 The victim’s body was rushed to Quezon City General Hospital by the responding
SUMMARY: Garabato was shot and killed by SP04 Pablo Dela Cruz. Dela Cruz killed
Garabato because of a altercation between the two. Garabato parked his Ford Fiera in
front of the house of Petitioner. Garabato got enraged. The two key witnesses
(Mascardo and Tad-y), heard gunshots. Mascardo went back to the scene of the crime
and there he saw the body of Garabato. Petitioner eventually gave himself up to the
police. RTC found him guilty of homicide not murder as was charged. CA affirmed. SC
affirmed his conviction saying that the exclamations and statements made by the
spectators were part of the res gestae
DOCTRINE: As borne by evidence on record, all the elements of res gestae are
sufficiently established, insofar as the aforequoted spontaneous utterance is concerned:
a) the principal act (res gestae) the killing of Fr. Garabato in broad daylight is a startling
occurrence;
b) the statements were made before the declarants had time to contrive or devise that
is, within several minutes after the victim was shot; and
c) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances the identity of the assailant is a material and vital information
that concerns the aforementioned startling occurrence.
FACTS:
 On June 16, 1993, at around 2:40 oclock in the afternoon, the two workers were
unloading construction materials consisting of wood and sand from a Ford Fiera
owned and driven by Fr. Garabato. At that moment, Fr. Garabato was seated at
the drivers seat.
 The Ford Fiera could not be parked near the house being constructed (pathway
was very narrow) so he parked it in front of the house of Dela Cruz.
 The two workers (Mascardo and Tad-y) unloaded the materials. Petitioner was
standing at the garage of his house and confronted Garabato about the way the
car was parked and blocked the petitioner’s drive way.
 Dela Cruz shouted invectives because Garabato was not able to clear the drive
way due to another vehicle being parked behind the Ford Fiera.
 Dela Cruz went out from the gate of his house, walked towards Fr. Garabato and
grabbed the latters collar. An old woman tried to pacify the petitioner.
 Moments later, petitioner drove his jeep out from the garage of his house with his
two kids on board at the backseat. Petitioner accosted Fr. Garabato to move his
Ford Fiera since petitioners jeep could not pass through abreast together with the
Ford Fiera (the road is more or less five (5) meters wide).
 Fr. Garabato drove the Ford Fiera forward and parked further at the side of the
road. By that time, petitioners jeep could already pass through the road.
 At that moment, the two workers were standing behind the Ford Fiera, and they
heard successive shots of gunfire. They instinctively turned their sights towards
the origin of the gunshots; such that they saw smoke coming from the side of
petitioners jeep and saw petitioner seated in the drivers seat still holding his gun
pointing towards the Ford Fiera.
 Petitioner alighted from his jeep, walked towards Fr. Garabatos position, re-
loaded his gun with another magazine and shot Fr. Garabato anew.
 Petitioner immediately left the scene on board his jeep.
police officers where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
 Medico-legal Officer, Police Senior Inspector Vladimir Villasenor (a physician)
conducted a post mortem examination on Fr. Garabatos body. He concluded that
Fr. Garabato died of (h)emorrhage as a result of multiple gunshot wounds of the
body. The victim sustained six (6) gunshot wounds spread over his head and
body. Four (4) of these wounds were diagnosed to be fatal, as the bullets pierced
vital organs of the victims body.
 A manhunt ensued.
 On June 19, 1993, petitioner gave himself up to Superintendent Efren Santos,
Chief of Police of Sangandaan Police Station and other police officers in the
presence of a tabloid reporter and with the assistance of his counsel, Atty.
Constante A. Ancheta at the house of petitioners relatives at Project 8, Quezon
City. Petitioner turned over his service firearms, a caliber 38 revolver and an M-
16 rifle. Petitioner gave himself up to the police authorities to clear his name
from any culpability of the crime imputed against him.
 At the Sangandaan Police Station, prosecution witnesses, Abundio Tad-y Benito
and Mario Mascardo positively identified petitioner Pablo De La Cruz as the
person who shot Fr. Garabato.
 For his part, petitioner interposed the twin defense of denial and alibi. The trial
court summed up his version of the case as follows:
 Accused firmly disclaims knowledge or participation in the aforesaid shooting
incident. He denies having known or seen Fr. Garabato on June 16, 1993. He
claims that at the time and date Fr. Garabato was shot, he was in Gagalangin
Health Center in Tondo, Manila; that he and his two children, Carmela and
Pamela, went to fetch his wife, Cornelia, who was employed therein as a midwife.
From there, they would proceed to Baclaran Church to hear mass.
o This point was corroborated by defense witnesses, Cornelia de la Cruz
(Pablos wife) and Romeo Mabahagi (a janitor/utility man at Gagalangin
Health Center). Romeo Mabahagi averred that as early as 2:00 in the
afternoon of June 16, 1993, while on duty at Gagalangin Health Center,
he saw Pablo de la Cruz and his wife and daughters at the health center.
(TSN July 22, 1994 p. 11); that he cannot forget having seen Pablo de
la Cruz at the health center on that particular date and time since
incidentally, it was the birthday of one Dr. Perlita Yee, a physician at the
said health center, and that there was even a birthday celebration then
(TSN July 22, 1994, pp. 17-18); that he knew Pablo because he
frequently sees him especially on Wednesdays whenever he fetches his
wife, Cornelia, before they proceed to Baclaran Church to hear mass.
 The Accused defense is further corroborated by the testimony of witness, Ricardo
Cuadra, who categorically stated that he witnessed the shooting incident which
took place at Marcel Drive in the afternoon of June 16, 1993, and that he actually
saw the face of the assailant, and he was certain that the assailant was NOT
Pablo de la Cruz. (TSN July 7, 1994)
 RTC convicted him of homicide and not murder.
 CA affirmed.
 Hence this petition to the SC.
ISSUE: W/N the TC was correct in giving credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution namely, Mario Mascardo and Abundio Tad-y Benito. (YES)
 immediately after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such
 Contrary to petitioners contention, the fact that Mascardo and Tad-y Benito that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired
worked for the victim does not in any way render their testimonies incredulous. by excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to
Petitioner has not ascribed any ill motive on their part to wrongfully accuse him of deliberate and to fabricate a false statement (People vs. Sanchez, 213 SCRA 70).
the crime. In the absence thereof, Mascardos and Tad-y Benitos respective  SEE DOCTRINE
testimonies are not affected by their relationship to the victim.
