People vs Villarico murder, but modify the civil liability.

FACTS:
Positive identification refers to
Version of the Prosecution proof of identity of the assailant

At around 7:50 p.m. on August 8, 1999, Haide

was busy preparing dinner in the kitchen of his familys Moreover, the following portions of Lolitas
residence in Bolinsong, Bonifacio, Misamis Occidental. testimony show that Haide himself recognized and
The kitchen, located at the rear of the residence, had a identified his assailants, to wit:
wall whose upper portion was made of three-feet high
bamboo slats (sa-sa) and whose lower portion was also Atty. Fernandez:
made of bamboo slats arranged like a chessboard with
four-inch gaps in between. At that time, Haides sister-in- Q. And where were you at that
law Remedios Cagatan was attending to her child who time when he was shot?
was answering the call of nature near the toilet. From
where she was, Remedios saw all the accused as they A. In the sala.
stood at the rear of the kitchen aiming their firearms at
Q. Could you possibly tell the
the door Ricky Villarico was at the left side, and Gilberto,
Honorable Court what
Jr. stood behind him, while Gilberto, Sr. was at the right
actually took place when
side, with Ramentos behind him. When Gilberto, Jr.
your son was shot?
noticed Remedios, he pointed his gun at her, prompting
Remedios to drop to the ground and to shout to A. He came from the kitchen
Lolita Cagatan, her mother-in-law and Haides at that time when I
mother: Nay, Nay tawo Nay (Mother, mother, there are heard gunreports, he
people outside, mother). At that instant, Remedios heard said Nay help me
three gunshots.[5] because I was shot by
Berting.[29]
Francisco Cagatan, the father of Haide, also
heard the gunshots just as he was coming out of the xxx
toilet, making him instinctively jump into a hole, from
where he was able to see and recognize Gilberto, Sr., Atty. Anonat:
Gilberto, Jr. and Ricky who were then standing by the
kitchen door. They were aiming their guns upward, and Q. And that affidavit was
soon after left together with Ramentos.[6] executed by you at the
Bonifacio Police Station?
Lolita also heard the gunshots while she was
in the sala. She recalled that Haide then came towards A. Yes.
her from the kitchen, asking for help and saying: Tabang
kay gipusil ko ni Berting (I was shot by Berting).[7] At that, xxx
she and Remedios brought the wounded Haide to Clinica
Q. And you affirm to the truth of
Ozarraga, where he was treated for gunshot wounds on
what you have stated in
his left scapular region (back of left shoulder) and right
this affidavit?
elbow. He succumbed shortly thereafter due to
hypovolemic shock or massive loss of blood.[8] A. Yes.
ISSUE: Q. On question No. 7 you were
Should an identification, to be asked in this
positive, have to be manner Giunsa man
made by a witness who nimo pagkasayod nga
actually saw the sila maoy responsible
assailants? sa kamatayon sa
imong anak? How do
you know that they
were responsible (for)
the death of your
RULING: son? And your answer
is this Tungod kay ang
The accused contend that the Prosecution biktima nakasulti pa
witnesses failed to positively identify them as the persons man sa wala pa siya
who had actually shot Haide; that treachery was not namatay ug ang iyang
attendant because there was no proof showing that they pulong mao nga
had consciously and deliberately adopted the mode of TABANG NAY KAY
attacking the victim; and that assuming that they GIPUSIL KO NILA NI
committed the killing, they could only be convicted of BERTING ug nasayod
homicide. ako nga sila gumikan
sa akong mga
testigos. which
We affirm the finding of guilt for the crime of translated into
 English Because the question and its immediately attending circumstances.[35]
victim was able to
talk before he died We find that the requisites concurred herein.
and the words which
he told me help me (1) Firstly, the principal act the shooting of
Nay I am shot by the Haide was a startling occurrence.
group of Berting and I (2) Secondly, his statement to his mother about
know this because of being shot by the group of Berting was
my witnesses. [30] made before Haide had time to contrive
or to devise considering that it was
xxx uttered immediately after the
shooting.
