209 – People v.

Putian (1976)
GR NO. L-33049 | AQUINO, J.
IV. Hearsay Rule; Exceptions; Res Gestae

FACTS
- Teodulo Panimdim and Guirmo Putian were attending a dance at Barrio Tabo-o.
Patrolman Arturo Yap was then informed that there was a commotion and that someone
was stabbed in the left groin. He looked for the culprit and he found Guirmo Putian
behind the municipal building with dagger and scabbard. Putian was investigated and
denied that he stabbed Panimdim.
- Patrolman Yap then went to Panimdim, who was inside a clinic. At the clinic, Patrolman
Yap wrote on a piece of paper Panimdim’s declaration, where Panimdim stated that
Guirmo (Putian) [Patrolman Yap himself supplied the last name “Putian” as Panimdim
merely said “Guirmo” without the last name, and that Guirmo Putian is the only “Guirmo”
in the locality] was the one who stabbed him outside the dancing hall. Panimdim also
stated that he can suffer the wound. So, in the clinic, Panimdim stood up and flexed his
muscles, saying there was nothing to worry about as the wound was small. He went to
his house without assistance.
- One day after the stabbing, an operation was performed on Panimdim. However, five
days later, he died because the stab wound in the left groin penetrated the abdomen and
punctured the large intestine.
- An information for murder was filed against Guirmo Putian. Since no eyewitness was
available to testify on the actual assault, only the doctor who treated the victim and
Patrolman Yap was presented as witness.
- For the defense, they presented one Taporco, who claimed to be a friend of Panimdim
and Putian. He stated that all throughout the dance, both of the parties were with him.
However, he testified that Panimdim kept asking for permission to box but he dissuaded
Panimdim and brought him outside. Then there was a commotion outside the hall. It was
alleged that during the commotion, Putian was inside the dance hall.
- The lower court convicted Putian for murder, accepting the ante-mortem statement of
Panimdim as part of res gestae, and refusing to give credence to Putian’s alibi as he did
not take the witness stand to refute Panimdim’s declaration.
- Putian argues that the lower court erred in considering the ante-mortem statement
of Panimdim as part of res gestae as it was not spontaneous since it was “made
several hours after the incident”. He claims that the requirement that “declarant
gave the statement before he had time to devise or contrive” is not present in this
case. Putian further contends that the statement was in narrative form; hence, it was not
the statement contemplated in the rule.
- SolGen points out that the statement was in question-and-answer form and that
Panimdim’s answers were spontaneous, candid, straightforward, direct, brief, concise,
natural, and devoid of any design or deliberation.

ISSUE: WON the ante-mortem statement of Panimdim was part of res gestae
HELD: Yes!
- Panimdim’s statement as correctly characterized as part of the res gestae, which proves
beyond reasonable doubt that Putian inflicted upon him the stab wound that caused his
death 5 days later.
- Although a declaration does not appear to have been made by the delcarant udner 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 the 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.
- Panimdim’s statement was givensometime after the stabbing while he was undergoing
treatement at a medical clinic. He had no time to concot a falshood or to fabricate a
malicious charge against Putian. No motive has been shown as to why he would frame
up Putian.

Putian was found GUILTY.

Barredo, J. Concurring:
Even if there was some doubts w/n the statement may be considered as part of res gestae
because of the seeming serenity and coolness of the deceased when the statement was
prepared, the court believed that on the whole of the circumstantial evidence used sufficed for
the conviction of the appellant.