View full case

PEOPLE v. DANILO SANCHEZ

FACTS:

The accused, Danilo Sanchez, along with Juanito Zamora, was charged with the crime of arson. The information alleged that on November 22, 1982, the accused, along with two others, set fire to the residential house of Spouses Elpidio and Julieta Nepuscua. The accused pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the deceased eyewitness, Mr. Elpidio Nepuscua, signed a statement implicating the accused as the person who burned the house. The accused was found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the value of the burned house. The accused appealed, alleging several errors committed by the trial court. Prior to the incident, the Nepuscua spouses were residents of Longos, Calasiao, and their house was valued at P50,000. On November 21, 1982, Julieta and her family were evacuated due to threats. At midnight on November 22, Julieta saw their house on fire. Their son, Cesar, witnessed the fire and reported the incident. Julieta testified that on the evening of November 22, four individuals approached their house and called out to Elpidio, saying that his wife was suffering from stomach ache and needed to be taken to the hospital.

Elpidio reported the incident to the police authorities but did not mention any suspect's name out of fear. He later reported the incident to the 152nd P.C. Company Headquarters, where he and Julieta gave sworn statements. Elpidio recognized the accused, Juanito Zamora, and two unidentified persons who burned their house. Elpidio died before the Information for Arson was filed against the accused. The prosecution relied on Elpidio's sworn statement and Julieta's testimony to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Whether the admission of Elpidio Nepuscua's sworn statement and his declaration to his wife Julieta as part of res gestae is proper.

  3. Whether the statement made by Elpidio to his wife falls under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.

  4. Whether Elpidio's delay in reporting the incident to his wife and family casts doubt on the credibility of his statement.

  5. Whether the deliberate suppression of the names of the suspects in Elpidio's report to the police authorities raises doubts on the veracity of his statement.

  6. Whether the allegations in the information sufficiently charge an offense defined and penalized in P.D. No. 1613.

  7. Whether the inaccuracy or error committed by the Fiscal in the information is a fatal defect.

RULING:

  1. The first issue is resolved in favor of the accused. The prosecution relied solely on the sworn statement of Elpidio Nepuscua and the testimony of his wife Julieta Nepuscua, which were both hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. Affidavits must be rejected in judicial proceedings unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. The second issue is also resolved in favor of the accused. The statement uttered by Elpidio Nepuscua to his wife cannot be admitted as part of the res gestae. For a statement to be considered part of the res gestae, it must meet three requisites: (1) the principal act must be a startling occurrence, (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. In this case, the statement of Elpidio Nepuscua was made four hours after the burning of the house, which is not immediate enough to be considered part of the res gestae.

  3. The court ruled in favor of the accused and acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt. The court found that Elpidio's statement to his wife did not fall under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule because it lacked spontaneity and was given after he had sufficient time to concoct a story or fabricate an account. The court also considered the nearly four-hour delay in reporting the incident to his wife and family, as well as his deliberate suppression of the names of the suspects in his report to the police authorities, as factors that cast doubt on the credibility of his statement. Therefore, serious doubts surrounded Elpidio's statement, and the accused deserved an acquittal.

  4. Yes, the allegations in the information sufficiently charge an offense defined and penalized in P.D. No. 1613.

  5. No, the inaccuracy or error committed by the Fiscal in the information is not a fatal defect.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An accused has the Constitutional right "to meet the witnesses face to face" or to confront the witnesses against him.

  • Affidavits must be rejected in judicial proceedings unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify.

  • Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court.

  • For a statement to be considered part of the res gestae, it must meet three requisites: (1) the principal act must be a startling occurrence, (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.

  • For a statement to be admissible as part of the res gestae, it must be made under the influence of a startling event, witnessed by the person who made the statement before having time to think or fabricate an account. The statement should be so nearly contemporaneous with the event that it excludes the idea of design or deliberation. (People v. Ner)

  • The interval of time between the startling event and the making of the statement is not fixed. What is important is that the statement was voluntarily and spontaneously made in the presence of the transaction it illustrates and explains. (People v. Ner)

  • Delay in reporting an incident and the deliberate suppression of information can cast doubt on the credibility of a statement. (People v. Ner)

  • Accused can be convicted for the violation of a law, even if there are inaccuracies or errors in the information, as long as the offense charged is sufficiently defined and penalized by the law.

  • Prosecutors should exercise utmost care in the preparation of informations to ensure that no injustice would be done to the accused and no prejudice would befall the State.