People v.

San Gabriel
G.R. No. L-107735
Feb 1, 1996

FACTS:
 Ricardo was charged with murder in an Information alleging that on 26 November
1989, armed with a bladed weapon, in conspiracy with "Ramon Doe," with
treachery, evident premeditation and intent to kill, he assaulted and stabbed to
death Jaime A. Tonog.
 TC convicted the accused.
 Seven o’clock in the evening in Manila, Manila, a fight ensued between Jaime
Tonog on one hand and the accused Ricardo San Gabriel together with "Ramon
Doe" on the other. The fight was eventually broken up when onlookers pacified the
protagonists.
 Ricardo and Ramon then hastened towards Marcos Road but in no time were back
with bladed weapons. They approached Tonog surreptitiously, surrounded him
and simultaneously stabbed him in the stomach and at the back, after which the
assailants ran towards the highway leaving Tonog behind on the ground. He was
then brought to Mary Johnston Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
o Medico-legal reported that the cadaver sustained two (2) penetrating stab
wounds each cause by a single-bladed instrument.
 Version of the Accused: He testified that he saw Tonog drunk. Tonog even
attempted to box him but he parried his blow. He then continued walking but when
he chanced upon Ramon he suddenly and without provocation boxed and kicked
Ramon. Ramon fought back but was subdued by his bigger assailant so the former
ran towards the highway. When Tonog met a certain "Mando" he boxed the latter
who however fought back despite his (accused) warning not to. At this moment
he saw Ramon return with a bolo on hand. He warned Ramon not to fight but his
advice went unheeded; instead, with bolo on hand Ramon struck Tonog on the
belly. When "Mando" saw what happened he pulled out his knife and also stabbed
Tonog at the back. Ramon and Mando then fled towards the highway.
 His main contention in this appeal is that the trial court erred in giving credence to
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Brenda Gonzales and Pio Ochobillo and
for discrediting his.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the accused can rely on the Advance Information Sheet alone as
proof for the fact that only a person named “Ramon Does” is the principal suspect
for the crime of murder- NO

HELD/RATIO:
 The arguments of the accused are that: (1) the fact that the witnesses did not
immediately report the incident to the police discredits them. This is not true since
reports were made albeit by different persons. (2) The accused banks on the
apparent inconsistency as to why Gonzales failed to give immediately her account
of the killing to the authorities. But the discrepancy is so minor that it cannot
 undermine her credibility nor detract from the truth that she personally witnessed
the incident and positively identified the accused.
 The accused leans heavily on the Advance Information Sheet 6 prepared by Pat.
Steve Casimiro which did not mention him at all and named only "Ramon Doe" as
the principal suspect. Unfortunately, this cannot defeat the positive and candid
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Entries in official records, as in the case
of a police blotter, are only prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. They
are not conclusive.
o The entry in the police blotter is not necessarily entitled to full credit for it
could be incomplete and inaccurate, sometimes from either partial
suggestions or for want of suggestions or inquiries, without the aid of which
the witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances
necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his memory and for
his accurate recollection of all that pertain to the subject.
o It is understandable that the testimony during the trial would be lengthier
and more detailed than the matters stated in the police blotter.
o The Advance Information Sheet was never formally offered by the defense
during the proceedings in the court below. Hence any reliance by the
accused on the document must fail since the court cannot consider any
evidence which has not been formally offered.
 Also, the Advance Information Sheet was prepared by the police officer only after
interviewing Camba, an alleged eyewitness. The accused then could have
compelled the attendance of Camba as a witness. The failure to exert the slightest
effort to present Camba on the part of the accused should militate against his
cause.
 Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer or
by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated.
o But to be admissible in evidence three (3) requisites must concur:
 The entry was made by a police officer or by another person specially
enjoined by law to do so;
 It was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties or
by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined
by law; and,
 The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the
facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him
personally or through official information.
 The Advance Information Sheet does not constitute an exception to the hearsay
rule, hence, inadmissible. The public officer who prepared the document had no
sufficient and personal knowledge of the stabbing incident. Any information
possessed by him was acquired from Camba which therefore could not be
categorized as official information because in order to be classified as such the
persons who made the statements not only must have personal knowledge of the
facts stated but must have the duty to give such statements for the record. In the
case of Camba, he was not legally so obliged to give such statements.
Other issues:
 The Court also stated that the accused did not offer any information regarding the
person and circumstances of "Mando." Up to this date "Mando" remains a myth.
Not a single witness was presented by the defense to prove who "Mando" was,
nor even a hint of his personal circumstances. During the entire proceedings in the
court below "Mando" was never mentioned by the prosecution witnesses. The
Court was convinced that Mando in fact existed only as a figment of the mind.
 The accused was arguing that Gonzales harbored a grudge against him since he
owed her some money and enticed others to patronize other carinderia. The Court
is not convinced by these reasons.
 The actuations that Gonzales only arrived at the scene after the victim was stabbed
is not believable since this was demolished by Gonzales’ detailed account of the
fight.