Shet.. sayang. Checking audio files of compilation of class lectures on my computer I have only recorded (using my smart phone) 2 lectures under Atty. De Jesus in my Remedial Law 2 class. Geez! to think that the guy is fast rising up as one of the best criminal lawyers in town and is such sharp individual where litigation is actually his forte, makes me cringe now thinking that I really should've (dang!) took advantage and recorded every single teeny-weeny bit of his lectures which were full of smart practical advice and suggestions on remedying certain situations you'd get yourself into in future practice. But good thing I recorded his lectures on TRIAL perse. But still I don't think it's enough. I hope he'd be commissioned by the school to conduct symposiums or lectures on actual law practice. Thing is, the school doesn't seem to have the resources to facilitate gatherings like this much less have good facilities that could address these kind of student needs. Let's talk about one of the best doctrines there is in Criminal Law particularly in inducement of Evidence. The legal maxim Res Gestae. You must've come across this latin word when you were in your freshmen year but never gave a damn meticulously looking at it's meaning since you know it will be tackled in your higher year once you get to Evidence.
RES GESTAE. What is Res Gestae? (Tae ni Res.. tsk tsk.. don't even go there) What is the Doctrine of Res Gestae?
The Latin root word means "things done" it means (As stated in.. the internet... I hope this is Black's Law Dictionary I'm lifting it from) all circumstances surrounding and connected with a happening.
Thus, the res gestae of a crime includes the immediate area and all occurrences and statements immediately after the crime. The doctrine provides that Statements made within the res gestae of a crime or accident may be admitted in court even though they are "hearsay" on the basis that spontaneous statements in those circumstances are reliable. In other words, res gestae is an exception to the Heresay Rule in our Rules of Evidence.
Example: May krimen na nangyare.. and nakita mo.. you're the lone witness to a killing of a bystander by a holdupper, matapos nyang patayen nakita ka nya, sinabe nya "pagmagsumbong ka ikaw ang isusunod ko". Came the authorities investigating, kaya natakot ka, sabe mo di mo nakita. So walang kasong na file. After 3 months pumunta ka sa police station, deniscribe mo yung assailant. So lalabas ngayon 2 magkaiba ang testimony mo. How does Res Gestae work? Ang Res Gestae ganito. Dahil takot ka magsalita sa first testimony mo.. the court will take judicial notice. "Ano ba.. takot ba to.. o ayaw magsalita o.. talagang walang nakita?".
Under the Hearsay rule kase courts normally refuses to admit as evidence statements that a witness says he or she heard another person say. The doctrine of res gestae provided an exception to this rule. Though previously a mere part of the common law Res gestae is now a doctrine used as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence based on the belief that, because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else and thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility. Res Gestae usually fall on 3 examples. 1. Words or phrases that either form part of, or explain, a physical act, 2. Exclamations that are so spontaneous as to belie concoction, and 3. Statements that are evidence of someone's state of mind. In other words it's not premeditated but must have some form of spontaneity.
Under the Hearsay rule kase courts normally refuses to admit as evidence statements that a witness says he or she heard another person say. The doctrine of res gestae provided an exception to this rule. Though previously a mere part of the common law Res gestae is now a doctrine used as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence based on the belief that, because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else and thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility. Res Gestae usually fall on 3 examples. 1. Words or phrases that either form part of, or explain, a physical act, 2. Exclamations that are so spontaneous as to belie concoction, and 3. Statements that are evidence of someone's state of mind. In other words it's not premeditated but must have some form of spontaneity.
Now the Case..
A case filed about January of 1994 submits two Informations, one for murder (under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code) and the other for violation of Presidential Decree 1866 (Illegal Possession of Unlicensed Firearm) at the Alaminos Pangasinan RTC against a certain NOEL NAVARRO. (Don't think about the Illegal Possession of Firearm too much, we'll focus more on the murder case. The violation of that special law was just used as an aggravating circumstance to raise the penalty 2 degrees higher, but there's nothing more to that)
Here's what happened..
