When that statement was taken, Panimdim was in a sitting position. Patrolman Yap advised him to go to a 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.
Yap explained that Panimdim mentioned only a person named Guirmo and that he, Yap, was the one who added the surname Putian in the statement Exhibit C. He clarified that he wrote that surname because he knew of no other person called Guirmo in that locality except Guirmo Putian, an alleged gambler (22 tsn).
On November 23, one day after the stabbing, the victim was 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. D). The attending physician certified that the victim had a stab wound in the left groin which penetrated the abdomen and punctured the large intestine. Death was due to "toxemia secondary to general peritonitis" (Exh. A). The doctor testified that the stab wound could have been caused by the two-bladed dagger (punyal), Exhibit B.
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 declared that in the evening of November 22, 1969 he was in the barrio dance hall together with appellant Putian, Olimpio Sitoy and Ramon Gimeno. Panimdim was also there.
Taporco said that Panimdim, 21, asked his permission to box Rogelio Opos. Taporco allegedly advised Panimdim not to do so because boxing Opos would cause trouble in the dance hall. Panimdim obeyed him but sometime later Panimdim again asked Taporco that he be allowed to box 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. During that interval, Putian never left the dance hall.
The trial court, in convicting Putian, regarded Panimdim's ante-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 declarant at the time he made the statement was not under a consciousness of an impending death (See see. 31, Rule 130, Rules of Court; People vs. Saliling, L-27974, February 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 427).
The trial court did not give any credence to Putian's alibi. It noted that he did not take the witness stand to refute Panimdim's declaration naming Putian as his assailant. The trial court surmised that through Putian's machinations some witnesses listed in the information did not testify for the prosecution.
Appellant Putian challenges the trial court's ruling that Panimdim's ante-mortem statement was part of the res gestae as envisaged in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides:
The res gestae rule embraces (a) spontaneous exclamations and (b) verbal acts (5 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 362). The trial court admitted Panimdim's statement as a spontaneous statement made after the commission of a felony (People vs. Talledo and Timbreza, 85 Phil. 533).
Appellant Putian contends that Panimdim's statement was not spontaneous because it was "made several hours after the incident". He 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.
On the other hand, the Solicitor General 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. He argues that the fact that Patrolman Yap added the surname Putian to the name "Guirmo", which was mentioned by the victim, did not destroy the probative value of the statement because the appellant could have shown that there were other persons in the locality named Guirmo but he failed to do so.
The Solicitor General cites the ruling that a declaration made by a person immediately after being wounded, pointing out or naming his assailant, may be considered as part of the res gestae and is admissible in evidence (People vs. Alfaro, 83 Phil. 85; People vs. Ananias, 96 Phil. 979).
We hold that the trial court did not err in characterizing Panimdim's statement as a part of the res gestae and as proving beyond reasonable doubt that Putian inflicted upon him the stab wound that caused his death five days later in the hospital.
The res gestae rule embraces (a) spontaneous exclamations and (b) verbal acts (5 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 362). The trial court admitted Panimdim's statement as a spontaneous statement made after the commission of a felony (People vs. Talledo and Timbreza, 85 Phil. 533).
Appellant Putian contends that Panimdim's statement was not spontaneous because it was "made several hours after the incident". He 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.
On the other hand, the Solicitor General 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. He argues that the fact that Patrolman Yap added the surname Putian to the name "Guirmo", which was mentioned by the victim, did not destroy the probative value of the statement because the appellant could have shown that there were other persons in the locality named Guirmo but he failed to do so.
The Solicitor General cites the ruling that a declaration made by a person immediately after being wounded, pointing out or naming his assailant, may be considered as part of the res gestae and is admissible in evidence (People vs. Alfaro, 83 Phil. 85; People vs. Ananias, 96 Phil. 979).
We hold that the trial court did not err in characterizing Panimdim's statement as a part of the res gestae and as proving beyond reasonable doubt that Putian inflicted upon him the stab wound that caused his death five days later in the hospital.
"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.
The trial court's decision is modified. Appellant Putian is convicted of homicide. As the commission of the crime was not attended by any modifying circumstances, he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. The indemnity of P12,000 fixed by the trial court is affirmed. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Concepcion, Jr. and Martin, JJ., concur.
Antonio, J., took no part.
Separate Opinions
BARREDO, J., concurring:
Even it has some doubts as to whether or not Exhibit C may be considered as part of the res gestae because of the seeming serenity and coolness of the deceased when the same was allegedly prepared, he believes that on the whole the circumstantial evidence in the used suffices for the conviction of the appellant.
Separate Opinions
BARREDO, J.,
concurring:
Even it has some doubts as to whether or not Exhibit C may be considered as part of the res gestae because of the seeming serenity and coolness of the deceased when the same was allegedly prepared, he believes that on the whole the circumstantial evidence in the used suffices for the conviction of the appellant.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
