Angelita was even sent to
Manila for her to avoid Mariano Taeza. The courtship is admitted by Mariano Taeza.
The two accused appealed the conviction.
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the court was correct in relying on the testimonies of Bernal and
Tumalip.
2. Whether or not the court is correct in not admitting the affidavit of Antonio for being
hearsay.
HELD:
1. Yes. The testimony of Cecilia Bernal finds corroboration in the declaration of the victim, who
told his wife that it was Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza who shot him. This statement does
satisfy the requirements of an ante mortem statement. Judging by the nature and extent of his
wounds, Silvino Daria must have realized the seriousness of his condition, and it can be safely
inferred that he made the same under the consciousness of impending death, considering that
he died only one hour after being shot.
2. Yes. Affidavits are generally not prepared by the affiants themselves but by another who uses
his own language in writing the affiants’ statements, which may thus be either omitted or
misunderstood by the one writing them. For this reason, and for the further reason that the
adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, affidavits are
generally rejected in a judicial proceeding as hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are placed
on the witness stand to testify thereon.
Exhibit “2,” the alleged affidavit of Antonio Daria, was presented in court to corroborate
Mariano Taeza’s testimony. But while the said affidavit was identified by the Provincial Fiscal as
having been subscribed and sworn to before him, he also stated that he did not know Antonio
Daria personally and that was the only time he appeared before him. Exhibit “2” does not have
the seal of the Fiscal’s Office. Moreover, the said exhibit was never identified by the supposed
affiant and there was no opportunity for the prosecution to cross-examine him.
In view hereof, The Court found Exhibit “2” of no probative value, and that the lower court did
not err when it rejected the same. In this connection, it is markworthy that the prosecuting
attorney stated in open court that Antonio Daria had also executed another affidavit (Exhibit
“D”) in the Fiscal’s office “to the effect that he went to the office of defense counsel, . . . . . . and
there affixed his thumb mark on a statement that was never read to him.” Be that as it may, not
one of the other persons who, Mariano Taeza claimed, were with him in the barrio clinic
(Narciso Valera and Jose Cabais) was produced in court to support his alibi. Mariano Taeza’s
testimony, therefore, remains uncorroborated. It has been repeatedly held that in the face of
direct evidence, alibi is necessarily a weak defense and becomes more so if uncorroborated. It is
worse if the alibi could have been corroborated by other persons mentioned by the accused but
they are not presented.