 Petitioner claimed that he was nowhere near Sangandaan, Quezon City where Other issue: On the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
the crime was committed. He maintained that he was at the Gagalangin Health  Anent the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the
Center in Tondo, Manila at the time thereof. CA correctly held that petitioner cannot avail himself thereof. When petitioner went
 To the mind of the Court, the distance between Sangandaan, Quezon City and to the Sangandaan Police Station, he did so purportedly to clear his name. It was
Tondo, Manila does not preclude the possibility that petitioner could have been not his intention to submit himself to the authorities and assume responsibility for
physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at or about the time of its the death of the victim.
commission.
o People vs. Aspiras: the Court did not appreciate the alibi of accused that HELD: WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed
he was in Las Pinas, Metro Manila when the crime was committed in Decision, dated November 20, 1998, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 19515
Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. The Court held in that case that the distance and its Resolution of June 14, 1999 affirming that of the trial court finding petitioner
between the two places, which is four (4) hours away, did not render it guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide are AFFIRMED with modification that
physically impossible for accused to be at the scene of the crime at the the indeterminate penalty imposed on petitioner shall be six (6) years and one (1)
time of its commission day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
o People vs. Mallari: although the crime was committed in Olongapo City,
the Court ruled that it was not physically impossible for the three (3)
accused to be at said place (Olongapo City) even if they claimed to be
elsewhere, namely, Bataan, Pampanga and Baguio City, at the time.
 These alleged inconsistent and incredulous statements pertain merely to minor
details and do not detract from the crux of the testimonies of Mascardo and Tad-
y Benito that they witnessed the killing of the victim by petitioner. Even if the trial
court found certain imputations made by the prosecution witnesses exaggerated,
still, these do not per se render the entire testimony unworthy of credence
 With respect to the non-presentation of the .45 caliber pistol, suffice it to say, that
the presentation of the weapon is not a prerequisite for conviction. As already
discussed, there are ample evidence on record to warrant petitioners conviction
for the crime of homicide.

W/N THE ADMISSION BY THE TC OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE BYSTANDERS

IMPUTING THE CRIME TO PETITIONER AS RES GESTAE CORRECT. (YES)

 Testimony of SP03 Jesus Patriarca

o SPO3 Jesus Patriarca testified that per his investigation conducted
shortly after the shooting incident, he inquired from several spectators
whom he found hovering at the locus criminis, as to who shot the victim
and the spontaneous response he got was Yun hong pulis na nakatira
sa tapat. (TSN April 12, 1994, p. 13). The people confided to him the
name Pablo de la Cruz. It turned out that indeed, the informants were
referring to the house of the accused, who was later determined and
identified as the assailant.
 The response he got was: ‘’yun hong pulis na nakatira sa tapat’’
referring to petitioner.
 He was on duty at that time.
 RES GESTAE refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the
participants, the victim(s) or spectators to a crime immediately before, during or

SUMMARY: Ava and Leezel were convicted of parricide and
homicide for maltreating 2 ½ y.o. Ethel (who was Ava’s
daughter) which led to her death. Neighbors and Ava’s sister
Lilia in earlier instances saw the bruises and shaved head of
Ethel. Neighbor Michelle earlier asked her who caused the
cigarette burns on her arm, to which Ethel replied it was Leezel.
During trial, Ava gave inconsistent declarations as to how Ethel
sustained injuries.
DOCTRINE: The declarations of Lilia, Michelle and Theresa as
to what they observed on ETHEL were not hearsay. They saw
her and personally noticed the injuries and telltale marks of
torture. While the answer of Ethel as to who inflicted the injuries
may have been, indeed, hearsay because Ethel could not be
confronted on that, yet it was part of the res gestae and,
therefore, an exception to the hearsay rule
FACTS:
 Accused-appellants Ava Ma. Victoria Cariquez y Cruz and
Leezel Franco y Samson (Ava’s live-in partner; not Mariel’s
father) were initially charged with serious physical injuries, but
the victim 2 ½ y.o. Mariel Cariquez y Cruz (Ava’s daughter)
died so the information was amended to charge them of
parricide.
 Prosec’s witnesses: Lilia Gojul (Ava’s sister), Michelle Torrente,
Theresa Castillo, Dr. Antonio Vertido, Dr. Jose Joey Bienvenida,
SPO3 Adonis Bacarra, Dr. Arsenio Pascual, and Benilda
Almario
o Ava and Mariel (called “Ethel”) moved to Royal
Townhomes in Mandaluyong with Lilia. Lilia slept with
Ethel in one of the 2 bedrooms of the house. Ava had a
housemaid named Elizabeth Patao, who also watched
over Mariel or Ethel
o Ava's household was not at all peaceful because almost
everyday, Ava and Leezel quarreled,
"nagbubugbugan."Ava and Leezel were then taking or
using drugs.
o Lilia left Ava’s household and went to live in Novaliches.
o Ethel caught the attention of their neighbors because she
was cute and friendly but they found Ava and Leezel
aloof and snobbish
o Lilia visited Ava and Ethel but she was shocked to see
Ethel's appearance; her hair was shaven, her face was full
of contusions, her neck had faded cigarette burns while
her arms and legs had traces of pinching and
maltreatment. She also had marks of "black-eye" on both
eyes. Lilia also noticed Ethel's knees with contusions due
to prolonged kneeling. When Lilia asked the little girl to
identify who inflicted the injuries on her body, Ethel
tearfully pointed to Ava and Leezel. Lilia confronted Ava
about her and Leezel's treatment of Ethel
o Neighbors hear the little girl crying everyday morning
noon and night.
o Michelle Torrente, an occupant of Unit 114, was aghast to
see her shaven, with bruises all over her body and
wounds in her arms and legs. Ethel also had cigarette
burns, and when Michelle asked what happened, Ethel
replied: "pinaso po ako." When Michelle further asked
who burned her and caused her bruises, Ethel said, "Papa
ko po," referring to Leezel Franco
o The little girl's shaven head and bruises were also noticed
by Theresa Castillo, an occupant of unit 115, adjacent to
Ava's residence. When she asked Ethel's "yaya" why this
was done to the little girl, the "yaya" answered, "parusa"
o Lilia visited again. She observed that Ethel was sickly and
had even more contusions than the last time she saw her
in April. Out of pity for the little girl, Lilia tried to
persuade Ava that she take custody of Ethel. Ava agreed
and wrote a note where she passed on to Lilia the
guardianship of Ethel (Exhibit A). However, Lilia had to
leave Ava's household without bringing Ethel with her
 (TSN). Ethel cried silently when Lilia left (TSN). Lilia
heard nothing from them after that.
