Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    PP v. Pena - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    shezeharadeyahoocom
    Pelagio was pistol-whipped and shot in the head by Ramil Peña after a robbery. At the hospital, Pelagio told SPO1 Bautista, the tricycle owner Lampa, and his mother Francisca that Peña was the assailant. The court admitted Pelagio's statement as res gestae but not as a dying declaration. It found that Pelagio's statement was made shortly after the startling event and he had no time to fabricate the story. However, the testimonies of SPO1 Bautista, Lampa, and Francisca regarding what Pelagio told them could not be considered part of res gestae.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PP v. Pena - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    shezeharadeyahoocom
    1K views2 pages
    Pelagio was pistol-whipped and shot in the head by Ramil Peña after a robbery. At the hospital, Pelagio told SPO1 Bautista, the tricycle owner Lampa, and his mother Francisca that Peña was the assailant. The court admitted Pelagio's statement as res gestae but not as a dying declaration. It found that Pelagio's statement was made shortly after the startling event and he had no time to fabricate the story. However, the testimonies of SPO1 Bautista, Lampa, and Francisca regarding what Pelagio told them could not be considered part of res gestae.

    Original Description:

    Evidence Digest

    Original Title

    54. Pp v. Pena_Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Pelagio was pistol-whipped and shot in the head by Ramil Peña after a robbery. At the hospital, Pelagio told SPO1 Bautista, the tricycle owner Lampa, and his mother Francisca that Peña was the assailant. The court admitted Pelagio's statement as res gestae but not as a dying declaration. It found that Pelagio's statement was made shortly after the startling event and he had no time to fabricate the story. However, the testimonies of SPO1 Bautista, Lampa, and Francisca regarding what Pelagio told them could not be considered part of res gestae.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    PP v. Pena - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    shezeharadeyahoocom
    Pelagio was pistol-whipped and shot in the head by Ramil Peña after a robbery. At the hospital, Pelagio told SPO1 Bautista, the tricycle owner Lampa, and his mother Francisca that Peña was the assailant. The court admitted Pelagio's statement as res gestae but not as a dying declaration. It found that Pelagio's statement was made shortly after the startling event and he had no time to fabricate the story. However, the testimonies of SPO1 Bautista, Lampa, and Francisca regarding what Pelagio told them could not be considered part of res gestae.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    54. [G.R. No. 133964.

     February 13, 2002]


    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMIL PEÑA, accused-
    appellant.
    DECISION

    Facts:

    Peña hired Pelagio, a tricycle driver. Upon reaching their destination, Peña robbed Pelagio’s
    money and repeatedly struck him on the head with a gun. Pelagio fell on the ground
    unconscious and Peña shot him on the head and fled on board the tricycle.

    Upon arriving at the hospital where Pelagio was rushed, SPO1 Bautista took the statement
    of Pelagio which states that Peña pistol-whipped him and almost shot him.

    The owner of the tricycle, Lampa, also went to the hospital and Pelagio told Lampa that it
    was Peña who shot him and took away his tricycle. Pelagio’s mother, Francisca, also
    rushed to the hospital.

    The trial court admitted Pelagio’s statement as a dying declaration. Peña claimed that the
    trial court took into consideration the testimonies or written statements of SPO1 Bautista,
    Lampa and Francisca as part of res gestae which should be inadmissible being hearsay.

    Issues:

    1. WON Pelagio’s statement to SPO1 Bautista, Lampa and Francisca constituted a dying
    declaration.
    2. WON Pelagio’s statement to SPO1 Bautista, Lampa and Francisca formed part of res
    gestae.
    3. WON the testimonies or written statements of SPO1 Bautista, Lampa and Francisca
    formed part of res gestae.

    Held:

    1. No, Pelagio’s statement to SPO1 Bautista, Lampa and Francisca did not constitute a
    dying declaration.

    The first element in the admissibility of dying declaration is lacking in the case at
    bar. It was not established with certainty whether Pelagio uttered his statement with
    consciousness of his impending death. While he was in pain when he made his
    statement, he expressly stated that Peña only pistol-whipped him and almost shot
    him.

    Pelagio’s realization after giving his statement also cannot be considered as a dying
    declaration. The crucial factor to consider is the contemporaneity of the moment
    when the statement was made and the moment of the realization of death. The time
    the statement was being made must also be the time the victim was aware that he
    was dying.

    2. Yes, Pelagio’s statement formed part of res gestae.

    Pelagio’s declaration is admissible as part of the res gestae since it was made


    shortly after a startling occurrence and under the influence thereof. Under the
    circumstances, the victim evidently had no opportunity to contrive his statement
    beforehand

    In this case, it is clear that the pistol-whipping and the gunshot on the head of
    Pelagio qualified as a startling occurrence. Notably, Pelagio constantly complained of
    pain in his head while his statement was being taken by SPO1 Bautista, so much so
    that there was no opportunity for him to be able to devise or contrive anything other
    than what really happened.
    1
    3. No, the testimonies or written statements of SPO1 Bautista, Lampa and Francisca
    cannot form part of res gestae.

    Since res gestae refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the


    participants, victims or spectators to a crime before, during or immediately after the
    commission of the crime, they should necessarily be the ones who must not have the
    opportunity to contrive or devise a falsehood but not the persons to whom they gave
    their dying declaration or spontaneous statement. In other words, the witness who
    merely testifies on a res gestae is not the declarant referred to in the second requisite
    whose statements had to be made before he had the time to contrive or devise a
    falsehood.

    Thus, even if there were intervening periods between the time the victim gave his
    account of the incident to the prosecution witnesses and the time the latter first
    disclosed what the victim told them, the same will not affect the admissibility of the
    victim’s declaration or statement as part of res gestae since it is sufficient that such
    declaration or statement was made by the victim before he had time to contrive or
    devise a falsehood.

    You might also like