The statement of Haide to his mother that he (3) And, thirdly, the statement directly
had just been shot by the group of Berting uttered in the concerned the startling occurrence itself
immediate aftermath of the shooting where he was the and its attending circumstance (that is, the
victim was a true part of the res gestae. The statement identities of the assailants).
was admissible against the accused as an exception to
the hearsay rule under Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court, which provides: Verily, the statement was reliable as part of
the res gestae for being uttered in
Section 42. Part of the spontaneity and only in reaction to the
res gestae. - Statements made by startling occurrence.
a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent
thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be PEOPLE vs SALAFRANCA
given in evidence as part of
the res gestae. So, also,
statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the FACTS:
issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as
part of the res gestae. (36 a)
An ante-mortem declaration of a victim of
murder, homicide, or parricide that meets the conditions
The term res gestae refers to those circumstances which
of admissibility under the Rules of Court and pertinent
are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act
jurisprudence is admissible either as a dying declaration
and which are admissible when illustrative of such act.[31]
or as a part of the res gestae, or both.
In a general way, res gestae includes the circumstances,
Rodrigo Salafranca y Bello was charged with
facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and
and tried for murder for the fatal stabbing of Johnny
serve to illustrate its character and which are so
Bolanon, and was ultimately found guilty of the felony by
spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, in Manila on
to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.[32] The
September 23, 2004. On appeal, his conviction was
rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and
affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) through its decision
statements made by either the participants, victims, or
promulgated on November 24, 2005.[1]
spectators to a crime immediately before, during,
or immediately after the commission of the crime when
Salafranca has come to the Court on a final
the circumstances are such that the statements were
appeal, continuing to challenge the credibility of the
made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by
witnesses who had incriminated him.
the excitement of the occasion and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to
The established facts show that past midnight
fabricate a false statement.[33]
on July 31, 1993 Bolanon was stabbed near the Del Pan
Sports Complex in Binondo, Manila; that after stabbing
The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of
Bolanon, his assailant ran away; that Bolanon was still
the res gestae is whether the act, declaration, or
able to walk to the house of his uncle Rodolfo B. Estao in
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected
order to seek help; that his uncle rushed him to the
with the principal fact or event that it characterizes
Philippine General Hospital by taxicab; that on their way
as to be regarded a part of the principal fact or event
to the hospital Bolanon told Estao that it was Salafranca
itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any
who had stabbed him; that Bolanon eventually
premeditation or purpose to manufacture
succumbed at the hospital at 2:30 am despite receiving
testimony.[34]
medical attention; and that the stabbing of Bolanon was
personally witnessed by Augusto Mendoza, then still a
A declaration or an utterance is thus deemed as part of
minor of 13 years, who was in the complex at the time.[2]
the res gestae that is admissible in evidence as an
exception to the hearsay rule when the following
As stated, Salafranca fled after stabbing
requisites concur: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is
Bolanon. He evaded arrest for a long period, despite the
a startling occurrence; (b) the statements were made
warrant for his arrest being issued. He was
before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
finally arrested on April 23, 2003, and detained at the
(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in
Manila City Jail.
HELD:
The Court further notes Estaos testimony on
the utterance by Bolanon of statements identifying
Salafranca as his assailant right after the stabbing
incident. The testimony follows:
Q Can you tell what happened on the said date?
A My nephew arrived in our house with a stab wound on
his left chest.
Q What time was that?
A 12:50 a.m.
Q When you saw your nephew with a stab wound, what
did he say?
A Tito dalhin mo ako sa Hospital sinaksak ako.
Q What did you do?
A I immediately dressed up and brought him to PGH.
Q On the way to the PGH what transpired?
A While traveling toward PGH I asked my nephew who
stabbed him?, and he answered, Rod Salafranca.
