C3h- 7

People v. Feliciano
GR No. 196735
May 5, 2014

LEONEN, J.:

Same; Same; Same; As a general rule, a witness can testify only to the facts he knows of
his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception.—As a general rule,
“[a] witness can testify only to the facts he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception, x x x.” All other kinds of testimony are hearsay and are
inadmissible as evidence. The Rules of Court, however, provide several exceptions to the general
rule, and one of which is when the evidence is part of res gestae, thus: Section 42. Part of res
gestae.—Statements made by a person while a starting 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. 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.

Same; Same; Res Gestae; Considering that the statements of the bystanders were made
immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res
gestae.—There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group peacefully eating lunch on a school
campus is a startling occurrence. Considering that the statements of the bystanders were made
immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res
gestae.

Same; Same; Res Gestae; View that the statement of the bystanders, made while some of
the wounded were bleeding there and the excitement lingered, may be given in evidence as part
of the res gestae.—The statement of the bystanders, made while some of the wounded were
bleeding there and the excitement lingered, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.
Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence provides: Sec. 42. Part of the 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 the res gestae.
x x x These statements are spontaneous reactions inspired by the excitement of the moment. It may
be assumed that, unlike tardy witnesses, the bystanders who made the statements had no
opportunity to deliberate or fabricate. The words they uttered are part of the commotion they
described. The res gestae contradicts the attempt of prosecution witnesses to show that a number
of the attackers wore masks or that identification was possible because the masks of some fell off.

7 Members of Sigma Rho Frat:

1. Leandro (Lachica) 5. Cristobal (Gaston, Jr)
2. Arnel (Fortes) 6. Felix (Tumaneng)
3. Dennis (Venturina) 7. Cesar (Mangrobang, Jr.)
4. Mervin (Natalicio)
FACTS:
On December 8, 1994, while seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating
lunch near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, they were suddenly
attacked with baseball bats and lead pipes by men believed to be members of Scintilla Juris
Fraternity. The assailants’ heads were covered with either handkerchiefs or shirts and the
commotion lasted about thirty (30) to forty-five (45) seconds. The victims were brought to the UP
Infirmary while the attackers fled. Dennis Venturina, one of the victims, was transferred to St. Luke’s
Hospital that very night. He died on December 10. On the 11th, an autopsy was conducted on his
cadaver and the NBI medico-legal concluded that Venturina died of traumatic head injuries
.
An information for murder was filed against twelve members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity with
the RTC of Quezon City. Separate informations were also filed against them for the attempted
murder of 3 Sigma Rho fraternity members, and the frustrated murder of 2 Sigma Rho fraternity
members. Only 11 of the accused stood trial since one of the accused remained at large.
In 2002, the trial court rendered its decision with the findings that only 5 of the twelve
accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder and were
sentenced to, among other penalties, the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The case against one
accused was ordered archived by the court until his apprehension.
Because one of the penalties meted out was reclusion perpetua, the case was brought to
the SC on automatic appeal. However, due to the amendment of the Rules on Appeal, the case was
remanded to the Court of Appeals.
On December 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in a Special First Division of Five, affirmed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court, but downgraded the attempted murder case to slight physical
injuries. The decision of the Court of Appeals was then brought to the SC for review.
It is the argument of appellants that the information filed against them violates their
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. They
argue that the prosecution should not have included the phrase “wearing masks and/or other forms
of disguise” in the information since they were presenting testimonial evidence that not all the
accused were wearing masks or that their masks fell off.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the RTC and CA correctly ruled, on the basis of the evidence, that accused-
appellants were sufficiently identified.

HELD:
Yes.

The Court held that the accused were sufficiently identified by the witnesses for the prosecution. It
was held that the trial court, in weighing all the evidence on hand, found the testimonies of the
witnesses for the prosecution to be credible. Slight inconsistencies in their statements were
immaterial considering the swiftness of the incident.

Evidence as part of the res gestae may be admissible but have little persuasive value in this case
According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer Salvador, when he arrived at the scene, he
interviewed the bystanders who all told him that they could not recognize the attackers since they
were all masked. This, it is argued, could be evidence that could be given as part of the res gestae.

There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group peacefully eating lunch on a school campus is a
startling occurrence. Considering that the statements of the bystanders were made immediately
after the startling occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res gestae.

The statements made by the bystanders, although admissible, have little persuasive value since the
bystanders could have seen the events transpiring at different vantage points and at different points
in time. Even Frisco Capilo, one of the bystanders at the time of the attack, testified that the
attackers had their masks on at first, but later on, some remained masked and some were unmasked.

When the bystanders’ testimonies are weighed against those of the victims who witnessed the
entirety of the incident from beginning to end at close range, the former become merely
corroborative of the fact that an attack occurred. Their account of the incident, therefore, must be
given considerably less weight than that of the victims.

Accused-appellants were correctly charged with murder, and there was treachery in the commission
of the crime

The victims in this case were eating lunch on campus. They were not at a place where they would
be reasonably expected to be on guard for any sudden attack by rival fraternity men.

The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead pipes and baseball bats. The only way
they could parry the blows was with their arms. In a situation where they were unarmed and
outnumbered, it would be impossible for them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also
happened in less than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the bystanders being able
to help them until after the incident.

The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate or
even to defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, was present in this case.