THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE NARANJA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The accused was charged with and convicted of murder under the
following information filed in the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan:

“That on or about the 28th day of December, 1956, at
night, in barrio Caraol-Malimpin, municipality of Dasol, province of
Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with treachery and evident
premeditation, with intent to kill and armed with a blunt instrument,
did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault,
attack, and beat to death one MAMERTO SIGNEY, alias Berto, with the use of the said blunt instrument.”

The accused has appealed, contending that the alleged crime has not
been established, particularly because there is no evidence (1) as to
the kind of blunt instrument that killed the deceased; (2) as to the
position of the assailant when he allegedly killed the deceased; (3) as
to the possession of a blunt instrument by the accused on the night of
the crime, and (4) as to the cause of the death of the victim. The
accused considers the testimony of Maria Diaz, wife of the deceased
mainly relied upon by the trial court, as weak, uncorroborated,
self-serving, unnatural and not direct.

According to Maria Diaz, it appears that in the afternoon of
December 28, 1956, while she was pounding rice in her yard, the accused
arrived and was thereupon told by her to stop coming to her house
because her husband (the deceased) knew that she and the accused had
been carrying on illicit relations; that the accused had asked her to
leave her husband and, as she refused, he indicated that he would seek
means to separate her from her husband; that before leaving in that
afternoon of December 28, 1956, the accused told her to wait for him in
the evening; that, when she inquired about his purpose, the accused
answered that he would kill his compadre (the deceased) who
was then harvesting palay in the farm; that in the evening of December
28, 1956, as the dogs were barking, her husband went out of the house
and proceeded to the place where there were stocks of palay; that,
becoming impatient for her husband’s return, she went to the kitchen
where she saw the accused at the stairs; that the accused confessed to
her that he had killed her husband whose dead body she ought to take
and bury; that cautioning her not to tip anyone, the accused informed
that her husband lay dead at the creek east of the house; that she
awakened her mother and children and told them about the occurrence;
that, upon advice of her mother, she requested her neighbors, Santiago
Balderas and one surname Baraan, to” help her bring her husband’s body
to the house.

Maria Diaz displayed courage in admitting having had illicit
relations with the accused and thereby dishonoring and humiliating
herself, obviously to bring out the truth and let justice prevail. Her
testimony is not self-serving because she has not gained any beneficial
interest. There is no point in the allegation that she was jealous as
the accused had taken for himself another woman. The accused already
had a common-law wife before the crime was committed; and if Maria Diaz
was in fact jealous, she would have wanted to eliminate the other
woman, not the accused.

As regards the contention that the elements of the crime have not
been shown, suffice it to say that the confession of the accused to
Maria Diaz is strong evidence falling under the res gestae rule.

“SEC. 33, 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 a 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 a part of
the res gestae.” (Rule 123, Rules of Court.)

Quoting Professor Greenleaf, Chief Justice Moran, in his Comments on
the Rules of Court, 1957 Ed., Vol. III, pp. 348-349, explains the res gestae rule as follows:

“There are other declarations which are admitted as
original evidence, being distinguished from hearsay by their connection
with the principal fact tinder Investigation. The affairs of men
consist of a complication of circumstances so intimately interwoven as
to be hardly separable from each other. Each owes its birth to some
preceding circumstances, and in its turn becomes the prolific parent of
others, and each, during the existence, has its inseparable attributes
and its kindred facts, materially affecting its character, and
essential to be known for a right understanding of its nature. These
surrounding circumstances, constituting parts of the res gestae,
may always be shown to the jury along with the principal fact and their
admissibility is determined by the judge according to the degree of
their relation to that fact, and in the exercise of his sound
discretion: it being extremely difficult, if not impossible to bring
this class of cases within the limits of a more particular description.”

Maria Diaz made reference to what the accused intended to do with
the deceased; and the implementation of his evil design is borne out by
the actual and physical facts of the case. The testimony of Santiago
Balderas to the effect that, when Maria Diaz came to his house for
help, she told him that her husband was dead and could be found at a
certain place, amply proves the fact of the crime as confessed by the
accused. The presence of the bluish black spot at the nape of the
deceased, Mamerto Signey, and the opinion of Dr. Valera that a blow
delivered right on the medulla oblongata could have caused
instantaneous death, confirm the admission of the accused to Maria
Diaz.

The defense of alibi is miserably weak. The testimony of
defense witness Bisquera is incredible. While she could recall the
events of December 28, 1956, the date of the crime, she could remember
nothing about other days, not even Christmas. Moreover it is not
impossible, much less improbable, that even if the accused was with his
common law wife and others harvesting at the ricefield of Regino
Naranja, he still could have gone in the afternoon to the house of
Maria Diaz and killed the latter’s husband in the evening, considering
that Maria’s place was only about one kilometer away.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed with costs against the accused. So ordered.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.