POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

COLLEGE OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW II
SECOND SEMESTER AY 2023 - 2024

NAME: Irlandez, Ma. Christine M.

SECTION: JD 1-2

CASE DIGEST

TITLE OF THE CASE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WARREN IVERO
Y MABUTAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GR # AND DATE: G.R. No. 236301, November 3, 2020
PONENTE: Peralta, C.J

CASE DOCTRINE  A dying person's declaration is 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 "evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost
credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a careless
and false accusation."

4 REQUISITES OF A DYING DECLARATION

 First, the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant's death. This refers not only to the facts of the
assault itself, but also to matters both before and after the assault having a direct
causal connection with it. Statements involving the nature of the declarant's injury
or the cause of death; those imparting deliberation and willfulness in the attack,
indicating the reason or motive for the killing; justifying or accusing the accused;
or indicating the absence of cause for the act are admissible.

 Second, at the time the declaration was made, the declarant must be under
the consciousness of an impending death. The rule is that, in order to make a
dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must
be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid
succession of death in point of fact that renders the dying declaration admissible.
It is not necessary that the approaching death be presaged by the personal
feelings of the deceased. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all
hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly impending. ***

 Third, the declarant is competent as a witness . The rule is that where the
declarant would not have been a competent witness had he survived, the
proffered declarations will not be admissible. Thus, in the absence of evidence
showing that the declarant could not have been competent to be a witness had he
survived, the presumption must be sustained that he would have been competent.

 Fourth, the declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide,

murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is the victim.

MURDER AND ITS ELEMENTS

Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended by R.A. No. 7659.

To successfully prosecute the crime, the following elements must be established:

(1) that a person was killed.
(2) that the accused killed him or her.
(3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
Article 248 of the RPC; and
(4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES under MURDER

 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,

derailment or assault upon a streetcar or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an

earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

FACTS This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of
RTC Muntinlupa Branch 207 finding accused-appellant Warren M. Ivero (Ivero) guilty of
Murder.

(wag nyo na po ito pansinin nilagay ko lang para makita yung qualifying circumstances sa
information) “That on or about the 24th of January, 2013, in the City of Muntinlupa,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
who had a dating relationship with Sheila (sic) Cumahig y Clamor with whom he has two
(2) children, armed with a kitchen knife, with intent to kill, with treachery, without risk from
the victim to raise a defense, such that when accused WARREN IVERO y MABUTAS
arrived at their house, the latter, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault, with abuse of superior strength repeatedly stab said Shiela Cumahig y
Clamor, on the different parts of her body, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds
which directly caused her death, all to the damage and prejudice of her surviving heirs.”

VERSION OF THE PROSECUTOR

The information alleged that Ivero, armed with a kitchen knife, attacked and repeatedly
stabbed his live-in partner, Sheila Cumahig, causing her death. The prosecution
presented witnesses who testified to the events leading to the crime, including neighbors
who heard the victim's cries for help and saw her covered in blood, as well as medical
professionals who treated the victim and obtained her dying declaration identifying Ivero
as her attacker.

1. Afdal Sidic (Sidic), a neighbor who lives next door to the house where victim
Shiela Cumahig was at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of January 24, 2013,
while having dinner with his family, he heard the victim shout "Tulungan niyo po
ako, sinasaksak po ako ng asawa ko," three times. He saw the victim covered in
blood and with the help of the neighbor, Shiela was brought to the hospital.
2. Rose Permites (Permites), was the one called by Sidic telling her that Shiela was
“sinaksak ng asawa niya”. 5 days prior, Shiela asked her if she could live with her
temporarily with her two kids and she was allowed at San Guillermo, Bayanan,
Muntinlupa.
3. Herbert Malate (Malate) saw Ivero in a hurry and acting suspiciously. He was the
one who followed Ivero and flagged down the tricycle as Ivero tried to escape.
4. Billy Lee Dullavin (Dullavin) testified that while he was ferrying his tricycle, he was
flagged down by his neighbor, Malate, who told him that he was running after a
murder suspect.
5. Dr. Diana Nitural of the Alabang Medical Clinic testified that she catered the victim
sustained five (5) fatal stab wounds, and when she asked Shiela who stabbed
her, she said “asawa ko”. On the same night, Shiela died of cardiac arrest due to
hypovolemic shock.

VERSION OF THE ACCUSED APPELLANT

The defense, on the other hand, presented Ivero's denial and claim of being framed. That
prior to the killing, Permites forcibly took Cumahig and his children without his consent.
On that day, At around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of January 24, 2013, he and his older
daughter were at the public market in Rosario, Cavite when he received a text message
 from Cumahig asking him to buy food stuff for his young child. After buying grocery items,
they proceeded to Muntinlupa City. And that Dulavin and Malate are seen outside the
house of Permites, then eventually she saw Cumahig covered in blood stating “Sinaksak
ako ni Jovy”. Jovy suddenly hit him with an object then a fight ensued. Jovy fled the crime
scene prompting him to run after the former while shouting "Tulong, ang asawa ko
sinaksak." When they reached the tricycle terminal by the bridge, Malate poked him with a
swiss knife, while Dullavin took his money and cellphone. He was, thereafter, beaten by
several people.

ISSUE/S: The main issue in this case is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that Ivero is guilty of the crime of Murder.
RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA, finding Ivero guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The Court held that the prosecution was able to
establish all the elements of the crime, including the fact that Ivero killed the victim, the
presence of treachery, and the absence of any legal relationship between Ivero and the
victim.

 Kindly read the case doctrine =)

The Court also found that the dying declaration of the victim, as well as the testimonies of
other witnesses, were credible and sufficient to prove Ivero's guilt. The Court rejected
Ivero's defense of denial and frame-up, noting that his testimony was uncorroborated and
self-serving. The Court also found that Ivero's actions after the incident, such as not
seeking help for the victim and not bringing her to the hospital, were inconsistent with the
behavior of an innocent person. Therefore, the Court affirmed the CA's decision and
sentenced Ivero to reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated August 24,
2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08564 finding Warren Ivero y
Mabutas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

SO ORDERED.

“… unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect
the result of the case, its assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the
conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds
an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.”

In order for the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be appreciated, the following requisites must be
shown: (1) the employment of means, method, or manner of execution would ensure the safety of the
malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to
defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) the means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or
consciously adopted by the offender.
- The absence of any verbal or physical squabble prior to the attack proves that Cumahig was not
able to put up a fight and did not provoke the attack of the accused. Further, the fact that there
was no defense wound bolsters the fact that the attack was unexpected.
- Also, the fact that all the five stab wounds were frontal does not negate treachery. Even a frontal
attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no
position to repel the attack or avoid it.20 In fact, treachery may still be appreciated even when the
victim was forewarned of the danger to his or her person. What is decisive is that the execution of
the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or herself or to retaliate

Lastly, we agree with the trial court in rejecting the defense of denial and frame-up. Ivero's testimony
that it was a different person that stabbed her wife was uncorroborated and, thus, is self-serving.
Likewise, his demeanor after the incident of not asking for help from his neighbor and not bringing
her common-law spouse to the hospital negates his excuse as this is not the common reaction of a
concerned innocent person. **ADD IN THE RULING**

HUMSS A Thursday – 3:30 – 4:40

HUMSS B Wednesday – 3:30 – 4:40
HUMSS C Tuesday – 3:30 – 4:40
HUMSS D Monday – 3:30 – 4:40
HUMSS E Friday – 3:30 – 4:40