o May 1996: Ethel was brought in an ambulance from the
Mandaluyong Medical Center to the Cardinal Santos
Memorial Hospital at Greenhills, San Juan (TSN). She was  Defense witnesses: Ava and Leezel
unconscious and was assisted by an ambu bag, unable to
breathe on her own. Her body was limp and she had
prominent bruises on the forehead and the right cheek
o Dr. Jose Joey Bienvenida attended to her and in the course
of taking her medical history, he interviewed the mother,
Ava Cariquez. Ava at first told the doctor that it was her
brother, the patient's uncle, who mauled the child and
inflicted upon her serious injuries. Ava later changed her
story, saying that the little girl actually fell from the stairs
(TSN)
 chronic and acute subdural hematoma on the left
frontotemporoparietal (front side and apex)
convexity of the brain. Massive edema and musk
effect in the left cerebral hemisphere and right fronte-
parietal lobe were noted. A fracture was also noted
on the left frontal bone (TSN). Blood clot was found
in almost the entire cerebral hemisphere. He also
found soft tissue injuries, i.e., hematoma and
abrasions, in other parts of the body. The injury on
the head was a "confluent injury," which means that
it was sustained on different dates (TSN); one portion
of the injury was "resolving hematoma" which was at
least two (2) years old, while the more acute injury
was sustained within 24 hours from his examination
o Ethel was confined in the ICU and as classified as a “brain
dead” patient. Her condition grew worse and she
eventually died
o Dr. Antonio Vertido, NBI Medico-Legal Officer,
conducted an autopsy on the little girl's body (TSN).
Significant findings: fracture linear, right middle cranial
fosse; abrasion, right forehead; contusion, right leg;
contusion-abrasion left face; hematoma, forehead right
and hematoma, scalp, right fronto-parietal (Exhibit D). In
his autopsy report, Dr. Vertido concluded that the cause of
death was Traumatic Head Injury, Severe (Exhibit D-2).
o AVA: she went out of the house to make a telephone call.
When she left the house, her daughter Ethel was eating
while Leezel was playing the guitar. When she returned
she saw Ethel playing with the food. She told Ethel to
hurry up as she was going with her to the office, but Ethel
stubbornly looked at her and continued to play with her
food. To her repeated order to do so, Ethel repeatedly
said, "No." Ava then got a plastic belt and hit Ethel with it
on the buttocks a number of times, which made Ethel cry.
Since Ethel continued to be hard-headed, Ava held her on
the shoulder. Ethel struggled and slipped Ava's hold, got
out of balance, and fell. Ethel hit the sofa and when she
bounced back her head hit the edge of the cemented stairs.
Ava got shocked and noticed Leezel stop playing his
guitar and shout: "Ava yoong anak mo." Ava then held
Ethel and gave her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and
brought her to the hospital.
o 4 days earlier, Ava went to get her car from the
Mandaluyong Police Station but she was not able to get it
from the impound. She was told there were drugs in her
car and was detained that night.
o 3 days after her detention, Lilia asked her to sign papers
for permission to take off Ethel’s respirator but she
refused
o On cross-exam: cigarette burns on Ethel’s body were
caused by sprinkling oil while their maid was cooking;
Leezel had nothing to do with any of the child's bruises or
injuries; when Lilia, her sister visited her in jail, the former
told her that she should point to Leezel as the one
responsible for Ethel's death, otherwise, she will do
 something to her; and that she has no personal relation
with Leezel
o On affidavit and reply-affidavit: Leezel was responsible
for Ethel’s injuries- when she returned home after the
phone call, she found Leezel hit Ethel with the buckle of a
belt at the back and front of her head. She tried to stop
him but he pushed her. As Leezel continued to hit Ethel
with the belt, what she did was to get the antenna of the
TV and hit Leezel with it at his hand causing him to
release the same. She then got hold of Ethel but because
Leezel pushed her she fell to the floor with her daughter.
This was repeated several times. She noticed Ethel was
having difficulty in breathing, she ran to the comfort room
in order to give Ethel a shower to revive her, at the same
time applying mouth to mouth resuscitation to her. She
went out of the bathroom to bring Ethel to the hospital.
o In her reply-affidavit: Ava declared it was not the first
time Leezel hit Ethel; he used to hit her whenever he was
high on drugs
o Ava tried to diminish the value of these admissions in her
affidavit and reply-affidavit by testifying that she did not
read them before signing and she signed under a state of
shock.
o LEEZEL’s counter-affidavit: Ava told him that she was
going to make a phone call outside of the house. Before
leaving, she ordered Ethel to hurry up with her food
because she was to go with Ava to the latter's office.
However, when Ava returned, Ethel had not finished
eating. Ava hit Ethel very hard, whipped her with a belt,
held her by the arms and pushed her, sending Ethel to hit
the corner of the sofa and then to bounce, causing her
head to hit the end of the cemented stairs and to fall to the
floor. Ethel was on the verge of death. Ava was shocked.
Seeing this, Leezel picked up Ethel and brought her to the W/N there was sufficient evidence for conviction - YES
comfort room where he poured water on her. Thereafter,
he and Ava brought Ethel to the hospital.
o Leezel’s testimony: his statement in his counter-affidavit
that Ava pushed Ethel, causing the latter to fall and to hit
the cemented stairs was only narrated to him by Ava and
that he never witnessed the incident. He further declared
that he had nothing to do with Ethel's injuries and the
testimony of Lilia is not true. Lilia had an ulterior motive
against him because on one occasion he prevented
Catherine, Lilia's daughter from entering Ava's house and
because of that Lilia, her husband and her sons Caesar
and Julius kicked him and hit him with a chair. Finally,
Leezel claimed that he had no idea as to what happened to
Ethel; all that he saw was the child lying on the floor, and
he then helped Ava bring the child to the hospital.
 RTC: Ava and Leezel guilty of parricide and homicide,
respectively.
 Accused-appellants appealed:
o that the prosecution's principal witness Lilia Gojul, as well
as the other witnesses never saw how ETHEL sustained
the injuries inflicted on her; Lilia never testified that
during her stay in AVA's house the child was the object of
their quarrel; the prosecution's evidence is purely hearsay,
conjectural and fails to show any conspiracy that they
maltreated and caused ETHEL's death; her death was
purely accidental; only circumstantial evidence is on
record against them there was no evil motive on their part
to kill ETHEL.
o They characterized the report of ETHEL to Lilia Gojul as
to the former's shaven head and injuries as hearsay and
cannot be considered an exception to the hearsay rule
because it was not made on an impending death or with
the thought of an impending death and was related to
Lilia many days before the incident.
 TC: convicted AVA and LEEZEL on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict
 provided the following requisites are present, namely: (1)
there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which
the inferences are derived from are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial
evidence must constitute an unbroken chain of events so as to
lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the guilt
of the accused.