On or about January 5 of 1991, in the evening, near Enoc Theater at Poblacion, Alaminos, Province of Pangasinan, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot FERDINAND RABADON several times which caused his instantaneous death.
How did this happen?..
Well According to the Prosecution side:
January 5, 1991, about 9 in the evening, Jose Rabago (this guy is the witness) went to Enoc Theater located at Poblacion, Alaminos, Pangasinan to view some movie pictures exhibited outside the theater (yung mga 'Now Showing', 'Coming Soon'). When he was about to go home on board his motorcycle, he was invited by Ferdinand Rabadon, (this is the guy who got killed) who was drinking beer inside Adela's Restaurant, to join him. Rabago obliged. (So obviously the two are good friends).
Later, Rabadon borrowed Rabago's motorcycle which he used in going to the bus terminal to check if his wife had already arrived from Zamboanga. Upon his return, Rabadon invited Rabago to Five Doors Disco (Pare tara disco tayo) but the latter opted to go home (Pagod na ako gusto ko na umuwe magpahinga eh amin na motor ko). Rabadon, who was still on the motorcycle holding its handle bars, offered to drive Rabago home (Okey sige tara uwi na tayo. Ako na magddrive angkas ka nalang pagod ka na eh).
When Rabago was about to mount the motorcycle, Noel Navarro and Ming Basial arrived. He was pushed by Ming Basila, causing him to fall on his buttocks, after which Basila shot Rabadon twice at the back. While Rabadon was already lying down with his leg pinned by the motorcycle, Noel Navarro shot him three (3) times.
So tinulak yun isa, binaril yung isa ng 5 times. twice dun sa isa, trice naman dun sa isa.. takbo ngayon yun tinulak.
Rabago ran away, but after noticing that Navarro and Basila left the scene, he returned and saw Rabadon dying and gasping for breath.
Rabago then saw Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon, (...bat naman itlog? mahilig ba sa itlog to?) a policeman, to whom he reported Rabadon's killing On January 6, 1991, Rabago was investigated by policeman Rolando Rabadon (Nu ba yan.. anu ba magkakamaganak ba to?) but he said that HE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING.
During the hearing of the case, (Which was held 3 years after) Rabago explained that he did not divulge the identities of the assailants for fear of his life. He claimed that some policemen in Alaminos, Pangasinan were members of the Aguila Gang which killed people. The gang allegedly led by one Ramon Navarro, accused's brother.
Okay.. unsolved case right? Fast forward 3 years after...
The NBI interrogated Rabago on January 3, 1994, three years after the said killing at which time, Rabago named Noel Navarro and Ming Basila as the authors of Rabadon's killing.
Now According to the Defense side:
Accused-Appellant Noel Navarro denied any participation in the killing, stating that..
On January 5, 1991, in the evening, Ferdinand Rabadon was shot to death near the Enoc Theater at Poblacion, Alaminos, Pangasinan. Almost immediately after the shooting incident, Jose Rabago reported the incident to one policeman, Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon, who was inside a restaurant near the Victory Liner Terminal. The policeman Rabadon responded by going to the place pointed to by Jose Rabago, but the victim was no longer at the place of the incident as he was brought to the hospital. Later, Jose Rabago was investigated by policeman Rolando "Lando" Rabadon regarding the shooting incident, but Jose Rabago, when asked, told policeman Rolando "Lando" Rabadon that HE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING. Considering the negative result of the police investigation, no case was filed by the police against anybody for the shooting to death of Ferdinand Rabadon.
"Three (3) years later, on January 5, 1994, at about 8:00 o' clock in the evening, a composite team of the NBI served a search warrant and warrant of arrest to Ramon Navarro, brother of accused-appellant in his residence and failing to find Ramon Navarro, the composite team of the NBI went to the house where accused-appellant was staying where they saw Noel Navarro. Accused-appellant was searched, but nothing was found in his body. Accused-appellant was arrested right then and there without any warrant of arrest shown to him by the NBI. In fact, it was admitted that the NBI composite team at the time had no warrant of arrest against accused-appellant.
