While relaxing one Sunday afternoon, Kesh suddenly felt sick. While she was on the verge of losing consciousness, Kesh called for Robert, her personal nurse, who was told: “Call Dr. Nancy forthwith!” Robert asked Kesh about what happened and Kesh further relayed: “I’m probably going to meet my Creator! I ate the instant noodles prepared by my husband last night and I think he put poison in it!” The following day, Kesh passed away. The certificate of death issued by the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy reflected the cause of her death as aneurysm or rupture of a blood vessel. Later, the husband of Kesh was prosecuted for Murder. During trial and apart from the medico-legal certificate, the prosecution also offered in evidence the testimony of Robert to prove the utterance of Kesh. Is the statement of Kesh admissible as a dying declaration? Explain.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the statement of Kesh is not admissible as a dying declaration. Under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence, a dying declaration is admissible as a hearsay exception only if the declarant would have been a
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Why is Kesh's statement that she thought her husband poisoned her inadmissible as a dying declaration?
A dying declaration must consist of facts within the declarant's personal knowledge rather than mere opinion or speculation.
Which requirement for the admissibility of a dying declaration is lacking when the declarant expresses a mere suspicion?
A declarant expressing a mere opinion would be incompetent as a witness under the Opinion Rule.
What is the general rule regarding witness opinion evidence under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court?
Under the Opinion Rule, witnesses can testify only to facts derived from personal perception, making opinions generally inadmissible.
What is the effect on a dying declaration when the autopsy reveals death resulted from a natural aneurysm rather than suspected poisoning?
Choices available with full access.
Which of the following is NOT a requisite for the admissibility of a dying declaration under Rule 130?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Dying Declaration
Under Section 38, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, a dying declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when made under the consciousness of impending death. For a dying declaration to be admissible, the declarant must have been a competent witness had she survived. It must relate to the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death, and the declarant must subsequently die. If the declarant would have been incompetent to testify regarding the statement, such as when expressing a mere conjecture or opinion, the statement remains inadmissible.
2. Opinion Rule
Under Section 50, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the opinion of a witness is generally inadmissible, as a witness may testify only to those facts derived from personal knowledge or perception. In a dying declaration, the declarant's statement must consist of facts, not mere suspicions, beliefs, opinions, or conclusions. Statements reflecting mere speculation or opinion—such as guessing or suspecting that a spouse placed poison in food—are inadmissible because the declarant lacks personal knowledge of the actual act.
3. Cause of Death
A dying declaration is admissible only if it concerns the actual cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death. When the declarant's statement attributes death to an intentional act like poisoning, but the official medical evidence and autopsy establish that death was caused by a natural medical condition such as a ruptured aneurysm, the statement loses its evidentiary connection to the actual cause of death. Consequently, the declaration fails the essential statutory requirement that it must relate to the subject matter of the homicide.