Case Digest (G.R. No. 50884)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Filomeno Salufrania, G.R. No. 50884, March 30, 1988, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the defendant-appellant is Filomeno Salufrania.On 7 May 1976 an information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, Branch I, charging Filomeno Salufrania with the complex crime of parricide with intentional abortion (Art. 246 and Art. 256, par. 1, Revised Penal Code) for the death of his wife, Marciana Abuyo-Salufrania, allegedly on or about 3 December 1974. Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.
At the trial the prosecution presented three primary witnesses: Dr. Juan L. Dyquiangco, Jr., who performed a post-mortem after the body was exhumed on 11 December 1974 and prepared a written certification (Exhibit A) and death certificate (Exhibit B); Pedro Salufrania, the accused’s son and the prosecution’s lone eyewitness; and Narciso Abuyo, a brother of the deceased who initiated police action after learning from the children that the death was suspicious. Pedro, then 13 at trial (11 at the time of the incident), testified that he saw his father box his pregnant mother on the stomach and thereafter strangle her, leading to instantaneous death; he also described where the body was taken and later buried.
The defense presented four witnesses including the accused, who denied an assault and maintained that Marciana died of a stomach ailment at about 6:00 a.m. on 4 December 1974; neighbors testified they arrived when Marciana was already dying or dead and that native remedies were being applied. The trial court, after observing witness demeanor and weighing inconsistencies, found the prosecution’s evidence credible, especially Pedro’s eyewitness account and Dr. Dyquiangco’s autopsy, and convicted Filomeno of the complex crime of parricide with intentional abortion, sentencing him to death, ordering indemnity and recommending counsel compensation.
Because a death sentence was imposed, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review. On review the Court considered assignments of error contesting Pedro’s competen...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the child eyewitness, Pedro Salufrania, competent to testify and, if so, was his testimony sufficiently credible to support conviction?
- Were the medical findings and the prosecution’s evidence sufficient and consistent to sustain a conviction for the crimes charged?
- Did the evidence establish an intent to cause an abortion (supporting conviction for intentional abortion), or only unintentional abortion; and what is the proper pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)