The NBI composite team boarded accused-appellant in a white van and was brought to the house of Congressman Hernani Braganza in Alaminos, Pangasinan. Later, the NBI composite team went to Lucap, Alaminos, Pangasinan to fetch Fiscal Rabina and from there, they all proceeded to the police station of Alaminos, Pangasinan.
The following day, January 6, 1994, Prosecutor Rabina filed the Information charging accused-appellant of murder for allegedly killing Ferdinand Rabadon on January 5, 1991, three (3) years earlier, without conducting a preliminary investigation. Also filed an Information for violation of P.D. 1866.
The defense presented three witnesses: Jose Rabago, who recanted his previous testimony; NBI Director Teodoro Galang, who testified as to the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the appellant without warrant; and Noel Navarro, the appellant himself.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
Accused assisted by his counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and filed for petition for bail. A protracted full-blown hearing was ensued, and the prosecution and defense presented their respective witnesses and documentary evidence. The petition was denied. Instead the lower court rendered an assailed decision declaring accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and to suffer the single and indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. And to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P50,000.00.
But the court considered the illegal possession of firearm subject of the Information merely as an aggravating circumstance considering that the alleged firearm used was not recovered by the authorities and never presented in court.
The appellant contends that the lower court committed errors: So obviously there were issues of Illegal Arrest, Illegal Possession of Fire Arms, Credibility and Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence, and Res Gestae. Let's center on the issue of Res Gestae.
ISSUE:
Did the trial court erred in not considering the report of Prosecution Witness Jose Rabago to policeman Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon and the result of the investigation conducted by Policeman Rolando "Lando" Rabadon that his companion was killed, but did not tell policeman Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon that accused-appellant and one Ming Basila killed the deceased, as part of the RES GESTAE;
RULING:
Court said the appeal is devoid of merit.
The appellant contends that, in considering the statements which Rabago gave to both SPO2 Virgilio Rabadon and Patrolman Rolando Rabadon, the trial court erred in concluding that such statements were not part of res gestae.
At the outset, it must be stated that res gestae pertains to the admissibility of evidence, and not to its weight and sufficiency. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
The Court defined Res Gestae as follows:
"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 the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
Rabago's statement to SPO2 Rabadon that someone had killed his companion can be considered part of the res gestae, and is thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. It was a spontaneous statement that was made right after a startling occurrence and that refers to such occurrence. However, the same cannot be said of his statement to Patrolman Rabadon, as it lacked the requisite spontaneity, having been given in answer to questions propounded in an investigation, a day after the incident in question.
The appellant seems to imply that when Rabago reported the incident to SPO2 Rabadon, Rabago's silence regarding the identity of the killers created doubt as to the appellant's culpability for such killing and, thus, should have been likewise considered by the lower court in appellant's favor as part of the res gestae. This proposition deserves scant consideration. Such omission cannot be taken to mean that appellant was NOT the culprit. The witness was simply silent as to the identity of the assailant. Such omission, as has been discussed, can be attributed to Rabago's fear of the Navarros.
WITNESSES' DELAYED REPORTING OF WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT A CRIME DOES NOT RENDER THEIR TESTIMONIES FALSE OR INCREDIBLE, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. But more than this, there is always the inherent fear of reprisal, which is quite understandable, especially if the accused is a man of power and influence in the community.
Actually in People v. Vias, it was held that "the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case, as well as to give information to the authorities is a matter of judicial notice."
The argument does not persuade. True, Rabago did not mention the name of the appellant when he reported the killing to both SPO2 Virgilio Rabadon and Patrolman Rolando Rabadon however, he explained that he was apprehensive about talking to the police, as he suspected that some of them were members of the dreaded Aguila Gang
Here's the transcription of the cross-examination..
Q: Mr. Witness, when you were asked by policeman Lando Rabadon about what you learned of the shooting to death of Boyet Rabadon, you told him you did not see anything, why did you tell policeman Lando Rabadon that you did not see anything?