 OSG enumerates 7 circumstantial evidence:
 TC also took into account Ava’s affidavit, reply-affidavit, and
Leezel’s counter-affidavit, as well as the circumstances of the
apprehension of the two by authorities for illegal possession of
"shabu" and Ava's judicial admission that Ethel slipped from
her hold, fell and her head hit the cemented floor.
 SC fully convinced from the evidence on record of the
culpability of AVA and LEEZEL for ETHEL's maltreatment.
o The testimony of Lilia Gojul, Michelle Torrente and
Theresa Castillo ineluctably show that AVA and LEEZEL
tormented ETHEL.
o Where ETHEL dwelt was not a home; it was not even a
house. It was hell.
o AVA and LEEZEL considered ETHEL not as a child with
human dignity and an object of love as children should be,
but an unwanted object against whom they could vent
everything from frustrations to anger and hate.
 The declarations of Lilia, Michelle and Theresa as to what
they observed on ETHEL were not hearsay. They saw her and  We cannot allow her to disown her affidavit and reply-
personally noticed the injuries and telltale marks of torture.
While the answer of ETHEL as to who inflicted the injuries
may have been, indeed, hearsay because ETHEL could not
be confronted on that, yet it was part of the res gestae and,
therefore, an exception to the hearsay rule
 3 requisites to the admission of evidence as constituting part of
the res gestae. (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a
startling occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the
declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) that the
statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances.
 In this case the startling occurrences were the tortures inflicted
on ETHEL, who when asked who caused them spontaneously
pointed to AVA and LEEZEL. That some time may have
lapsed between the infliction of the injuries and the disclosure,
it must however, be pointed out that there has been no
uniformity as to the interval of time that should separate the
occurrence of the startling event from the making of the
declarations. What is necessary is that the injuries sustained by
ETHEL prior to the day she was brought to hospital were
inflicted by Ava and Leezel.
Who was responsible for the act which resulted to the death of
Ethel? BOTH
 The prosecution failed to offer any direct evidence. The
circumstantial evidence the trial court appreciated related to
acts or events which happened before the day she was brought
to the hospital (May 27, 1996)
 Yet, these prior acts are inseparable from that which happened
on 27 May 1996. The latter was the coup de grace. Fortunately,
for the prosecution, AVA offered two versions. The first was
that she offered at the witness stand in open court, i.e.,
ETHEL's death was due to an accident. The second was
narrated in her affidavit (Exhibit "R") and reply-affidavit
(Exhibit "S"), where she pointed to LEEZEL as the culprit.
affidavit as the explanation given for that is very flimsy and
incredible, and clearly concocted to exculpate LEEZEL and at
the same to absolve herself under a claim of accident. Her
affidavit and reply-affidavit were prepared at her instance
long before she took the witness stand. In a manner of
speaking they were given voluntarily and spontaneously long
before the prospect of a court trial became imminent and the
dismissal of the cases against her was her goal. That she told
the truth in her affidavit and reply-affidavit cannot escape the
 verdict of rational minds. AVA's story of "accident" cannot, Ethel. Neighbor Michelle earlier asked her who caused the
likewise, work in her favor. cigarette burns on her arm, to which Ethel replied it was Leezel.
 The defense of accident shifted to AVA the burden of the During trial, Ava gave inconsistent declarations as to how Ethel
evidence and it was incumbent upon them to prove that they sustained injuries.
were exempt from criminal liability. The totality of her story
proved beyond reasonable doubt that ETHEL was maltreated DOCTRINE: The declarations of Lilia, Michelle and Theresa as
and pushed hard driving her head to the cemented stairs and to what they observed on ETHEL were not hearsay. They saw
causing the injuries which were the proximate cause of her her and personally noticed the injuries and telltale marks of
death. torture. While the answer of Ethel as to who inflicted the injuries
 The rule is well settled that in conspiracy the act of one is the may have been, indeed, hearsay because Ethel could not be
act of all, and each of the conspirators is liable for the crimes confronted on that, yet it was part of the res gestae and,
committed by the other conspirators. Proof of conspiracy need therefore, an exception to the hearsay rule
not be direct but may be inferred from proof of facts and
circumstances. If it is proved that two or more persons aimed FACTS:
by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same  Accused-appellants Ava Ma. Victoria Cariquez y Cruz and
unlawful object each doing a part so that their acts, though Leezel Franco y Samson (Ava’s live-in partner; not Mariel’s
apparently independent were in fact connected, indicating a father) were initially charged with serious physical injuries, but
closeness of formal association and a concurrence of the victim 2 ½ y.o. Mariel Cariquez y Cruz (Ava’s daughter)
sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual died so the information was amended to charge them of
meeting among them to concert means is proved. parricide.
 The facts and circumstances proven in this case unerringly  Prosec’s witnesses: Lilia Gojul (Ava’s sister), Michelle Torrente,
lead us to a conclusion that Ava and Leezel conspired to Theresa Castillo, Dr. Antonio Vertido, Dr. Jose Joey Bienvenida,
maltreat, injure, inflict pain, torture Ethel and they were SPO3 Adonis Bacarra, Dr. Arsenio Pascual, and Benilda
united in that purpose and intention. The totality of their evil Almario
deeds demonstrated beyond doubt their resolve to pursue o Ava and Mariel (called “Ethel”) moved to Royal
with persistence their common objective, which eventually Townhomes in Mandaluyong with Lilia. Lilia slept with
resulted in the death of Ethel. Ethel in one of the 2 bedrooms of the house. Ava had a
housemaid named Elizabeth Patao, who also watched
Decision of the Court of Appeals which sustained the Decision of the over Mariel or Ethel
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, dismissing the petition for o Ava's household was not at all peaceful because almost
escheat is AFFIRMED. everyday, Ava and Leezel quarreled,
"nagbubugbugan."Ava and Leezel were then taking or
SUMMARY: Ava and Leezel were convicted of parricide and using drugs.
homicide for maltreating 2 ½ y.o. Ethel (who was Ava’s o Lilia left Ava’s household and went to live in Novaliches.
daughter) which led to her death. Neighbors and Ava’s sister
Lilia in earlier instances saw the bruises and shaved head of
o Ethel caught the attention of their neighbors because she
was cute and friendly but they found Ava and Leezel
aloof and snobbish
o Lilia visited Ava and Ethel but she was shocked to see
Ethel's appearance; her hair was shaven, her face was full
of contusions, her neck had faded cigarette burns while
her arms and legs had traces of pinching and
maltreatment. She also had marks of "black-eye" on both
eyes. Lilia also noticed Ethel's knees with contusions due
to prolonged kneeling. When Lilia asked the little girl to
identify who inflicted the injuries on her body, Ethel
tearfully pointed to Ava and Leezel. Lilia confronted Ava
about her and Leezel's treatment of Ethel
o Neighbors hear the little girl crying everyday morning
noon and night.
