PARTS OF RES GESTAE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS EUTROPIO TIOZON Y ACID [1991]

Facts:

- Herein-accused was found guilty for violation of P.D. 1866 and for the shooting of a Leonardo
Bolima Y Mesia
- The lower court in holding the accused-appellant guilty, relied on circumstantial evidence
because the prosecution failed to present eyewitness who could give an account as to the
actual shooting incident
- One of which is the testimony of the wife that accused, immediately after the shooting
incident took place admitted to her having accidentally shoot the victim is admissible evidence
against the accused declarant since this is covered by the rule on res gestae or one of an
exception to the hearsay rule

Issue:

Whether or not The testimony of the wife of the victim that after hearing two successive
gunshots accused-appellant went back to her house and informed her that he accidentally shot her
husband, should not have been considered by the trial court as part of the res gestae;

Held:

In the instant case, however, the questioned testimony of the wife of the victim is not hearsay.
She testified on what the accused-appellant told her, not what any other party, who cannot be cross-
examined, told her. The accused-appellant's statement was an "oral confession", not a part of res
gestae, which he can easily deny if it were not true, which he did in this case.

In People vs. Tulagan, 143 SCRA 107,116-117, We declared that a statement allegedly made by one of
the accused to Natalia Macaraeg that "we killed him" (referring to himself and his co-accused) and
which Natalia repeated in her testimony in open court was merely an "oral confession" and not part
of the res gestae.

Moreover, even assuming that the testimony of the wife of the victim on the alleged statement of the
accused-appellant is hearsay, the latter is barred from questioning its admission due to his failure to
object thereto at the time the testimony was given.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSE NARANJA [1960]

Facts:

- Accused was charged with and convicted of murder by the CIF of Pangasinan
- The accused contends that the alleged crime has not been established, particularly, that the
testimony of Maria Diaz, wife of the deceased mainly relied upon by the trial court, as weak,
uncorroborated, self-serving, unnatural and not direct
- According to the testimony of Maria Diaz who also admitted that she has an illicit relationship
with the accused, at the evening of December 28, 1956, while waiting for her husband, she
 saw accused and confessed to her that he had killed her husband whose dead body she ought
to take and bury; that cautioning her not to tip anyone
- The accused also informed that her husband lay dead at the creek east of the house

Issue

Whether or not the testimony of Maria Diaz falls under the rule on Res Gestae

Held:

As regards the contention that the elements of the crime have not been shown, suffice it to say that
the confession of the accused to Maria Diaz is strong evidence falling under the res gestae rule.

SEC. 33, Part of the res gestae. Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking
place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be
given in evidence as a part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance may be received as a part of the res gestae. (Rule
123, Rules of Court.)

Quoting Professor Greenleaf, Chief Justice Moran, in his Comments on the Rules of Court, 1957 Ed.,
Vol. III, pp. 348-349, explains the res gestae rule as follows:

There are other declarations which are admitted as original evidence, being distinguished from
hearsay by their connection with the principal fact under investigation. The affairs of men consist of a
complication of circumstances so intimately interwoven as to be hardly separable from each other.
Each owes its birth to some preceding circumstances, and in its turn becomes the prolific parent of
others, and each, during the existence, has its inseparable attributes and its kindred facts, materially
affecting its character, and essential to be known for a right understanding of its nature. These
surrounding circumstances, constituting parts of the res gestae, may always be shown to the jury
along with the principal fact and their admissibility is determined by the judge according to the degree
of their relation to that fact, and in the exercise of his sound discretion: it being extremely difficult, if
not impossible to bring this class of cases within the limits of a more particular description.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANTHONY MELCHOR PALMONES ET AL [2000]

Facts:

- Accused-appellants were charged for the crime of Murder of SPO2 Asim Mamansal
- The prosecution first presented Sonny Boy Redovan who was the nephew of the victim, he
testified that when he asked the victim who the perpetrators were and the victim answered
that it was Juany and Tony Palmones which were the nicknames of the two accused-
appellants. He claimed that while he was talking with his uncle, there were attendants, nurses,
and other bystanders whom he did not know present inside the emergency room. A few
minutes after he talked with the victim, a certain Dr. Aguayo arrived and examined the
wounds of his uncle. About and hour later, he saw Police Inspector Alexander Tagum arrive
and he heard him ask his uncle who had shot him. The witness then heard his uncle positively
answer the policeman that his assailants were Juany and Tony Palmones
- The third witness for the prosecution was Police Inspector Alexander Camilon-Tagum, he
testified that he confronted the victim in the emergency room and asked him about his
 assailants. The victim answered that it was Juany and Tony Palmones. At that time, he claimed
that Dr. Aguayo and two other medical ladies were inside the room.