Mister Wetness.. wen yu wer aaaahhh askd by deee pulisman.. a cerrrtain aaaahh... SPO2 Lando Rrrrabadon... yu told hem yo dead nut sii anything for dat materrr. Why did yu tell polisman Landa Rabadonnnn dat yuuu.. dat yuuu ded not see anything.... der you arrr... answerrr my question LOL..
(This is the beauty of the court litigation... kung sino yung madalas mag-carabao english yun yung usually ha.. pinakamagaling na criminal lawyer... at saka yung... pinakamalakas magmura hahahaha.. naampucha... these are the ones that are seasoned lawyers.. and have been to courtroom battles in and out and could really show you true battle scars)
A: I was afraid, sir. (I was afred ser)
Q: And why were you afraid? (An why wer yu afred?.. will yu tel dee honorable court why wer yu afred?)
A: I did not have confidence in the police. (I did nat hab cmpindence.. en da polis)
Q: Didn't you have confidence in the police? (Wen yu say yu did nat hab conpdens on da polis.. wat ar yu toking about?)
A: Because some policemen are members of Aguila.
Q: And what is Aguila?
A: Aguila gang, sir. (Agela gang ser)
Q: What is the Aguila gang? (Gad demet wat ar yu toking about misterrr aaah.. witnes? wat is ahh.. agela gang? is dat the same as the ah DDS.. the so-called Dabaw deth squad?) LOL
A: It is killing people, sir. (I know it is killing pipol.. but ar dey killing dose suspected wid aaah... wid aaah... aaahh.. drug use.. orr shall we col your honorr aah.. substance abuse?)
He further testified to the pervasive climate of fear engulfing his town:
Q: In your affidavit, Mr. Witness, you mentioned that there were other witnesses to the killing. According to you, on January 5, 1994, there were other witnesses and your answer was "yes", but nobody there talked anymore due to fear for their lives.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what about your statement that these other witnesses fear for their lives, was that not your statement in your sworn statement? (An wat about yorr stetment dat this other witneses fffffeear for ther liiiiiiiives... was dat nat yorrr aaaah... stetment in yor own sworrn stetment.. misterrr aaah.. wetness?)
A: Yes, sir, they are afraid.
Q: And what about you, are you not afraid of the Navarros?
A: I am afraid, sir.
Q: Are you saying, Mr. Witness, that a lot of people here in Alaminos are afraid of the Navarros?
A: Yes, sir.
Der yu arrr your honorr ah este...
With regard to Rabago's recantation of his previous testimony as a prosecution witness, narrating the killing of Rabadon and identifying the appellant as one of the malefactors, suffice it to say that this earlier testimony was clear, candid and consistent, as shown hereunder:
Q: After Ming Basila shot Boyet Rabadon, what happened next?
A: Noel Navarro followed.
Q: What did Noel Navarro do after Ming Basila shot Rabadon from behind?
A: Boyet Rabadon was already lying down and he shot him.
Q: You said that Noel Navarro shot Ferdinand Rabadon, how many times did Noel Navarro shoot Boyet Rabadon?
A: Thrice, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, considering that it was about nine o' clock in the evening when Ming Basila and Noel Navarro shot Boyet Rabadon, how were you able to see Basila and Noel Navarro shoot Boyet Rabadon?
A: There was a light, sir.
Q: How many lights were there?
A: About three.
Q: How far were you from Boyet Rabadon when Ming Basila and Noel Navarro shot him?
A: About three steps, sir.
This was one of the most credible witnesses that ever stood on the witness stand. Considering that Rabago had three different testimonies, and have recanted his statements at the course of the case, and the Doctrine of Res Gestae had to be applied? The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling finding consistency is his testimony.
It must be stressed also that Rabago's testimony was compatible with the findings of Dr. Francisco E. Viray, the medicolegal officer who autopsied the victim's body. Rabago said that Rabadon had been shot five times, once in the nape and four times in other parts of his body. Such details of his testimony as a prosecution witness, aside from the fact that no ill motive or bias was ascribed to him by the appellant, lends earmarks of truth to said testimony.