o Michelle Torrente, an occupant of Unit 114, was aghast to
see her shaven, with bruises all over her body and
wounds in her arms and legs. Ethel also had cigarette
burns, and when Michelle asked what happened, Ethel
replied: "pinaso po ako." When Michelle further asked
who burned her and caused her bruises, Ethel said, "Papa
ko po," referring to Leezel Franco
o The little girl's shaven head and bruises were also noticed
by Theresa Castillo, an occupant of unit 115, adjacent to
Ava's residence. When she asked Ethel's "yaya" why this
was done to the little girl, the "yaya" answered, "parusa"
o Lilia visited again. She observed that Ethel was sickly and
had even more contusions than the last time she saw her
in April. Out of pity for the little girl, Lilia tried to
persuade Ava that she take custody of Ethel. Ava agreed
and wrote a note where she passed on to Lilia the
guardianship of Ethel (Exhibit A). However, Lilia had to
leave Ava's household without bringing Ethel with her
(TSN). Ethel cried silently when Lilia left (TSN). Lilia
heard nothing from them after that.
o May 1996: Ethel was brought in an ambulance from the
Mandaluyong Medical Center to the Cardinal Santos
Memorial Hospital at Greenhills, San Juan (TSN). She was
unconscious and was assisted by an ambu bag, unable to
breathe on her own. Her body was limp and she had
prominent bruises on the forehead and the right cheek
o Dr. Jose Joey Bienvenida attended to her and in the course
of taking her medical history, he interviewed the mother,
Ava Cariquez. Ava at first told the doctor that it was her
brother, the patient's uncle, who mauled the child and
inflicted upon her serious injuries. Ava later changed her
story, saying that the little girl actually fell from the stairs
(TSN)
 chronic and acute subdural hematoma on the left
frontotemporoparietal (front side and apex)
convexity of the brain. Massive edema and musk
effect in the left cerebral hemisphere and right fronte-
parietal lobe were noted. A fracture was also noted
on the left frontal bone (TSN). Blood clot was found
in almost the entire cerebral hemisphere. He also
found soft tissue injuries, i.e., hematoma and
abrasions, in other parts of the body. The injury on
the head was a "confluent injury," which means that
it was sustained on different dates (TSN); one portion
of the injury was "resolving hematoma" which was at
least two (2) years old, while the more acute injury
was sustained within 24 hours from his examination
o Ethel was confined in the ICU and as classified as a “brain
dead” patient. Her condition grew worse and she
eventually died
o Dr. Antonio Vertido, NBI Medico-Legal Officer,
conducted an autopsy on the little girl's body (TSN).
Significant findings: fracture linear, right middle cranial
fosse; abrasion, right forehead; contusion, right leg;
contusion-abrasion left face; hematoma, forehead right
and hematoma, scalp, right fronto-parietal (Exhibit D). In
 his autopsy report, Dr. Vertido concluded that the cause of
death was Traumatic Head Injury, Severe (Exhibit D-2).
 Defense witnesses: Ava and Leezel
o AVA: she went out of the house to make a telephone call.
When she left the house, her daughter Ethel was eating
while Leezel was playing the guitar. When she returned
she saw Ethel playing with the food. She told Ethel to
hurry up as she was going with her to the office, but Ethel
stubbornly looked at her and continued to play with her
food. To her repeated order to do so, Ethel repeatedly
said, "No." Ava then got a plastic belt and hit Ethel with it
on the buttocks a number of times, which made Ethel cry.
Since Ethel continued to be hard-headed, Ava held her on
the shoulder. Ethel struggled and slipped Ava's hold, got
out of balance, and fell. Ethel hit the sofa and when she
bounced back her head hit the edge of the cemented stairs.
Ava got shocked and noticed Leezel stop playing his
guitar and shout: "Ava yoong anak mo." Ava then held
Ethel and gave her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and
brought her to the hospital.
o 4 days earlier, Ava went to get her car from the
Mandaluyong Police Station but she was not able to get it
from the impound. She was told there were drugs in her
car and was detained that night.
o 3 days after her detention, Lilia asked her to sign papers
for permission to take off Ethel’s respirator but she
refused
o On cross-exam: cigarette burns on Ethel’s body were
caused by sprinkling oil while their maid was cooking;
Leezel had nothing to do with any of the child's bruises or
injuries; when Lilia, her sister visited her in jail, the former
told her that she should point to Leezel as the one
responsible for Ethel's death, otherwise, she will do
something to her; and that she has no personal relation
with Leezel
o On affidavit and reply-affidavit: Leezel was responsible
for Ethel’s injuries- when she returned home after the
phone call, she found Leezel hit Ethel with the buckle of a
belt at the back and front of her head. She tried to stop
him but he pushed her. As Leezel continued to hit Ethel
with the belt, what she did was to get the antenna of the
TV and hit Leezel with it at his hand causing him to
release the same. She then got hold of Ethel but because
Leezel pushed her she fell to the floor with her daughter.
This was repeated several times. She noticed Ethel was
having difficulty in breathing, she ran to the comfort room
in order to give Ethel a shower to revive her, at the same
time applying mouth to mouth resuscitation to her. She
went out of the bathroom to bring Ethel to the hospital.
o In her reply-affidavit: Ava declared it was not the first
time Leezel hit Ethel; he used to hit her whenever he was
high on drugs
o Ava tried to diminish the value of these admissions in her
affidavit and reply-affidavit by testifying that she did not
read them before signing and she signed under a state of
shock.
o LEEZEL’s counter-affidavit: Ava told him that she was
going to make a phone call outside of the house. Before
leaving, she ordered Ethel to hurry up with her food
because she was to go with Ava to the latter's office.
However, when Ava returned, Ethel had not finished
eating. Ava hit Ethel very hard, whipped her with a belt,
held her by the arms and pushed her, sending Ethel to hit
the corner of the sofa and then to bounce, causing her
head to hit the end of the cemented stairs and to fall to the
floor. Ethel was on the verge of death. Ava was shocked.
Seeing this, Leezel picked up Ethel and brought her to the
comfort room where he poured water on her. Thereafter,
he and Ava brought Ethel to the hospital.
o Leezel’s testimony: his statement in his counter-affidavit
that Ava pushed Ethel, causing the latter to fall and to hit
 the cemented stairs was only narrated to him by Ava and
that he never witnessed the incident. He further declared
that he had nothing to do with Ethel's injuries and the
testimony of Lilia is not true. Lilia had an ulterior motive
against him because on one occasion he prevented
Catherine, Lilia's daughter from entering Ava's house and
because of that Lilia, her husband and her sons Caesar
and Julius kicked him and hit him with a chair. Finally,
Leezel claimed that he had no idea as to what happened to
Ethel; all that he saw was the child lying on the floor, and
he then helped Ava bring the child to the hospital.
 RTC: Ava and Leezel guilty of parricide and homicide,
respectively.
 Accused-appellants appealed:
o that the prosecution's principal witness Lilia Gojul, as well
as the other witnesses never saw how ETHEL sustained
the injuries inflicted on her; Lilia never testified that
during her stay in AVA's house the child was the object of
their quarrel; the prosecution's evidence is purely hearsay,
conjectural and fails to show any conspiracy that they
maltreated and caused ETHEL's death; her death was
purely accidental; only circumstantial evidence is on
record against them there was no evil motive on their part
to kill ETHEL.
o They characterized the report of ETHEL to Lilia Gojul as
to the former's shaven head and injuries as hearsay and
cannot be considered an exception to the hearsay rule
because it was not made on an impending death or with
the thought of an impending death and was related to
Lilia many days before the incident.
W/N there was sufficient evidence for conviction - YES
 TC: convicted AVA and LEEZEL on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict
provided the following requisites are present, namely: (1)
there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which
the inferences are derived from are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial
evidence must constitute an unbroken chain of events so as to
lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the guilt
of the accused.
 OSG enumerates 7 circumstantial evidence:
 TC also took into account Ava’s affidavit, reply-affidavit, and
Leezel’s counter-affidavit, as well as the circumstances of the
apprehension of the two by authorities for illegal possession of
"shabu" and Ava's judicial admission that Ethel slipped from
her hold, fell and her head hit the cemented floor.
 SC fully convinced from the evidence on record of the
culpability of AVA and LEEZEL for ETHEL's maltreatment.
o The testimony of Lilia Gojul, Michelle Torrente and
Theresa Castillo ineluctably show that AVA and LEEZEL
tormented ETHEL.
o Where ETHEL dwelt was not a home; it was not even a
house. It was hell.
o AVA and LEEZEL considered ETHEL not as a child with
human dignity and an object of love as children should be,
but an unwanted object against whom they could vent
everything from frustrations to anger and hate.
 The declarations of Lilia, Michelle and Theresa as to what
they observed on ETHEL were not hearsay. They saw her and
personally noticed the injuries and telltale marks of torture.
While the answer of ETHEL as to who inflicted the injuries
may have been, indeed, hearsay because ETHEL could not
be confronted on that, yet it was part of the res gestae and,
therefore, an exception to the hearsay rule
 3 requisites to the admission of evidence as constituting part of
the res gestae. (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a
startling occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the
declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) that the
statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances.
  In this case the startling occurrences were the tortures inflicted
on ETHEL, who when asked who caused them spontaneously
pointed to AVA and LEEZEL. That some time may have
lapsed between the infliction of the injuries and the disclosure,
it must however, be pointed out that there has been no
uniformity as to the interval of time that should separate the
occurrence of the startling event from the making of the
declarations. What is necessary is that the injuries sustained by
ETHEL prior to the day she was brought to hospital were
inflicted by Ava and Leezel.
Who was responsible for the act which resulted to the death of
Ethel? BOTH
 The prosecution failed to offer any direct evidence. The
circumstantial evidence the trial court appreciated related to
acts or events which happened before the day she was brought
to the hospital (May 27, 1996)
 Yet, these prior acts are inseparable from that which happened
on 27 May 1996. The latter was the coup de grace. Fortunately,
for the prosecution, AVA offered two versions. The first was
that she offered at the witness stand in open court, i.e.,
ETHEL's death was due to an accident. The second was
narrated in her affidavit (Exhibit "R") and reply-affidavit
(Exhibit "S"), where she pointed to LEEZEL as the culprit.
 We cannot allow her to disown her affidavit and reply-
affidavit as the explanation given for that is very flimsy and
incredible, and clearly concocted to exculpate LEEZEL and at Decision of the Court of Appeals which sustained the Decision of the
the same to absolve herself under a claim of accident. Her
affidavit and reply-affidavit were prepared at her instance
long before she took the witness stand. In a manner of
speaking they were given voluntarily and spontaneously long
before the prospect of a court trial became imminent and the
dismissal of the cases against her was her goal. That she told
the truth in her affidavit and reply-affidavit cannot escape the
verdict of rational minds. AVA's story of "accident" cannot,
likewise, work in her favor.
 The defense of accident shifted to AVA the burden of the
evidence and it was incumbent upon them to prove that they
were exempt from criminal liability. The totality of her story
proved beyond reasonable doubt that ETHEL was maltreated
and pushed hard driving her head to the cemented stairs and
causing the injuries which were the proximate cause of her
death.
 The rule is well settled that in conspiracy the act of one is the
act of all, and each of the conspirators is liable for the crimes
committed by the other conspirators. Proof of conspiracy need
not be direct but may be inferred from proof of facts and
circumstances. If it is proved that two or more persons aimed
by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object each doing a part so that their acts, though
apparently independent were in fact connected, indicating a
closeness of formal association and a concurrence of
sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual
meeting among them to concert means is proved.
 The facts and circumstances proven in this case unerringly
lead us to a conclusion that Ava and Leezel conspired to
maltreat, injure, inflict pain, torture Ethel and they were
united in that purpose and intention. The totality of their evil
deeds demonstrated beyond doubt their resolve to pursue
with persistence their common objective, which eventually
resulted in the death of Ethel.
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, dismissing the petition for
escheat is AFFIRMED.

SUMMARY: Prosecution presented witnesses who testified that
Sace went to the house of the victim, chased her with a knife, raped
her, and killed her. Sace admitted to the crime in front of the
barangay kagawad and other prosecution witnesses. During trial,
Sace denied the commission of the crime and presented an alibi. The
RTC and CA found him guilty of the crime of Rape with Homicide.
The SC affirmed the conviction. Among the things considered was
his statements/admissions in front of the prosecution witnesses. The
Court held that this was admissible under Res Gestae.
DOCTRINE: Requisite for Res Gestae to be an exception to the
hearsay rule - (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had
time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the
occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
FACTS:
 Sace was charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide.
