G.R. No. L-33049 - People v. Putian
G.R. No. L-33049 - People v. Putian
G.R. No. L-33049 - People v. Putian
Putian
he put on his undershirt, pants and shirt. He went to his house without
anyone's assistance.
Yap explained that Panimdim mentioned only a person named "SEC. 36. Part of the res gestae. — Statements made
Guirmo and that he, Yap, was the one who added the surname Putian by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
in the statement, Exhibit C. He clarified that he wrote that surname immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
because he knew of no other person called Guirmo in that locality circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as a part of the
except Guirmo Putian, an alleged gambler (22 tsn). res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be
On November 23, one day after the stabbing, the victim was received as a part of the res gestae."
brought to the hospital. An operation was performed on him. He died in
the hospital on November 27, or five days after he was assaulted (Exh. The res gestae rule embraces (a) spontaneous exclamations and
D). The attending physician certified that the victim had a stab wound in (b) verbal acts (5 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed.,
the left groin which penetrated the abdomen and punctured the large p. 362). The trial court admitted Panimdim's statement as a
intestine. Death was due to "toxemia secondary to general peritonitis" spontaneous statement made after the commission of a felony (People
(Exh. A). The doctor testified that the stab wound could have been vs. Talledo and Timbreza, 85 Phil. 533).
caused by the two-bladed dagger ( punyal), Exhibit B. Appellant Putian contends that Panimdim's statement was not
The slender evidence for the defense consists merely of the spontaneous because it was "made several hours after the incident". He
meager testimony of Anacleto Taporco, 54, the assistant provincial claims that the requisite that the declarant gave the statement before he
board secretary and former candidate for mayor, who claimed to be a had time to devise or contrive was not present in this case. Appellant
friend of Panimdim and a close friend of Putian. Taporco declared that further contends that because the statement is in narrative form, it is not
in the evening of November 22, 1969 he was in the barrio dance hall the statement contemplated in the rule.
together with appellant Putian, Olimpio Sitoy and Ramon Gimeno. On the other hand, the Solicitor General points out that the
Panimdim was also there. LibLex
statement was in question-and-answer form and that Panimdim's
Taporco said that Panimdim, 21, asked his permission to box answers were spontaneous, candid, straightforward, direct, brief,
Rogelio Opos. Taporco allegedly advised Panimdim not to do so concise, natural and devoid of any design or deliberation. He argues
because boxing Opos would cause trouble in the dance hall. Panimdim that the fact that Patrolman Yap added the surname Putian to the name
obeyed him but sometime later Panimdim again asked Taporco that he "Guirmo", which was mentioned by the victim, did not destroy the
be allowed to box Opos. Taporco dissuaded Panimdim and took him probative value of the statement because the appellant could have
outside the dance hall. shown that there were other persons in the locality named Guirmo but
he failed to do so.
Afterwards, Taporco was allegedly informed that there was
trouble. When he tried to find out what the trouble was, he was informed The Solicitor General cites the ruling that a declaration made by a
that it was already patched up. During that interval, Putian never left the person immediately after being wounded, pointing out or naming his
dance hall. assailant, may be considered as part of the res gestae and is
admissible in evidence (People vs. Alfaro, 83 Phil. 85; People vs.
The trial court, in convicting Putian, regarded Panimdim's ante- Ananias, 96 Phil. 979). LibLex
mortem statement as part of the res gestae. Obviously, it did not give to
that statement the probative value of a dying declaration because the We hold that the trial court did not err in characterizing
declarant at the time he made the statement was not under a Panimdim's statement as a part of the res gestae and as proving
consciousness of an impending death (See sec. 31, Rule 130, Rules of beyond reasonable doubt that Putian inflicted upon him the stab wound
Court; People vs. Saliling, L-27974, February 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 427). that caused his death five days later in the hospital.
