PEOPLE vs. CIRILO OPOSCULO Jr.

PEOPLE vs. CIRILO OPOSCULO Jr. (case digest)

G.R. No. 124572.  November 20, 2000

By: Elro Mar L. Tabiliran

FACTS: At around 5:00 p.m. of October 13, 1990, Glorito Aquino and his nephew Henry Cuevas arrived at a birthday party at Alos, Alaminos, Pangasinan. Two hours later, or at around 7:00 p.m., they decided to leave and walked their way towards the house of Glorito which was more than a kilometer away.

As they were nearing the church, two persons, one of them is the accused Cirilo, came out of the church gate and talked to Glorito, who invited the two to walk with them.  However, these two persons refused their invitation and went back to the gate.

Moments later, Glorito and Henry stopped at a store owned by one of the accused Ernesto Fernandez, Sr. to buy cigarettes.  Five persons were drinking in front of the store.  The two persons whom they met at the church gate then arrived.  Glorito asked them why they did not walk with him and his nephew earlier.  Accused Cirilo answered that they did not recognize him.  As Glorito and Cirilo kept discussing on that issue, accused Ernesto went out of his store and held the hands of Glorito behind the latter’s back.  Accused Cirilo then went in front of Glorito and pulled out something from his waist.  The five persons drinking stood up and mauled Glorito.  Then accused Cirilo lunged a bladed weapon at Glorito who shouted at his nephew Henry to run because he (Glorito) was hit.

Henry scampered for safety but after running about thirty (30) to forty (40) meters from the store, he looked back and saw Glorito running away and falling to the ground soon thereafter.  Henry approached Glorito and attempted to bring him to the hospital, but Glorito was dead.  So Henry rushed to Glorito’s house to inform the latter’s wife, Milagros Bulseco, of her husband’s death.

PNP SPO4 Victor Abarra, a cousin and neighbor of the victim Glorito, heard Glorito’s wife and Henry Cuevas crying inside her house.  He went to her house where he learned from Henry that accused Cirilo Oposculo stabbed Glorito. Victor Abarra then proceeded to the store of accused Ernesto and found the dead body of Glorito fifty (50) meters away from the store.  He noticed bloodstains on the bamboo slots of the store.

Later in the evening, policemen arrived at the scene to investigate the incident.  Senior Police Inspector Abarra called accused Ernesto from the latter’s house and asked who the attackers of Glorito were.  Accused Ernesto, pale and holding both his hands, replied that Glorito’s assailants were accused Cirilo, Wilfredo Baracas and Jaime Baril.

During trial, Henry only testified only against Cirilo’s direct participation in stabbing Glorito. Abarra testified upon the participation of Wilfredo and Jaime of the crime based upon the statement of Ernesto during his interrogation.

On Appleal, Wilfredo and Jaime contended that their implication on the crime is based upon hearsay evidence and thus inadmissible. However the prosecutor argued that it is an exception to the rule, being part of the res gestae.  

ISSUE: Whether Senior Police Inspector Abarra’s testimony that accused Ernesto told him about Wilfredo Baracas and Jaime Baril’s participation of the crime admissible as evidence which forms part of the res gestae?

RULING: No. Only Cirilo should be convicted as only he is pointed by Henry to have participated in the killing. Accused-appellants Wilfredo and Jaime were implicated in the crime on the basis of the testimony of SPO4 Abarra who, in turn, got his information as to their participation from accused Ernesto.  Senior Police Officer Abarra’s testimony is clearly hearsay evidence, as he had no personal knowledge of how Glorito’s killing took place.  The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else had told him, whether orally or in writing.

The trial court erred in admitting Senior Police Officer Abarra’s testimony by applying the rule on res gestae.  The rule of res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify provided that the testimony of the witness who heard the declarant complies with the following requisites: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances.

There are two (2) reasons why the rule of res gestae can not apply in this case.  First, ccused Ernesto, the declarant, testified in court and stated that he saw accused-appellants Wilfredo and Jaime with accused-appellant Cirilo at his store on that fateful night of October 13, 1990.  But accused Ernesto did not say that accused-appellants Wilfredo and Jaime participated in Glorito’s killing.  And second, an appreciable amount of time had elapsed from the time of the killing and the arrival of Senior Police Officer Abarra at his store to whom he gave his statement identifying accused-appellants Wilfredo and Jaime as companions of accused Cirilo.  Accused Ernesto could have contrived his story implicating accused-appellants Wilfredo and Jaime in the crime during the interregnum.