Title
People vs. Salufrania
Case
G.R. No. 50884
Decision Date
Mar 30, 1988
A man convicted of killing his pregnant wife; Supreme Court ruled parricide with unintentional abortion, reducing death penalty to life imprisonment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 50884)

Prosecution Evidence

  1. Dr. Juan L. Dyquiangco, Jr. (Rural Health Officer)
    – Performed post-mortem on exhumed corpse (11 December 1974).
    – Documented abrasions, contusions and signs of strangulation.
    – Noted 7–8 month pregnancy; cause of death: cardiac arrest secondary to strangulation.
  2. Pedro Salufrania (13-year-old son)
    – Competence examined under Rule 130 § 19(b), found capable of truthful testimony.
    – Eyewitness to evening quarrel, boxing of wife’s abdomen, strangulation, and instantaneous death.
    – Testified to threat by father, refusal to live with him, and delay in reporting due to fear.
  3. Narciso Abuyo (maternal uncle)
    – Corroborated marriage, pregnancy, and children’s account of violence leading to police investigation.

Defense Evidence

  1. Geronimo Villan (neighbor)
    – Described native “bantil” and “ikmo” treatment administered December 4 morning.
  2. Juanito Bragais (healer)
    – Called by accused; arrived after death and assisted in moving the corpse.
  3. Angeles Liling Balce (neighbor)
    – Arrived at 6 a.m. December 4; saw wife in coma attributing pain to stomach ailment.
  4. Filomeno Salufrania (accused)
    – Denied quarrel or violence; asserted victim died of pre-existing stomach ailment despite herbal treatments.
    – Described waking, boiling water, summoning healers, and transporting body by hammock.

Competence and Credibility of Witnesses

– The trial court properly examined Pedro’s capacity and found him intelligent, mature enough to understand an oath and resistant to coercion. Minor inconsistencies (dates, times, phrasing) were attributable to misapprehension of questions and did not affect the core narrative.
– Single credible eyewitness testimony, even if uncorroborated, may sustain conviction.
– Dr. Dyquiangco’s prior experience with ten post-mortems and presumption of official regularity established his competence as expert.

Medical Examination and Expert Testimony

– The autopsy, though on an exhumed body, was competently performed; findings of multiple abrasions and protruding tongue supported strangulation theory.
– No material conflict between medical findings and Pedro’s observations.

Trial Court’s Assessment

– Prosecution witnesses presented coherent, consistent evidence of deliberate violence culminating in parricide.
– Defense witnesses were found to have rehearsed testimony and to exhibit “phenomenal recollection” without corroboration; their version deemed fabricated or unreliable.
– A cloth covering the victim’s face suggested consciousness of guilt on appellant’s part.

Issues on Appeal

I. Competence and credibility of Pedro Salufrania
II. Sufficiency of evidence to establish complex crime of parricide with intentional abortion
III. Credibility assessment of defense evidence

Supreme Court’s Findings

– Trial court did not err in admitting or crediting Pedro’s testimony; minor discrepancies were immaterial.
– Dr. Dyquiangco’s expert opinions were properly received and consistent with eyewitness account.
– Defense version lacked credibility and failed to rebut overwhelming proof of deliberate violence.
– Although respondent



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.