People vs.

Olaso
G.R. No. 197540, 27 February 2012

FACTS: On or about the 25th day of May 2004, Rolly Angelio (Apellant) and one Dinnes Olaso conspired
to murder Narciso Patingo Y Camaymayan. The victim was driving his tricyle when he was flagged down by
the appellant and Olaso. Apellant sat behind the driver while Olaso went inside the tricycle. Apellant then
suddenly embraced the victim while Olaso repeatedly stabbed him. The prosecutions case was anchored on
the eyewitness testimony of the victims brother, Jimmy Patingo (eyewitness), who saw the appellant and Olaso
flag down the tricycle driven by the victim. The appellant denied any participation in the stabbing incident.
Appellants argument is that the inconsistency between the sworn affidavit (that he and Olaso stabbed the
victim) and the testimony of the eyewitness (that it was only Olaso who stabbed the victim) created doubt as to
his participation in the stabbing.

ISSUE:
The appellant attacks his conviction by raising two issues involving the appreciation of the testimony of the
eyewitness on the extent of his participation and the nature of the crime committed.

RULING:
The Court held that: "It is settled that discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and
those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit [the said witness] since ex parte affidavits
are generally incomplete, and are generally subordinated in importance to testimony in open court." In other
words, the existence of discrepancies between the sworn affidavit and the testimony of the eyewitness in court
does not render his account of the antecedent events unreliable. The Court also held that the inconsistencies
pointed out are too trivial to have any material bearing in the determination of the appellants guilt and
inconsequential, given the presence of conspiracy between the appellant and Olaso in killing the victim.

People vs. Gonzales

G.R. No. 195534, 13 June 2012

FACTS:
Apellant, Eduardo Gonzales, and his brother, co-accused Edmundo Gonzales, were charged with murder under
a criminal information which alleged conspiracy, evident premeditation and treachery in the killing of Eligio
Donato (victim). The victim was invited by Edmundo to come to his house. Upon arriving, the victim was shot
upon by the appellant and his brother. The victim sustained three (3) gunshot wounds and expired before he
could receive medical treatment. The appellant claims that he acted out of self-defense. He alleges that it was
the victim who suddenly arrived carrying a short firearm and shouted invectives at the appellant. The appellant
tried to pacify the victim but when it proved to be futile, he tried to retrieve his own firearm in the house, and
a struggle ensued between the appellant and the victim which caused appellants gun to discharge three times.
In addition to the claim of self-defense, the appellant contests the weight and credence given to the highly
inconsistent and questionable testimony of the prosecution witness.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidences against the appellant are sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:
The Court held the requisites for the claim of self-defense are absent. The evidences show that the victim was
unarmed when he arrived at the appellants house, showing no indication that the appellants life was in danger.
There was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The claim of self-defense is also disproved by the
testimony of appellants witness who stated that when the victim was unarmed when he alighted from the
tricycle he was on, the appellant immediately fired twice in his direction. The second requisite of self-defense
could not have been present in the absence of any unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. However,
even granting that it was the unarmed victim who first acted as the aggressor, the means employed by the
appellant in repelling the attack were not reasonably necessary. The third requisite was not established given
the sufficient provocation by the appellant in placing the victims life in actual danger when he fired upon the
victim.
As for the credible eyewitness testimony, the Court reiterated that the findings of the trial court on matters
relating to the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies will not be disturbed on appeal unless some
weight and serious facts or circumstances have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to
materially affect the disposition of the case.