People vs.

Mansujeto

Facts: JACINTO got up in the middle of his sleep, woken up by his daughter Cleofe saying that a
man was looking for him. Downstairs, JACINTO saw the man who was standing outside the gate
of the house. Are you Jacinto? the man asked. Yes, I am Jacinto, JACINTO replied. Without
warning, the man drew a gun and fired one shot at JACINTO.

The man tried to shoot JACINTO a second time but the gun would not fire. Summoning
whatever strength was left in him, JACINTO reached out for his assailant. The man, however,
hurriedly ran across the street to where a motorcycle was waiting. He boarded the motorcycle; he
and the driver sped away. At that point, JACINTOs body lay on the ground lifeless.

The driver of the getaway motorcycle was identified at the investigation conducted by the police
to be the accused-appellant, Oscar Mansueto. After the preliminary investigation, the
investigating prosecutor filed an Information for Murder.

The States principal witness, CLEOFE, testified on the circumstances leading to the death of her
father as already narrated. When asked whether she had a good look (at) the man who was
driving the motorcycle, CLEOFE said that she is familiar with his face because (she) often see(s)
him. She further explained that she had a good view of said driver for about five seconds as he
and the gunman sped away. Besides, the place where the driver waited for the gunman was
illuminated by the light coming from a nearby vulcanizing shop. She then identified the driver of
the motorcycle as OSCAR, whom she claimed was the paramour of her mother, Moisesa Pepito.

Oscar was then convicted.

Issue: Whether the Clourt erred in giving credence to the statements of witness CLEOFE
immediately after the shooting incident as part of the res gestae

Ruling: The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify and provided
that the testimony of the witness who heard the declarant complies with the following requisites:
(1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made
before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements
must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances. Since
CLEOFE herself testified, there is absolutely no room for the application of the rule on res
gestae. Besides, subject matters not mentioned or are outside the statements or explanations
given by the declarant, in this case CLEOFE, obviously do not form part of the res gestae.

However, even assuming that CLEOFE did not actually identify OSCAR as the driver of the
getaway motorcycle, sufficient circumstantial evidence was established to uphold his conviction.
The following circumstances based chiefly on Jose Pepito’s testimony who positively identified
OSCAR as the driver of the motorcycle.
Piecing this together with CLEOFE’s undisputed testimony that she saw her father’s gunman run
to a getaway motorcycle driven by OSCAR, the State has successfully conjured up a murder
picture attributable to an unidentified gunman and OSCAR as the motorcycle driver.
 People vs Florendo

FACTS:
Jesus Florendo, Lorenzo Formoso, Adriano Formoso were charged with murder for the death of
Vicente Marinas. The CFI convicted all three with Florendo being the principal and the other 2 as
accomplices. All three appealed.

Jose Lazo, who testified for the prosecution, personally witnessed the act of firing by Florendo to
Marinas. His testimony however was being assailed by an alleged statement attributed to him by
another witness Pantaleon Almo: “it seems that that is the one named Jesus Florendo” made by
Lazo a day after the incident.

Arcadio Laperal of the Manila Secret Service (an expert witness) also testified to show that the
bullets found in the body of Vicente Mariñas and the ones found in the body of Remedios Donato,
at whom the accused Lorenzo Formoso fired several pistol shots on another occasion, were
discharged from one and the same automatic pistol, caliber .25, judging by certain microscopic
grooves and protuberances appearing thereon.

ISSUE: W/N the statement attributed to witness Lazo by witness Almo sufficient to discredit the
former’s credibility.

W/N the testimony of expert witness Laperal is sufficient to establish the guilt of accused
Lorenzo Formoso in the crime committed.

RULING:

No. It is illegal to assail the credibility of a witness by means of a statement attributed to him by
another, if he has not been given sufficient opportunity to explain it. Further, said statement does
not destroy Jose Lazo's testimony that on the night in question he saw Jesus Florendo kill Vicente
Mariñas, even granting that he did not know the name of the accused until the following day in the
municipal building.

No. The probative value of an expert testimony lies not in a simple exposition of the expert's theory
or opinion but in the assistance he may afford the courts by demonstrating the facts which serve
as a basis for his opinion and the reasons on which the logic of his conclusions is founded (U.
S. vs. Kosel, 24 Phil., 594). The expert could not show either the existence or uniformity of said
grooves or protuberances on account of the fact that, according to him, he had no time to take
enlarged photographs thereof, his testimony may be given but little value.