Issue:

Whether or not the statement made by the victim can be covered under the rules on res
gestae

Held:

In cases where an alleged dying declaration is sought to be admitted, it must be proven that
that the declaration was made under a consciousness of impending death which means simply that
the declarant is fully aware that he is dying or going to die from his wounds or injuries soon or
imminently, or shall have a complete conviction that death is at hand, or there must be a settled
hopeless expectation.
In the instant case, it was not established by the prosecution that the statements of the declarant
concerning the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death were made under the consciousness
of impending death. No proof to this effect was ever presented by the prosecution. It was not shown
whether Sonny Boy Redovan or Inspector Alexander Tagum ever asked the victim whether he believed
that he was going to die out of his injuries or any other similar question. Sonny Boy Redovan claimed
that he was able to talk with the victim for around an hour but the only thing he revealed of their
conversation was the alleged identification of the victim of his two assailants. For his part, Inspector
Tagum admitted that the only question he asked of the victim was if the victim knew who had shot
him.
While it is true that the law does not require that the declarant explicitly state his perception that
he has given up the hope of life, the circumstances surrounding his declaration must justify the
conclusion that he was conscious of his impending death. In the instant case, it was not proven that
the victim was ever aware of the seriousness of his condition. As testified to by Dr. Mark Aguayo, the
vital signs of the victim, prior to his operation, were quite stable. Moreover, from the time the victim
was brought to the hospital at 10:30 p.m. until his operation at 12:00 midnight, he was still able to
talk intelligently with at least four (4) other persons on various matters. The fact that his vital signs
were strong and that he still had strength to converse with these four (4) witnesses belie the
conclusion that the victim was under the consciousness of death by reason of the gravity of his
wounds.
Neither may the alleged statements attributed to the victim be admissible as part of the res
gestae. Res gestae refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants,
victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of
a crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction
or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the
declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement.
In order to admit statements as evidence part of the res gestae, the element of spontaneity is
critical. The following factors have generally been considered in determining whether statements
offered in evidence as part of the res gestae have been made spontaneously: (1) the time that lapsed
between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of the statement; (2) the place where
the statement was made; (3) the condition of the declarant when he made the statement; (4) the
presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the statement relative
thereto; and (5) the nature and circumstances of the statement itself.
Tested against these factors to test the spontaneity of the statements attributed to the victim,
we rule that these statements fail to qualify as part of the res gestae. When Mamansal allegedly
uttered the statements attributed to him, an appreciable amount of time had already elapsed from
the time that he was shot as the victim was shot at around 10:00 p.m. but he only uttered the
statements attributed to him about 30 minutes to an hour later. Moreover, he allegedly made these
statements not at the scene of the crime but at the hospital where he was brought for
treatment. Likewise, the trip from the scene of the crime to the hospital constituted an intervening
event that could have afforded the victim opportunity for deliberation. These circumstances, taken
together, indubitably show that the statements allegedly uttered by Mamansal lack the requisite
spontaneity in order for these to be admitted as part of the res gestae.
Finally, after a thorough reading of the testimonies presented by both sides, it is even doubtful
that the victim ever uttered these alleged ante mortem statements in the first place. We note that the
testimonies of Sonny Boy Redovan and Investigator Alexander Tagum are contradicted not only by the
witnesses for the defense but also by the prosecutions own witnesses.
Dr. Mark Aguayo, the doctor who performed the operation on the victim and who is an impartial
and disinterested witness, categorically stated that the victim told him that he did not recognize those
who had shot him.[60] He likewise testified that witness Sonny Boy Redovan told him in the emergency
room that the victim was not able to recognize his assailants because of darkness.[61] Similarly, the
wife and the daughter of Asim Mamansal, who were also able to talk with the victim prior to his death,
likewise denied that the victim ever told them the identity of his assailants. We fail to see why the
victim should choose to tell some people the identity of his assailants and deny his knowledge of the
same to others.
With respect to the witnesses for the defense, Alex Siago and Patricio Fuertes, who were both
present at the site of the shooting immediately after the incident, testified that they did not hear the
victim identify his assailants. Patricio Fuertes even stated that at the hospital, he heard Mamansal tell
the police officers present that he did not recognize those who had shot him.Most importantly, Alice
Villamor, who was the lover of the victim and who was with him during the shooting, categorically
stated that it was not possible to recognize the assailants as the area where the shooting happened
was dark. Moreover, she was able to talk with Mamansal at the hospital where he told her that he did
not see the persons who had shot him. This testimony of Villamor is quite significant and we fail to
see why the trial court failed to consider the same in its decision. Alice Villamor, as the lover of the
victim, had no motive to lie for the defense and had all the reason to speak the truth in order to seek
justice for the death of her lover.
As previously stated, the trial court based its judgment of conviction on the alleged ante
mortem statements of the victim and the apparent weakness of the defense put up by the two
accused-appellants. As it now stands however, the weakness of the alibi of the two accused-appellants
cannot be held against them in view of the absence of a clear and positive identification of them as
the perpetrators of the crime. And while their alibi may not have been proven so satisfactorily as to
leave no room for doubt, such an infirmity can not strengthen the weakness of the prosecutions
evidence, the reason being that in a criminal prosecution, the State must rely on the strength of its
own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense