DYING DECLARATIONS UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW
(Exception to the Hearsay Rule under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court)

1. Overview of the Hearsay Rule and Its Exceptions

In Philippine remedial law, hearsay is generally inadmissible because the declarant cannot be cross-examined as to the truth of the statement. However, there are recognized exceptions under the Rules of Court. One of the classic exceptions is the dying declaration, found under Rule 130, Section 37 (formerly Section 37 under the old rules, retained in substance in the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence).

A “dying declaration” is a statement made by a person, who is conscious of his or her impending death and who subsequently dies, regarding the facts and circumstances leading to that death. Because of the legal presumption that an individual on the brink of death would not likely lie, such statements are given an exception to the hearsay rule.

2. Legal Basis and Text of the Rule

Under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence (Rule 130), the pertinent section on dying declarations (previously Section 37) provides that:

Dying declaration. – The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule to prove the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.

Although the precise numbering or wording may slightly differ in the updated rules, the essence remains the same: a declaration made by one who believes death to be imminent and who, in fact, eventually dies (or becomes incapable of testifying due to the same injury or illness) can be admitted in evidence to establish the cause and circumstances of the death.

3. Requisites for Admissibility

For a dying declaration to be admissible, all of the following requisites must concur:

The declarant must die (or become unavailable to testify due to the same cause or injury).
- Strictly speaking, the rule typically applies to a person who actually dies. In certain rulings, the courts have allowed statements when the declarant is physically or mentally incapable of testifying due to the same injury. However, the traditional scenario is that the person actually succumbs to the injury or illness.
The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death.
- The subject matter of the statement must be the facts or events leading to, or directly connected with, the death of the declarant. This usually includes identifying the assailant, describing how the injury was inflicted, or explaining the immediate circumstances of the fatal incident.
The declarant must be conscious of his or her impending death (i.e., under a fixed belief that death is certain).
- The declarant’s consciousness of impending death is critical. Courts often look for evidence such as the declarant’s own words (e.g., “I am going to die”) or the severity of the wound/illness coupled with the declarant’s demeanor. Even if the declarant does not explicitly say “I know I am dying,” the court may infer the consciousness of impending death from circumstances (e.g., mortal wounds, statements of pain, acceptance of last rites, etc.).
The declarant must be competent to testify as a witness, had he or she been called upon to testify in court.
- At the time of making the statement, the declarant must be of sound mind and memory to understand the significance of his or her statement. A declaration by someone delirious or incompetent may be disqualified.
The declaration must be offered in a case where the declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry.
- Dying declarations are almost always introduced in homicide, murder, parricide, or similar cases. While historically in common law this exception was tied primarily to prosecutions for homicide, Philippine courts generally admit the statement in any proceeding where the declarant’s death (and its cause or circumstances) is at issue.

4. Rationale Behind the Exception

The underlying philosophy is encapsulated in the maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri (“no one who is about to die is presumed to lie”). The law assumes that a person who believes himself or herself to be in the immediate presence of death is motivated to speak the truth, free from the everyday temptations to fabricate or distort facts.

5. Illustrative Doctrines and Jurisprudence

Philippine jurisprudence consistently upholds the admissibility of dying declarations if the requisites are shown:

Consciousness of Impending Death: The Supreme Court has ruled that even without an explicit statement “I am about to die,” the declarant’s awareness of approaching death can be inferred from the seriousness of the wound, the extreme pain, or the circumstances surrounding the injury.
Reliability vs. Contradictory Evidence: Dying declarations can be outweighed by other evidence if shown to be inaccurate or contradictory. Their admission does not guarantee a conviction; they still must be weighed with the rest of the evidence on record.
Identification of the Assailant: Often, the crux of a dying declaration in criminal cases is the identification of the perpetrator (“Sinaksak ako ni X,” “X shot me.”). Courts give this weight under the dying declaration exception, provided the requisites are established.
Competence: Philippine courts examine the physical and mental state of the declarant. If the declarant was heavily sedated or in shock, or if there is evidence the declarant was not in full possession of faculties, the court may disbelieve or disallow the dying declaration.

