GR 33049; (November, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33049 November 29, 1976
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GUILLERMO PUTIAN, alias GUIRMO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution of Guillermo Putian for the murder of Teodulo Panimdim was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the stabbing. The evidence presented consisted of the medical testimony on the fatal wound and the testimony of Patrolman Arturo Yap. Yap arrested Putian near the crime scene while he was in possession of a dagger, which the doctor testified could have caused the victim’s wound. Crucially, Yap took down an ante-mortem statement from the victim at a clinic shortly after the incident. In that statement, the victim identified his assailant as “Guirmo,” to which Yap added the surname “Putian,” knowing him to be the only person by that nickname in the locality. The defense presented a lone witness who testified that Putian was inside a dance hall when the stabbing occurred outside, but Putian himself did not testify.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the circumstantial evidence, particularly the victim’s ante-mortem statement, is sufficient to prove Putian’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A secondary issue is the proper classification of the crime, whether it constitutes murder or homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The Court upheld the trial court’s ruling that the victim’s statement, made shortly after the startling event of the stabbing while he was receiving initial treatment, was admissible as part of the res gestae under Rule 130, Section 36 of the Rules of Court. The declaration was made under the continuing influence of the exciting occurrence, leaving no time for fabrication, and no motive was shown for the victim to falsely accuse Putian. This statement, coupled with the recovery of the dagger from Putian and the medical evidence, formed a sufficient chain of circumstantial evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as the manner of attack was not established. The crime was therefore homicide. The Court also correctly rejected the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, as it was not deliberately sought. Putian was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen years of reclusion temporal medium as maximum, and ordered to pay an indemnity of P12,000.