The People of the Philippines

Vs. Guillermo Putian

GR No. L-33049
Aquino, J.

Topic: Res Gestae

Facts:
Guillermo Putian appealed the Decision of CFI, Misamis Occidental, finding him guilty of
murder and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Teodulo
Panimdim.

The peculiarity of this case is that no eyewitness was presented to testify on the assault which
resulted in the victim's death.

The prosecution presented only two witnesses: (1) The doctor who treated the victim at the
hospital and who testified on the nature of his wound and the cause of his death and (2) the
policeman who arrested the accused and seized from him the dagger allegedly used in the
stabbing and who took down the victim's ante-mortem statement Identifying "Guirmo" Putian as
his assailant.

On the other hand, the accused did not testify and presented only one witness who testified that
appellant Putian was in the dance hall when the victim was stabbed outside that hall.

Putian admits that while Teodulo was attending a dance at Barrio Tabo-o, Panimdim was stabbed
in the left groin which have caused the death of Panimdim five days later.

Patrolman took the statement of Panimdim who is in a sitting position and advised him to go to
the hospital for treatment. Panimdim stood up, flexed his muscles and said that there was nothing
to worry about because the wound was small. Without anybody's help, he put on his undershirt,
pants and shirt. He went to his house without anyone's assistance. However, he was rushed to the
hospital the next day where an operation was performed, but unfortunately died five days later.

Yap explained that Panimdim mentioned only of a person named Guirmo, and that only
Yapmadded the surname Putian, because he knew of no other person called Guirmo in that
locality except Guirmo Putian, an alleged gambler.

The slender evidence for the defense consists merely of the meager testimony of Anacleto
Taporco, 54, the assistant provincial board secretary and former candidate for mayor, who
claimed to be a friend of Panimdim and a close friend of Putian. 

Taporco narrated that Panimdim asked him if he can boxed Rogelio Opos, Taporco advised
Panimdim not to do so. Later on, Panimdim once again asked Taporco if he can boxed Opos,
Taporco dissuaded Panimdim and took him outside the dance hall.
Afterwards, Taporco was allegedly informed that there was trouble. When he tried to find out
what the trouble was, he was informed that it was already patched up. He said that Putiam never
left the dance hall.

The trial court convicted Putian on the ground of Panimdim’s ante-mortem statement as part of
res gestae. The court did not considered the statement as a dying declaration because  the
declarant at the time he made the statement was not under a consciousness of an impending death

Issue:
Whether the statement of Panimdim was part of the res gestae under the Rules of Court. YES

Ruling:

Rule 130 Sec. 6:

SEC. 36. 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.

The res gestae rule embraces

(a) spontaneous exclamations and
(b) verbal acts

Here, the trial court admitted Panimdim's statement as a spontaneous statement made after the
commission of a felony.

"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"

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. No motive has been shown as to why he would frame up Putian.

However, Putian should only be convicted of homicide because the evidence of the prosecution
does not show the manner in which the wound was inflicted, hence, the attendant of treachery
cannot be proven to exist.