RES GESTAE PRINCIPLE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE

Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. 

An important consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and the statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation .

For spontaneous statements to be admitted in evidence, the following must concur: 1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and 3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances (Marturillas v. People, G.R. No. 163217, April 18, 2006, 487 SCRA 273, 308-309).

In People vs. Fallones, the Supreme Court held that the principle of res gestae applies. Thus:

Fallones’ act of forcing himself into Alice is a startling event. And Amalia happened to be just outside his house when she heard Alice cry out “tama na, tama na!”  When Fallones opened the door upon Amalia’s incessant knocking, Alice came out from behind him, uttering “Amalia, may napkin na binigay si Romy o.”  The admissibility of Alice’s spontaneous statements rests on the valid assumption that they were spoken under circumstances where there had been no chance to contrive.[Id.]  It is difficult to lie in an excited state and the impulsiveness of the expression is a guaranty of trustworthiness (Capila v. People, G.R. No. 146161, July 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 276, 281-282  x x x x

For his defense, Fallones claimed that the members of Alice’s family pressured her into pointing to him as her abuser.  But he has been unable to establish any possible ill-motive that could prompt Alice’s family into charging him falsely.  Indeed, Fallones admitted at the trial that there had been no animosity between Alice’s family and him.  

      Fallones argues that Alice’s actuations after the incident negate rape, invoking the Court’s ruling in People v. Dela Cruz, 388 Phil. 678 (2000).  But the circumstances of the latter case are far too different from those existing in the present case.  In Dela Cruz, although the victim was seven years old when the supposed rape took place, she was not mentally retarded.  Further, she was already 19 years old when she reported the incident 12 years after it happened.  Besides, the medical findings revealed that her hymen remained intact. Thus, the Court did not believe that she had been raped when she was seven.

In sum, the testimony of the witnesses, the physical evidence, the medico-legal finding, and the psychologist’s report all establish that Fallones raped Alice. The defense offered no witness or evidence of Fallones’ innocence other than his bare denial. Again, the Court will not disturb the RTC’s findings and conclusion being the first-hand observer of the witnesses’ attitude and behavior during trial. The defense counsel was unsuccessful in impeaching Amalia during cross-examination. In fine, the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.Alice is dead but, as Shakespeare wrote in his Sonnets—The Winter’s Tale, "the silence often of pure innocence persuades when speaking fails" (Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations" by John Bartlett, p. 222, par. 22). (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMY FALLONES y LABANA, G.R. No. 190341, March 16, 2011, ABAD, J.).