People v. Putian
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Guillermo Putian was accused of murder for stabbing Teodulo Panimdim on November 22, 1969, at Barrio Tabo-o, Jimenez, Misamis Occidental. Panimdim sustained a stab wound in the left groin and died five days later due to toxemia secondary to general peritonitis. Patrolman Arturo Yap arrested Putian near the scene with a dagger and scabbard. He also took an ante-mortem statement from the victim, Teodulo Panimdim, who identified "Guirmo" Putian as his assailant. The victim described the stabbing as occurring outside a dance hall at approximately 11:30 P.M. The victim's wound was certified by a doctor to be a stab wound in the left groin that penetrated the abdomen and punctured the large intestine, causing death. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental found Guillermo Putian guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Teodulo Panimdim. The trial court considered the victim's ante-mortem statement as part of the res gestae and did not give credence to the defense's alibi. The Petition: Guillermo Putian appealed the decision, raising two issues: whether the prosecution's evidence established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and if so, whether the offense committed was murder or homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution's evidence establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the offense committed is murder or homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. It affirmed the conviction but reclassified the offense from murder to homicide. The appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. The indemnity of P12,000 was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court held that the trial court did not err in characterizing Panimdim's ante-mortem statement as part of the res gestae. The statement, taken by Patrolman Yap, identified "Guirmo" Putian as the assailant. Although Patrolman Yap added the surname "Putian" based on his knowledge of the locality, the Court found no evidence presented by the appellant to show that there were other persons named "Guirmo" in the area. The victim's statement was made while he was undergoing treatment and had no time to concoct a falsehood, and no motive was shown for him to frame up the appellant. The Court cited that a declaration made immediately after being wounded, pointing out the assailant, is admissible as part of the res gestae. The Court also noted that the appellant did not testify to refute the victim's declaration. On the issue of murder versus homicide: The Court found the appellant's contention that treachery was not proven to be meritorious. The evidence for the prosecution did not show the manner in which the wound was inflicted, thus precluding the appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. Consequently, the offense imputable to the appellant is homicide, not murder. The Court also correctly observed that the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, as it was not shown that nocturnity was purposely sought by the offender to facilitate the commission of the crime. Therefore, the crime was not attended by any modifying circumstances, leading to the imposition of an indeterminate penalty for homicide.
Main Doctrine
A statement made by a victim immediately after being wounded, identifying his assailant, can be admitted as part of the res gestae, even if made several hours after the incident, provided the exciting influence of the startling occurrence still continues in the declarant's mind and there was no time to concoct a falsehood. Treachery cannot be appreciated if the manner of inflicting the wound is not proven. Nocturnity is not aggravating if not purposely sought to facilitate the crime.