Q Do you know this Rod Salafranca?
A Yes, Sir.
Q How long have you known him?
A Matagal na ho kasi mag-neighbor kami.
Q If you see him inside the courtroom will you be able to
identify him?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Will you look around and point him to us?
A (Witness pointing to a man who answered by the name
of Rod Salafranca.)
COURT
When he told you the name of his assailant what was his
condition?
A He was suffering from hard breathing so I told him not
to talk anymore because he will just suffer more.
Q What happened when you told him that?
A He kept silent.
Q What time did you arrive at the PGH?
A I cannot remember the time because I was already
confused at that time.
Q When you arrived at the PGH what happened?
A He was brought to Emergency Room.
Q When he was brought to the emergency room what
happened?
A He was pronounced dead.[17]
It appears from the foregoing testimony that
Bolanon had gone to the residence of Estao, his uncle, to
seek help right after being stabbed by Salafranca;
that Estao had hurriedly dressed up to bring his nephew
to the Philippine General Hospital by taxicab; that on the
way to the hospital, Estao had asked Bolanon who had
stabbed him, and the latter had told Estao that his
assailant had been Salafranca; that at the time of the
utterance Bolanon had seemed to be having a hard time
breathing, causing Estao to advise him not to talk
anymore; and that about ten minutes after his admission
at the emergency ward of the hospital, Bolanon had
expired and had been pronounced dead.
Such circumstances qualified the utterance of
Bolanon as both a dying declaration and as part of
the res gestae, considering that the Court has recognized
that the statement of the victim an hour before his death
and right after the hacking incident bore all the earmarks
either of a dying declaration or part of the res
gestae either of which was an exception to the hearsay
rule.[18]
DYING DECLARATION
A dying declaration, although generally
inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character,
may nonetheless be admitted when the following
requisites concur, namely:
(a) that the declaration must concern the
cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarants death;
(b) that at the time the declaration is made,
the declarant is under a consciousness of an
impending death;
(c) that the declarant is competent as a
witness; and
(d) that the declaration is offered in a criminal
case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the
declarant is a victim.[19]
All the requisites were met herein. Bolanon
communicated his ante-mortem statement to Estao,
identifying Salafranca as the person who had stabbed
him. At the time of his statement, Bolanon was conscious
of his impending death, having sustained a stab wound in
the chest and, according to Estao, was then experiencing
great difficulty in breathing. Bolanon succumbed in the
hospital emergency room a few minutes from admission,
which occurred under three hours after the stabbing.
There is ample authority for the view that the
declarants belief in the imminence of his death can be
shown by the declarants own statements or from
circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of his
wounds, statements made in his presence, or by
the opinion of his physician.[20] Bolanon would have
been competent to testify on the subject of the
declaration had he survived. Lastly, the dying declaration
was offered in this criminal prosecution for murder in
which Bolanon was the victim.
RES GESTAE
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.[21]
The requisites for admissibility of a declaration as part of
the res gestae concur herein. Surely, when he gave the
identity of the assailant to Estao, Bolanon was referring to
a startling occurrence, i.e., his stabbing by
Salafranca. Bolanon was then on board the taxicab that
would bring him to the hospital, and thus had no time to
contrive his identification of Salafranca as the assailant.
His utterance about Salafranca having stabbed him was
made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the
startling occurrence. The statement was relevant
because it identified Salafranca as the perpetrator.
The term res gestae has been defined as those
circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a
particular litigated act and which are admissible when
illustrative of such act.[22] 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.[23]
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.[24]
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.[25]
YRUMA vs PEOPLE
FACTS:
Petitioner Pepito Capila was a security guard
of the Lanting Security and Watchman Agency assigned
in the Meralco Collection Office
on J.P. Rizal Street, Makati City.
On May 9, 1992, Ariel Arellano and Lani Imperio, both
employees of the Pilipinas Bank, Libertad Branch
in Pasay City, went to the Meralco Collection Office to
receive and deposit cash collections from Meralcos 27
collectors.