 Prosecution presented the ff. witnesses:
 BBB, CCC, Rafael Motol, Bonifacio Vitto, Maribeth Mawac
(Mari beth), Carmelita Mawac, Dr. Erwin Labay, SPO2
Praxedo Seño and Domingo Motol
 The evidence for the prosecution:
o AAA was in her house with her 10-year old little
brother BBB and nephew when Sace suddenly showed
up. As admitted by Sace, he came from a drinking spree
that began at about 11am.
o AAA tried to evade Sace’s sexual advances but Sace
pulled a bladed weapon from his pocket. AAA went
upstairs but Sace followed her.
o BBB heard Sace ordering AAA to remove her clothes,
otherwise he will stab her.
o Scared with the turn of events, the 2 children hid at the
lower portion of the house until CCC, the mother of
AAA and BBB, arrived.
o CCC, together with her elder daughter DDD and a
certain Abelardo Motol (Abelardo), was on her way
home when they heard AAA scream. Appellant then
came out from somewhere in the kitchen area of the
house. They noticed that he was bloodied and he told
them that he was chasing someone. Appellant then
joined in the search for AAA. Before long, Abelardo
found the lifeless body of AAA lying on the ground
nearby. AAA was half-naked and she appeared to have
been ravished when they found her. Immediately,
Abelardo called the barangay officials and the police.
o Barangay Officials Carmelita and other barangay
tanods Motol and Vito arrived. They noticed blood
stains on Sace’s clothes. When asked, Sace denied
having any knowledge of what happened.
o Carmelita then went to the half-naked body of
AAA and again asked appellant why he did such a
thing to his cousin. At that point, appellant
admitted to the barangay officials and tanods that
he was the one who committed the crime of raping
and killing AAA.
o Barangay Tanod Rafael Motol also obtained the
same confession from appellant when he
interviewed him infront of other people.
o Dr. Labay examined AAA’s body and found lacerations
of the hymenal ring and stab wounds and lacerations on
her body.
 Defense:
o Appellant claimed that he was on his way home from a
drinking spree when he passed by AAA’s house. As he
was walking, appellant saw AAA who was bloodied and
lying on the ground. He held his cousin to determine
whether she was still alive. He then saw in the vicinity
of AAA’s house, 2 men whom he allegedly chased.
Convinced that AAA was already dead, appellant did
not any more call for help. Instead, appellant went to the
house of his aunt and slept. When CCC and her
 companion arrived, he relayed to them how he had
chased 2 men who may have been responsible for AAA’s
death. Appellant denied that he confessed to the crime.
 RTC found Sace guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
Rape with Homicide, punishable by death.
o RTC did not give credence to the alibi and pointed out
that Sace was identified by BBB during the trial. BBB
was able to vividly describe appellant and the events of
that night. RTC also considered the confession of
appellant voluntarily and spontaneously made in public,
and admissible as res gestae, concerning the crime
having been made immediately subsequent to the rape-
slaying before he had time to contrive and devise.
 CA affirmed and reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
WON Sace is guilty of the crime of rape with Homicide. – YES
 The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal
law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the
possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral
certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
 In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to
adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.
Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions
where concealment is highly probable. If direct evidence is
insisted on under all circumstances, the prosecution of vicious
felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or secluded places
will be hard, if not impossible, to prove.
 BBB’s candid and unequivocal narration, which positively
identified appellant as the culprit who tried to force himself on
AAA, debunks appellant’s denial of any participation in the
crime. BBB did not waver during cross-examination
o A witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward,
spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent
on cross-examination is a credible witness.
 Appellant could only offer denial and alibi in his defense.
Denial and alibi are weak defenses which must be supported by
strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. These are
negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater
weight than the testimony of a credible witness who testified on
affirmative matters.
 Appellant admitted the commission of the crime to the
prosecution’s witnesses. According to their testimonies,
appellant admitted having raped and killed AAA. Their
testimonies were not rebutted by the defense.
 [IMPORTANT] Appellants statements made in front of
the prosecution witnesses are admissible for being res
gestae.
o a declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and
admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay
rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the
principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(2) the statements were made before the declarant had
time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must
concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances. All these requisites are present
in this case.
o Appellant had just been through a startling and
gruesome occurrence, AAA’s death. His admission was
made while he was still under the influence of said
startling occurrence and before he had an opportunity to
concoct or contrive a story. In addition, he was still
under the influence of alcohol at that time, having
engaged in a drinking spree from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
that day. His confession concerned the rape and killing
of AAA. Appellant’s spontaneous statements made to
private persons, not agents of the State or law enforcers,
are not covered by the constitutional safeguards on
custodial investigation and, as res gestae, admissible in
evidence against him.
 Where the culpability or innocence of the accused hinges on the
credibility of the witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies,
 the findings of trial courts are given the highest degree of
respect.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the appeal of Tirso Sace y Montoya is
DISMISSED and the November 20, 2006 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02324 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. Temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 are
hereby awarded in lieu of actual damages and the award of moral
damages is increased to P75,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.
With costs against the accused-appellant. SO ORDERED.
 People vs. Tulagan
Res Gestae| July 22 1986 | J Narvasa
Nature of Case: Automatic Appeal from CFI
SUMMARY: Marlon Catungal was allegedly killed by 4 people, Freddie Tulagan, Valentin
de Guzman, Ramon Mendoza and Romie/Romeo Mendoza. Only Romeo was arrested.
The CFI convicted Romeo of murder. Part of their decision held that Vicente de Guzman’s
alleged confession to witness Natalia that they killed Catungal was admissible against
Romeo because such was part of Res Gestae.
The SC held that it was not Res Gestae but only an oral confession admissible only against
de Guzman. It was not Res Gestae because such statement did not happen immediately
subsequent to the startling occurrence and because de Guzman was not shocked, stunned,
or agitated but was actually calm and composed when he made the statement.
DOCTRINE: An admission of having killed the victim where made about an hour after the
stabbing incident is not admissible as part of the res gestae but as an oral confession
binding only against the declarant.
Not every statement made on the occasion of a startling occurrence is admissible as part of
the res gestae; only such are admissible as appear to have been involuntarily and
spontaneously wrung from an observer by the shock or impact of the occurrence such
that, as has aptly been said, it is the event speaking through the witness, not the witness
speaking of the event.
FACTS: ISSUE/S & RATIO:
 May 19 1979 around 11pm: Marlon Catungal was killed. Cause of death: stab wound.
 No one saw precisely how, where and when that single stab wound was inflicted, or
by whom. But it is undisputed that:
o Marlon was killed while attempting to flee from at least two men,
identified as Freddie “Eding” Tulagan and Valentin “Satsoy” de Guzman.
o The chase began near the public hall of Barangay Don Pedro during a
barrio fiesta dance and ended at the porch of Cesar Evangelista 300m away.