6. Distinguishing a Dying Declaration from Other Exceptions

Ante mortem statements vs. Res Gestae: While both are hearsay exceptions, a res gestae statement covers spontaneous exclamations or part of the transaction statements. A dying declaration specifically requires consciousness of impending death and the declarant’s unavailability due to death (or incapacity).
Admission vs. Dying Declaration: If the declarant is the accused and makes a statement implicating himself, it might be classified as an admission or confession rather than a dying declaration. Dying declarations typically concern a victim’s statement, though theoretically, there could be unique circumstances with other dying declarants.
Declaration against Interest: A statement by a non-party that goes against his or her pecuniary or proprietary interest is another separate hearsay exception (Rule 130, Sec. 39). Dying declarations specifically revolve around a cause of death context.

7. Procedure and Presentation in Court

Laying the Foundation:
- Before introducing the dying declaration, the proponent must present evidence of the declarant’s condition, the nature of the injury, statements or behavior manifesting consciousness of imminent death, and the declarant’s unavailability due to death or incapacitation.
Form of the Declaration:
- The declaration may be oral or written. What matters is that the proponent can show it was indeed made by the now-deceased person under the aforementioned conditions.
Cross-Examination Issues:
- Because the declarant cannot be cross-examined, the trial court often carefully scrutinizes corroborative or contradictory evidence.
- If other witnesses were present when the dying declaration was made, their testimony will be crucial to confirm the accuracy, voluntariness, and authenticity of the statement.

8. Effect If the Declarant Recovers

Traditionally, the concept of a “dying declaration” presupposes the declarant does not recover from the injury. If the declarant survives, the statement cannot be offered as a dying declaration. However, it may possibly qualify under other hearsay exceptions or be used as a prior statement (subject to different rules on admissions or prior inconsistent statements), depending on the circumstances and the proponent’s theory.

9. Weight and Credibility of a Dying Declaration

While dying declarations are admitted as exceptions to the hearsay rule, they are not conclusive proof of guilt or truth. Courts still assess the credibility and weight of the statement in light of:

Corroborating evidence (e.g., physical evidence, other eyewitnesses).
The declarant’s opportunity to observe and identify the aggressor.
Any possible motive the declarant might have had to fabricate, despite the presumption.
The clarity and coherence of the statement.

A dying declaration is frequently given great weight if found credible and consistent with other evidence, but it is not automatically decisive if contradictory or impeached by more substantial evidence.

10. Practical Pointers for Practitioners

Promptly gather evidence of the declarant’s condition at the time of the statement. Medical certificates, witness accounts of the declarant’s last moments, and any indication that the declarant recognized imminent death can help establish the foundation for a dying declaration.
Ensure competency by showing the declarant was of sound mind, coherent, and had a reliable perception of events.
Corroborate the declaration with physical evidence or independent witness testimony.
Anticipate common defenses (e.g., claim that the declarant was not in a fit state to perceive or recall events) and prepare to rebut them with medical or testimonial proof.
Document carefully. If the declaration was oral, ensure that witnesses to the statement can consistently recount the words and context.

11. Conclusion

A dying declaration remains a potent and time-honored exception to the hearsay rule in Philippine evidence law. It recognizes the unique trustworthiness of a statement made in extremis, where the declarant is poised between life and death. Properly established, it can be pivotal in criminal prosecutions involving homicide or murder. However, courts will always examine such statements with caution to ensure reliability, given that the declarant cannot be cross-examined and the entire case may hinge on a single, irretrievable utterance.

Careful compliance with the legal requisites—especially proof of the declarant’s consciousness of impending death and competency—ensures that justice is served and that the dying declaration exception retains its integrity as a narrowly tailored but critically important rule in Philippine jurisprudence.