G.R. No. 163217 18
April 2006
FACTS:
On 04 November 1998, after Lito Santos had served his wife
Cecilia and Artemio Pantinople with lunch, Artemio returned to his store which
was five (5) meters away from Santos’ house.
At about 7:30 in the evening, Santos was eating lunch in his house when he
heard a gunshot. Artemio had been shot
on the chest. He shouted at Santos
“Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil ko ni kapitan.” (Help me, Pre, I was shot by the
captain.) Lito saw a man running away
from the direction of Artemio’s store, but he wasn’t able to see his face. Artemio’s wife, Ernita, came running from her
house to her husband’s side upon seeing him sprawled on the ground and
bloodied. She had left her infant lying
on the kitchen floor in surprise. Ernita
shouted several times, “Kapitan, ngano nimo gipatay ang akong bana.” (Captain,
why did you shoot my husband?)
Barangay Captain Celestino Marturillas was invited by a
couple of police officers to the police station upon informing that he was the
principal suspect in the slaying of Artemio Pantinople. He also took with him his government-issued
M-14 Rifle and one magazine of live M-14 ammunition, and turned over the same
to the Bunawan PNP. To his defense, he
claimed that he was asleep in his home which was 250 meters away from Artemio’s
store. Further, he is said to have just
risen from bed when two Barangay Kagawads wanted to see him because of the
shooting incident. He even tried to approach Artemio’s family, but he could not
do so because they had turned belligerent at his presence.
During the trial of the case, Ernita positively identified
Marturillas as her husband’s assailant.
This positive identification is corroborated by Santos’ testimony and
expert witness Dr. Danilo Ledesma, a medico-legal officer for Davao City, that
the gunshot wound in Artemio’s body had been caused by a bullet that is of the
same size as that fired from an M-14 Rifle.
However, the same expert witness testified that Marturillas’ hands do
not contain gunpowder nitrates.
ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution’s evidence is credible and enough to
convict Marturillas of homicide.
RULING:
Ernita positively identified Marturillas as the one “running
away” immediately after the sound of a gunshot.
Certain that she had seen him, she even described what he was wearing,
the firearm he was carrying, and the direction towards which he was
running. She also clarified that she had
heard the statement, “help me pre, I was shot by the captain.” The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the
RTC and the CA that Ernita’s testimony is credible because the spot where
Artemio was shot was only 30 meters away from her house. The identification of a person can be
established through familiarity with one’s physical features. Once a person has gained familiarity with one
another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable
distance. Judicial notice can also be
taken of the fact that people in rural communities generally know each other
both by face and name, and can be expected to know each other’s distinct and
particular features and characteristics.
Settled is the rule that on questions of credibility of witnesses and
veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the
highest degree of respect.
It should be clear that Santos never testified that petitioner
was the one who had actually shot the victim. Still, the testimony of this
witness is valuable, because it validates the statements made by Ernita. He confirms that after hearing the gunshot, he
saw the victim and heard the latter cry out those same words.
Moreover, the statement of the victim is considered by the
Court as both a dying declaration and 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 res gestae. Res gestae refers to
statements made by the participants of the victims of, or the spectators to, a
crime immediately before, during, or after its commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction
or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any
opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. All the requisites of res gestae are present
in this case:
1.) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
2.) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or
devise; and
3.) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances.
Both the statements of the victim and Ernita can be considered res
gestae.
No comments:
Post a Comment