G.R. No. L-63438; July 15, 1987
MANUEL OLONDRIZ, JR. and CLARO MEDINA, JR., petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Manuel Olondriz, Jr. and Claro Medina, Jr. were convicted of Homicide by the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon for the killing of Doroteo Guab. The conviction was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court. The prosecution’s case hinged primarily on the eyewitness account of Federico Grajo and the alleged ante mortem statement of the deceased, Doroteo Guab. Grajo testified that on the evening of March 8, 1968, at a store in Juban, Sorsogon, Olondriz and Medina, armed with firearms, confronted and shot Guab. Guab’s written statement, given three days after the shooting, Identified the petitioners as his assailants. The trial court admitted this statement as part of the res gestae.
The defense presented an alibi. Olondriz claimed he was at the house of Dr. Valesa, receiving medical treatment for a severe headache at the time of the incident, accompanied by his co-accused Claro Medina, Jr. and a neighbor, Ricardo Gonzales. Dr. Valesa’s testimony corroborated that Olondriz was injected with medication and fell asleep in his house that evening. The trial court, however, gave superior credit to the prosecution’s evidence, finding Grajo’s testimony straightforward and convincing, and ruled that the alibi could not prevail over the positive Identification.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the petitioners for the crime of Homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted the petitioners. The Court found the evidence for the prosecution insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The credibility of the principal witness, Federico Grajo, was seriously undermined. His testimony contained material inconsistencies with his prior sworn statements, particularly regarding his location during the shooting and his actions immediately thereafter. Such variances render a witness unreliable.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the written statement of the deceased, Doroteo Guab, was improperly admitted as part of the res gestae. For a statement to qualify as res gestae, it must be made under the startling influence of the event, without opportunity for reflection or fabrication. Guab’s statement was executed three days after the shooting, while he was in the hospital, conscious, and under no immediate shock from the event. It was therefore a deliberate narration, not a spontaneous exclamation, and inadmissible as res gestae.
With the prosecution’s evidence weakened, the defense of alibi, which is generally weak, assumed significance. The alibi was corroborated by credible and disinterested witnesses, including Dr. Valesa. The Court held that where the evidence of Identification is unreliable, a sufficiently proven alibi can prevail. Consequently, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof, warranting the acquittal of the petitioners.