CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
In the ponencia, accused-appellant Gianne Carla Thanaraj (Gianne) was acquitted of the crime of parricide. Nonetheless, a portion of the ponencia ruled that the statements of Gianne to the prosecution witness Jimar C. Moranta (Jimar) were not admissible as part of the res gestae as the out-of-court declarant Gianne actually took the witness stand and her statements were subjected to scrutiny. For context, Gianne appeared to have told Jimar right after the stabbing incident "Kuya, mahal na mahal ko po ang asawa ko. Hindi ko sinasadya na saksakin siya" (statement).
The ponencia instead ordained that the statement is properly characterized as an admission against interest under Rule 130, Section 27 of the Rules of Court as Gianne took the witness stand and testified on her statement. According to the ponencia, when the out-of-court statements are made by a party to a litigation, and the said party testified in court, the statements can only be admissible as an admission against interest. In doing so, the ponencia concluded that the subject statement is inadmissible as an admission against interest as it was not categorical and definite.
While I agree that Gianne should be acquitted, I take exception to the ponencia's characterization of her statement.
Time and again, the Court has ruled that even the out-of-court statements of witnesses who testified during trial can be considered as part of the res gestae. This was ruled in People v. Lupac,1 where the out-of-court statements of the victim herself were considered as part of the res gestae even if she likewise testified during the trial, viz.:
Firstly, both the RTC and the CA considered AAA as a credible witness. We accord great weight to their assessment of the credibility of AAA as a witness as well as of her version. Verily, the personal observation of AAA's conduct and demeanor enabled the trial judge to discern if she was telling the truth or inventing it.
. . . .
The Court holds that AAA's denunciation of Lupac as her rapist to Tita Terry and her own mother with the use of the words hindot and inano ako ni Kuya Ega without any appreciable length of time having intervened following her discovery of the rape was part of the res gestae (that is, rape). Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states:
Section 42. 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 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 part of the res gestae.
Similarly, in People v. Paycana, Jr.,2 the Court held that the out-of-court statements of a witness who was presented during trial may be considered as part of the res gestae. This ruling was made in conjunction with admission against interest showing that the Court was cognizant of the difference between the two doctrines and still ruled that an out-of-court statement by a presented witness may be part of the res gestae, viz.:
In any event, self-defense on the part of appellant is further negated by the physical evidence in the case. Specifically, the number of wounds, fourteen (14) in all, indicates that appellant's act was no longer an act of self-defense but a determined effort to kill his victim.(awÞhi( The victim died of multiple organ failure secondary to multiple stab wounds.
The Court agrees with the trial court's observation, thus:
Angelina who is 15 years old will not testify against her father were it not for the fact that she personally saw her father to be the aggressor and stab her mother. Telling her grandfather immediately after the incident that accused stabbed her mother is part of the res gestae hence, admissible as evidence. Between the testimony of Angelica who positively identified accused to have initiated the stabbing and continuously stabbed her mother and on the other hand, the testimony of accused that he killed the victim in self-defense, the testimony of the former prevails.
The RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals properly convicted appellant of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion in the killing of his seven (7)-month pregnant wife.
Bearing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, the crime of parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage certificate. The testimony of the accused of being married to the victim, in itself, may also be taken as an admission against penal interest.
In this regard, I agree with the findings of the appellate court that the statement of Gianne formed part of the res gestae.
Footnotes
1 695 Phil. 505, 511-516 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
2 574 Phil. 780, 788-789 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
