Cases (res Gestae) Flashcards
FACTS: On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in the afternoon, seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, when they were attacked by several masked men carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that required hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries. An information for murder was filed against several members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity, with the Regional Trial Court. A separate information were also filed against them for the attempted murder and another for frustrated murder.
ISSUE: Whether or not evidence as part of the res gestae may be admissible.
HELD: Evidence as part of the res gestae may be admissible but have little persuasive value in this case. According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer Salvador,#when he arrived at the scene, he interviewed the bystanders who all told him that they could not recognize the attackers since they were all masked. This, it is argued, could be evidence that could be given as part of the res gestae.As a general rule, “a witness can testify only to the facts he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, x x x.”#All other kinds of testimony are hearsay and are inadmissible as evidence. The Rules of Court, however, provide several exceptions to the general rule, and one of which is when the evidence is part of res gestae, thus:Section 42. Part of res gestae. - Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of 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. In People v. Rodrigo Salafranca, this court has previously discussed the admissibility of testimony taken as part of res gestae, stating that:A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. x x x xThe term res gestae has been defined as “those circumstances which are the undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible when illustrative of such act.” In a general way, res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group peacefully eating lunch on a school campus is a startling occurrence. Considering that the statements of the bystanders were made immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res gestae.In People v. Albarido,#however, this court has stated that “in accord to ordinary human experience:”x x x persons who witness an event perceive the same from their respective points of reference. Therefore, almost always, they have different accounts of how it happened. Certainly, we cannot expect the testimony of witnesses to a crime to be consistent in all aspects because different persons have different impressions and recollections of the same incident. x x x The statements made by the bystanders, although admissible, have little persuasive value since the bystanders could have seen the events transpiring at different vantage points and at different points in time. Even Frisco Capilo, one of the bystanders at the time of the attack, testified that the attackers had their masks on at first, but later on, some remained masked and some were unmasked.When the bystanders’ testimonies are weighed against those of the victims who witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning to end at close range, the former become merely corroborative of the fact that an attack occurred. Their account of the incident, therefore, must be given considerably less weight than that of the victims
Accused were charged of murder for the death of Haide Cagatan. During the trial, prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Remedios, sister-in-law of the victim, who testified that she saw accused pointing their gun at the victim; (2) Lolita Cagatan, mother of the victim, who testified that she was at the sala when she heard gunshots followed by seeing the victim wounded and asking for help stating that he was shot by Berting (accused); (3) Francisco, father of the victim; who testified that he also heard gunshots and saw accused aiming their guns upward and were about to leave. RTC convicted the four accused of homicide aggravated by dwelling. The RTC accorded faith to the positive identification of the accused by the Prosecution’s witnesses. On intermediate review, the CA modified the RTC’s decision and convicted the accused with murder. The accused contend that the Prosecution witnesses did not actually see who had shot Haide and that Lolita’s testimony is a hearsay.
ISSUE: Whether or not testimony relating the last statement of the victim immediately after the shooting incident is admissible in evidence.
HELD: The answer is in the affirmative. The statement was admissible against the accused as an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides: “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.” The term res gestae refers to “those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible when illustrative of such act.” In a general way, res gestaeincludes the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and which are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded a part of the principal fact or event itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. A declaration or an utterance is thus deemed as part of the res gestae that is admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. We find that the requisites concurred herein. Firstly, the principal act - the shooting of Haide - was a startling occurrence. Secondly, his statement to his mother about being shot by the group of Berting was made before Haide had time to contrive or to devise considering that it was uttered immediately after the shooting. And, thirdly, the statement directly concerned the startling occurrence itself and its attending circumstance (that is, the identities of the assailants). Verily, the statement was reliable as part of theres gestae for being uttered in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling occurrence.
Facts: At the time of the incident, private complainant Concepcion C. Javier, was a 70 year old widow who personally tended her 24-hour sari-sari store located at 101 Rosal Street, Alido Heights Subdivision, Bulacan. She was suffering from recurrent insomnia, thus, she regularly took sleeping pills to ward off her sleeping problem. Whether or not the evidence for the prosecution established the guilt of accused-appellant beyo’nd reasonable doubt
HELD: At any rate, private complainant’s thorough narration of the rape incident on the witness stand, which remained firm and consistent under exhaustive cross-examination by the defense, convinces us that she was indeed raped. It is settled jurisprudence that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. It is hard to believe that a 70-year old woman who was not shown to have any grudge against accused-appellant would concoct a humiliating rape story and spend the remaining days of her life in sending a man to prison if her motive was not to avenge her honor and have her ravisher punished. Bolstered by the medical findings showing that private complainant sustained multiple abrasions on the vaginal wall, as well as bruises on the abdomen and right arm which confirmed that she was indeed boxed and grabbed by accused- appellant, we see no reason to doubt her testimony