The trial court did not give any credence to Putian's alibi. It noted The res gestae rule embraces (a) spontaneous exclamations and
that he did not take the witness stand to refute Panimdim's declaration (b) verbal acts (5 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed.,
naming Putian as his assailant. The trial court surmised that through p. 362). The trial court admitted Panimdim's statement as a
Putian's machinations some witnesses listed in the information did not spontaneous statement made after the commission of a felony (People
testify for the prosecution. vs. Talledo and Timbreza, 85 Phil. 533).
Appellant Putian challenges the trial court's ruling that Appellant Putian contends that Panimdim's statement was not
Panimdim's ante-mortem statement was part of the res gestae as spontaneous because it was "made several hours after the incident". He
envisaged in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides: claims that the requisite that the declarant gave the statement before he
had time to devise or contrive was not present in this case. Appellant
further contends that because the statement is in narrative form, it is not
the statement contemplated in the rule.
https://0-cdasiaonline.com.ustlib.ust.edu.ph/jurisprudences/27924/print 3/6 https://0-cdasiaonline.com.ustlib.ust.edu.ph/jurisprudences/27924/print 4/6
9/9/2019 G.R. No. L-33049 | People v. Putian 9/9/2019 G.R. No. L-33049 | People v. Putian
On the other hand, the Solicitor General points out that the fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. The
statement was in question-and-answer form and that Panimdim's indemnity of P12,000 fixed by the trial court is affirmed. Costs against
answers were spontaneous, candid, straightforward, direct, brief, the appellant.
concise, natural and devoid of any design or deliberation. He argues SO ORDERED.
that the fact that Patrolman Yap added the surname Putian to the name
"Guirmo", which was mentioned by the victim, did not destroy the Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Concepcion, Jr. and Martin, JJ.,
probative value of the statement because the appellant could have concur.
shown that there were other persons in the locality named Guirmo but Antonio, J., took no part.
he failed to do so.
The Solicitor General cites the ruling that a declaration made by a Separate Opinions
person immediately after being wounded, pointing out or naming his
assailant, may be considered as part of the res gestae and is
BARREDO, J., concurring:
admissible in evidence (People vs. Alfaro, 83 Phil. 85; People vs.
Ananias, 96 Phil. 979). [I] concur(s) even it has some doubts as to whether or not Exhibit
We hold that the trial court did not err in characterizing C may be considered as part of the res gestae because of the seeming
Panimdim's statement as a part of the res gestae and as proving serenity and coolness of the deceased when the same was allegedly
beyond reasonable doubt that Putian inflicted upon him the stab wound prepared, he believes that on the whole the circumstantial evidence in
that caused his death five days later in the hospital. the used suffices for the conviction of the appellant.
"Although a declaration does not appear to have been made by
the declarant under the expectation of a sure and impending death,
and, for the reason, is not admissible as a dying declaration, yet if such
declaration was made at the time of, or immediately after, the
commission of the crime, or at a time when the exciting influence of the
startling occurrence still continued in the declarant's mind, it is
admissible as a part of the res gestae (5 Moran's Comments on the
Rules of Court, 1970 Ed. pp. 373-4, citing People vs. Palamos, 49 Phil.
601; People vs. Portento, 48 Phil. 971; People vs. Reyes, 52 Phil. 538).
Panimdim's statement was given sometime after the stabbing
while he was undergoing treatment at a medical clinic. He had no time
to concoct a falsehood or to fabricate a malicious charge against Putian
(See People vs. Ner. L-25504, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 1151, 1161-2).
No motive has been shown as to why he would frame up Putian.
Appellant's alternative contention that treachery was not proven
and, therefore, he can be convicted only of homicide is meritorious. The
evidence for the prosecution does not show the manner in which the
wound was inflicted. Hence, the crime imputable to appellant Putian is
homicide (People vs. Ramolete, L-28108, March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA
66, 80).
As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, the trial court
erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
Nocturnity is not aggravating in this case because it was not purposely
sought by the offender to facilitate the commission of the crime. prLL