Case Digest (G.R. No. 103515)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Edwin Suelto y Cordeta, G.R. No. 103515, October 07, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is Edwin Suelto y Cordeta; the prosecution is the People of the Philippines.On August 6, 1989, at about 1:00 a.m., Juanita Suelto was shot in the head at the couple’s home in Barangay Don Andres Soriano, Toledo City. An Information dated August 15, 1989 charged appellant with parricide for willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shooting his legally married wife. At arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Branch 29, Criminal Case No. TCS 1112, rendered a decision on September 20, 1991 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim P50,000.
The prosecution presented neighbors Emiliana Barluado and Juanita Carcido who testified they heard quarrelling between the spouses, heard a gunshot, and that appellant asked them to fetch an ambulance and said “I shot Juanita.” Carcido also testified she saw appellant washing his bloodied hands shortly after the incident. The NBI forensic examiner, Cesar Cagalawan, testified that both of appellant’s hands tested positive for nitrates (paraffin test) but acknowledged that such a result does not conclusively show which hand fired the weapon or that only the shooter would test positive. Medico-legal officer Dr. Jesus Cerna’s autopsy placed the gunshot entrance in the left occipital region with a trajectory forward and upward; he found no tattooing or hair burning and concluded the muzzle was likely not within 24 inches, although he conceded that a struggle could produce a similar wound pattern.
Appellant’s defense was that the shooting was accidental: he claimed his wife, allegedly in a suicidal mood, was holding the revolver with her left hand and he grappled with her to prevent suicide; during the struggle the gun fired. The defense conducted a re-enactment (and a photographed re-enactment objected to by defense), and appellant asserted his wife was ambidextrous; the victim’s mother testified she was right-handed. Appellant denied ownership of the revolver and relied on the possibility of accidental discharge; he was the only person in the bedroom at the time of the shot.
Appellant appealed the RTC judgment to the Supreme Court (the appeal proceeded principally because of the death penalty-equivalent sentence of reclusion perpetua)....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in convicting appellant of parricide?
- Did appellant prove the exempting circumstance of accidental firing sufficient to exculpate him?
- Could the conviction be sustained on circum...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)