Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33572)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Edison Sudoy, G.R. No. L-33572, October 10, 1974, Supreme Court Second Division, Aquino, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is Edison Sudoy; the plaintiff-appellee is The People of the Philippines.On the evening of January 30, 1970, more than ten armed men, reputed Huks, entered Barrio San Vicente (Paitan), Magalang, Pampanga, and accosted several residents. They confronted Juan Guintu and forced him to summon Saturnino Quiambao. Three of the armed men identified themselves to the household as “Commanders Berting, Fidel and Eddie (Edison Sudoy).” Marina Quiambao (17), the victim’s daughter, and others were in the sala; Sudoy allegedly sat near a kerosene lamp, enabling Marina to observe his face. The group then escorted Quiambao outside; about five meters from Emiterio Gonzales they opened fire, discharging about thirty shots and killing Quiambao. The assailants subsequently set fire to soldier barracks under construction and fled to the mountains.
An autopsy by Dr. Rosauro Alejandrino established twenty-two wounds and internal hemorrhage from bullets; three bullets were recovered. On April 1, 1970 the Magalang chief of police filed a complaint for murder against Sudoy, Commander Berting, “HMB Fidel” and unnamed persons, based on sworn statements by Marina Quiambao and Emiterio Gonzales. Sudoy was arrested on March 30, 1970 while aboard an El Transit bus.
Sudoy waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation and the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance. A district prosecutor filed an information for murder in the Circuit Criminal Court at San Fernando, Pampanga (Criminal Case No. CCC‑V‑113 (70)). At trial Sudoy testified to an alibi: he claimed he worked as a helper at Dycayo Grocery in Angeles City from September 12, 1969 until his arrest and slept there on January 30, 1970. Employer Florencio Dycayo and co‑workers Carlito Bautista and Icasiano Garcia corroborated that he worked at the grocery, but their testimony contained inconsistencies and lacked documentary payroll or Social Security records.
Sudoy testified also that after his arrest he was maltreated by policemen and BSDU members and that during a confrontation Marina initially said he was not the killer. The trial court, however, found the alibi unsustained, credited the positive identifications by Marina and Emiterio, and convicted Sudoy of murder w...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the trial court correct in rejecting appellant’s alibi and in accepting the eyewitness identifications of Marina Quiambao and Emiterio Gonzales as sufficient to sustain conviction?
- Were the qualifying circumstances of murder—evident premeditation and treachery—proved?
- Were there mitigating circumstances that would r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)