Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33049)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Guillermo Putian, G.R. No. L-33049, November 29, 1976, Supreme Court Second Division, Aquino, J., wrote for the Court.The accused-appellant, Guillermo Putian (alias Guirmo), was charged in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental (Criminal Case No. 6762) with the stabbing of Teodulo Panimdim on November 22, 1969 at a barrio dance in Tabo‑o, Jimenez, Misamis Occidental. Panimdim sustained a stab wound in the left groin which penetrated the abdomen; he underwent an operation on November 23 and died on November 27, 1969. The trial court found Putian guilty of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered indemnity of P12,000 to the heirs.
At trial the prosecution offered two witnesses: the attending physician, who testified as to the wound and cause of death (Exh. A), and Patrolman Arturo Yap, who testified that he arrested Putian with a two‑bladed dagger and scabbard (Exhs. B and B‑1) and who recorded Panimdim’s ante‑mortem statement (Exh. C) in which the victim named “Guirmo” as his assailant. Patrolman Yap explained that he supplied the surname “Putian” because he knew no other person called Guirmo in the locality.
Putian did not testify. The defense presented one witness, Anacleto Taporco, who claimed that Putian remained inside the dance hall when Panimdim was stabbed outside; Taporco thus offered an alibi. The trial court admitted the ante‑mortem statement as part of the res gestae (not as a dying declaration) and credited it, disbelieved the alibi, convicted Putian of murder, and imposed the above penalties.
Putian appealed to the Supreme Court. The principal legal questions were whether Panimdim’s ante‑mortem statement was admissible as res gestae and whether the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Panimdim’s ante‑mortem statement admissible as part of the res gestae and sufficient, together with other evidence, to prove Putian’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- If guilt was proven, was the appropriate crime murder or homicide, and were any aggravating circumstances (nocturnity, t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)