The body was found 10 meters away on the shoulder of the provincial
road.
o d. If we believe Ulanday that he followed them for one hour then it would
 Sworn Statement of witness Bonifacio Ulanday:
o Catungal was accosted by de Guzman and 3 other persons at the dance
hall.
o Catungal ran away when de Guzman received a balisong from one of his
companions.
o Ulanday followed them from around 15m away.
o Ulanday lost saight of them when they entered a yard. Ulanday did not see
how Catungal died or who stabbed him.
o Ulanday only saw that four people lifted a motionless Catungal and carried
it to the side of the road.
 On the basis of Ulanday’s statement and those of Barangay Captain Jose Macaraeg
and his daughter Natalia Macaraeg an information was filed against Freddie
Tulagan, Valentin de Guzman, Romie Mendoza, and Ramon Mendoza.
 Only Romie Mendoza was arrested.
 Romie Mendoza was sentenced to death, thus the case was automatically appealed
to the SC.
 In the CFI’s ruling, the CFI held that a statement attributed by Natalia Macaraeg to
Valentin De Guzman was part of Res Gestae and was admissible against
Mendoza.
 Natalia testified that “Valentin de Guzman told me that—we killed him.”
 Natalia testified that three of the suspects (de Guzman, Tulagan, and Romeo
Mendoza) arrived at her store for the 2nd time at around 10:30 pm(apparently this
was where the chase started, the case isn’t clear but maybe the store is near the
dancehall). She then asked them what happened to Catungal. Valentin then told her
that they killed him.
 Testimony:
o Q: What happened when these three persons you mentioned arrived in
your store for the second time naked waist up?
o A: Valentin de Guzman, alias Satsoy, told me that they ran after my
neighbor Atchi Taling.
o Q: What else if any?
o A: Then I asked them, what did you do to him? Then they told me —they
ran after my neighbor who is working with the PNR.
o Q: What did they answer you?
o A: Valentin de Guzman told me that—we killed him.
1. [Syllabus Issue] WON Valentin De Guzman’s Statement was part of Res Gestae –
NO
a. First the SC declared that it was Valentin de Guzman who supposedly
volunteered information, without initially having to be asked by Natalia.
b. The SC held that the CFI erred. The statement is not admissible as part of
the res gestae; and considered as an oral confession, it is admissible only
against Valentin de Guzman, not against any other person.
c. First, there was no evidence that it was made by him “immediately
subsequent” to the startling occurrence.
have taken one hour also for the accused to get back to Natalia’s store.
e. And Even if we believ Natalia that they came back at 10:30 that would have
still been 30 minutes.
f. More importantly, not every statement made on the occasion of a startling
occurrence is admissible as part of the res gestae; only such are admissible
as appear to have been involuntarily and spontaneously wrung from an
observer by the shock or impact of the occurrence such that, as has aptly
been said, it is the event speaking through the witness, not the witness
speaking of the event.
g. No indication that Valentin de Guzman was so affected when he made
the statement in question under the circumstances related by Natalia
Macaraeg
h. He was not agitated, stunned or shocked but was, on the contrary, calm,
composed, in full possession of his faculties and fully aware of what he
was doing and saying.
 i. Considered as an “oral confession,” Valentin de Guzman’s statement is, of
course, admissible against him, but its use against others for any purpose
is prescribed by the well-known rule, res inter alios acta .
2. [Other Issues] WON Mendoza failed to deny certain pieces of evidence–NO
a. Allegedly Mendoza failed to deny Ulanday’s testimony and Natalia’s
testimony that she noticed blood stains on on the accused.
b. The SC held that this was completely contrary to the records and that
Mendoza did deny.
g. Ulanday also testified that he was in Malasiqui on the night in question at
the invitation of Barangay Captain Jose B. Macaraeg and even partook of
supper at the latter’s house before leaving for the Don Pedro auditorium
with Catungal. But Macaraeg remembers none of this.
h. Ulanday also claims long acquaintance, if not friendship, with the victim
and his father, possibly to explain why he dared to follow Marlon
Catungal’s pursuers when no one else did so. But, strangely, after seeing
Catungal lying by the roadside, apparently dead, at the end of the chase, he
simply returned to the house of Jose B. Macaraeg

3. [Other Issues] WON the fact that Mendoza was only arrested two years after the
warrant was issued is an indication of guilt – NO
a. Such circumstance can just as plausibly suggest that the officers charged RULING: WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused Romeo (“Romie”) Mendoza not having been proved
with serving the warrant exhibited less than a desirable diligence and beyond reasonable doubt, the decision under review is reversed and said accused is acquitted, with costs
concern in the performance of that duty as that the accused person ought to de oficio.
hide himself and evade arrest.
4. [Other Issues] WON there was abuse of superior strength – NO
a. Given the fact, already stressed, that the victim’s last moments are veiled in
obscurity insofar as what evidence has been offered is concerned, there
being no direct evidence of how the killing was done, no evidence of
whether or not all the pursuers took part in the final assault or of what role
each played therein, and no evidence of which of them inflicted the single
fatal stab wound, and what the others were doing while the deceased was
being stabbed, said conclusion, lacking any kind of support in the record, is
nothing but pure and simple speculation.
5. [Other Issues] WON the evidence of the witnesses can be given full faith and credit
– NO
a. First, In Natalia’s first two sworn statements in 1979 she omitted the
supposed admission of de Guzman. Only when she took the stand three (3)
years later on May 29, 1982 did she make that revelation.
b. Natalia’s conduct on the night of the killing exhibits a curious mix of
interest and apathy. When de Guzman allegedly confessed to her she was
disturbed enough to send people to verify the killing but once it was
verified she did nothing.
c. Second, Natalia testified that first appeared at her store only to announce
their intention of going after the man or men who had chased de Guzman’s
father, and later returned, also only to proclaim—perhaps “boast” would
be the better word—that their purpose had been accomplished.
d. Why de Guzman and his companions should thus needlessly call attention
for themselves and their crime impresses this Court as highly unnatural
conduct, hardly to be expected of men whose normal instincts would be to
conceal, rather than publicly declare, the plotting and execution of a killing,
in this context, said account makes little sense and does not merit uncritical
acceptance.
e. Third in Ulanday’s case there are inconsistencies between his sworn
statement and his testimony which diminish, rather than enhance, his
credibility.
f. In his sworn statement, those who accosted Marlon Catungal at the dance
hall only “went near” him, but on the stand he declared that they suddenly
seized Catungal and held him by both shoulders .