The total collection for that day amounted
to P1,292,991.12. They then placed the money inside a
duffle bag table and had it padlocked. Then they waited
for the Pilipinas Banks armored car to arrive. The security
guard posted at the Meralco Collection Office at the time
was Dimas dela Cruz, also from the Lanting Security and
Watchman Agency.
Before the armored car could arrive, two armed men
suddenly entered the Meralco Collection Office. They
hit Dimas on the nape with a handgun. Then they ordered
Ariel and Lani to lie on the floor face down and
immediately took the duffle bag containing Meralcos cash
collections. They also seized three .38 caliber revolvers,
valued at P6,000.00 each, owned by the Lanting Security
and Watchman Agency, including the service handgun
issued to Dimas.
After the malefactors fled, Dimas told Ariel that petitioner
was one of those who robbed the
office. Then Dimas called the Makati Police Sub-Station 9,
the Meralco Security Division, and the Lanting Security
and Watchman Agency to report the incident.
The Makati Police dispatched SPO4 Romualdo Maximo to
investigate the robbery, while the Lanting Security and
Watchman Agency instructed its intelligence
officer, Edgardo Irigayen, to talk to the guard on duty.
SPO4 Maximo, accompanied by a police photographer, a
fingerprint technician, and another policeman, arrived
within ten minutes at the Meralco Collection Office. He
questioned Ariel and Lani, but they could not identify the
robbers as they were lying face down on the floor.
Upon inquiry by SPO4 Maximo, Dimas told him that one of
the robbers is petitioner, also a security guard of
the Lanting Security and Watchman Agency assigned in
the Meralco Collection Office.
Thereafter, SPO4 Maximo invited Dimas, Lani and Ariel to
the police station for the purpose of taking their sworn
statements.
Irigayen, the intelligence officer of the Lanting Security
and Watchman Agency, also questioned Dimas. The latter
reported that Pepito Capila is one of the robbers.
After the incident, petitioner fled to his hometown
in Palapag, Northern Samar. The Lanting Security and
Watchman Agency then requested SPO4 Maximo and his
team to go to Northern Samar to apprehend Capila.
In Northern Samar, the police operatives, with the
assistance of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical
Unit, arrested petitioner, his brother Bonifacio Capila,
and DeogenioCaparoso. The police found P5,000.00 in
possession of petitioner allegedly part of the loot. All the
suspects were arrested without warrants.
SPO4 Maximo interrogated petitioner who admitted that
he participated in the commission of the crime; that his
share of the loot is P45,000.00; and that Dimas is the
mastermind.
After the prosecution had rested its case, all the accused,
through counsel, filed a Demurrer to Evidence but it was
denied by the trial court.
When the case was called for the continuation of the
hearing on November 15, 1994, the accused waived their
right to present their evidence, opting to submit their
respective memoranda instead.
 (1) that the principal act or the res gestae be
On January 3, 1995, the trial court rendered its Decision a startling occurrence;
acquitting all the accused, except petitioner.
(2) the statement is spontaneous or was
ISSUE: made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise,
The fundamental issue for our resolution is and the statement is made during the occurrence or
whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of immediately or subsequent thereto; and
herein petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
(3) the statement made must concern the
HELD: occurrence in question and its immediately attending
A careful scrutiny of the records shows that circumstances.[5]
the prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of
SPO4 Maximo that immediately after the The Court of Appeals found that all the above
incident, Dimas reported to him that one of the robbers is requisites are present, thus:
petitioner. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the court a First. The principal
quos judgment convicting petitioner, ruled act is a startling occurrence
that Dimas statement is part of the res gestae. which is the robbery in
In the appellees brief, the Solicitor General question.
reiterated the appellate courts ruling. Second. Dimas Del
a Cruz informed the
Res gestae is a Latin phrase which literally investigating officers that it was
means things done. As an exception to the hearsay rule, appellant who robbed
it refers to those exclamations and statements by either the Meralco office immediately
the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime after the incident occurred and
immediately before, during or immediately after the before he had the time to
commission of the crime, when the circumstances are contrive a story.
such that the statements were made as spontaneous
reactions or utterances inspired by the excitement of the The robbery
occasion, and there was no opportunity for the declarant happened at around eight
to deliberate and fabricate a false statement.[3] oclock in the evening of August
9, 1993 (p. 4, TSN, February 24,
REASON: 1994).
Immediately after
The reason for the rule is human the incident, dela Cruz called up
experience. It has been shown that under certain the police station (p. 17, TSN,
external circumstances of physical or mental January 31, 1994). In ten
shock, the state of nervous excitement which minutes, SPO4 Maximo and his
occurs in a spectator may produce a spontaneous companion were in
and sincere response to the actual sensations and the Meralco office where they
perceptions produced by the external shock. immediately conducted an
investigation (pp. 3-9,
As the statements or utterances are made TSN, February 24, 1994).During
under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the this investigation, DELA Cruz
senses, rather than reason and reflection, such pointed to appellant as one of
statements or utterances may be taken as expressing the the perpetrators of the crime.
real belief of the speaker as to the facts he just observed. Further,
The spontaneity of the declaration is such that the immediately after the robbers
declaration itself may be regarded as the event speaking fled, dela Cruz informed Ariel
through the declarant rather than the declarant speaking Arellano (the bank
for himself.[4] representative detailed at
The rule on res gestae is provided under the Meralco office) that
Section 42, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, thus: appellant was one of those who
SEC. 42. Part of the robbed the office (pp. 15-17,
res gestae. Statements made by TSN, January 31, 1994).
a person while a startling In other words,
occurrence is taking place or statement of dela Cruz was
immediately prior or subsequent spontaneous as correctly
thereto with respect to the observed by the trial court.
circumstances thereof, may be Third. The
given in evidence as part of statement of dela Cruz refers to
the res gestae. So, also the robbery or incident subject
statements accompanying an matter of this case.
equivocal act material to the
issue, and giving it a legal We are in accord with the Court of Appeals in
significance, may be received as its conclusion that all the requisites of the rule
part of the res gestae. on res gestae are present.

For the admission of the res gestae in The principal act, which by any measure is
evidence, the following requisites must be met: undoubtedly a startling occurrence, is the robbery of
which petitioner is being charged. Immediately after the Evidence provides:
robbery, Dimas dela Cruz, the security guard then on Sec. 32. Admission
duty, informed Ariel that one of the perpetrators is herein by silence . An act or
petitioner. Dimas likewise reported at once the incident to declaration made in the
the police and to the security agency. When questioned presence and within the hearing
by SPO4 Maximo, Dimas, who was still shocked, or observation of a party who
named petitioner herein as one of the robbers. does or says nothing when the
act or declaration is such as
His statements to Ariel and naturally to call for action or
SPO4 Maximo were made before he had the time and comment if not true, and when
opportunity to concoct and contrive a false story. We note proper and possible for him to
that Dimas personally knows petitioner considering that do so, may be given in evidence
both worked in the same security agency and assigned in against him.
the same office. Another factor that militates against
Applying the above ruling on the instant petitioners innocence is his flight to Samar after the
case, we cannot consider the testimony of commission of the crime. Obviously, such flight is an
SPO4 Maximo as hearsay since the statement indication of guilt.
of Dimas that petitioner is one of the robbers is part of Verily, we hold that the prosecution, by its
the res gestae. evidence, has established the guilt of petitioner beyond
Moreover, despite the damaging testimonies reasonable doubt.
of the witnesses for the prosecution, petitioner did not
testify to rebut them. Such posture is admission in
silence.
Section 32, Rule 130 of the New Rules on