Title
People vs. Suitos
Case
G.R. No. 85951
Decision Date
Mar 24, 1993
In 1987, Jesus Ylarde was fatally shot by three men in Umingan, Pangasinan. Alvaro Suitos, convicted of murder, claimed alibi but was overruled by credible eyewitness testimonies. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, citing treachery, and adjusted damages for Ylarde’s heirs.
murder
credible testimonies
witnesses

Case Summary (G.R. No. 85951)

Information, Charge, and Circumstances Alleged

The information filed on September 21, 1987, by Second Assistant Provincial Fiscal Conrado V. Peregrino, alleged that on or about September 5, 1987, in the evening, within the municipality of Umingan, Pangasinan, the accused—together with Wilson Suitos, VIC Suitos, Boy Villar, and Sgt. Claro Suitos @ “Rey Suitos” (who was at large)—conspired and helped one another with intent to kill. It alleged that they shot Jesus Ylarde using unlicensed firearms, producing gunshot wounds on the frontal area of the head/forehead (with no point of exit) and on the abdomen in the hypogastric region, which caused the victim’s death. The information anchored the charge on Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1866.

Trial and Evidence for the Prosecution

Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. During trial, the prosecution relied principally on the testimony of the victim’s daughters. The record showed that Jovy Ylarde, an eighteen-year-old daughter, testified that while her father was conversing with her in front of their store in the afternoon of September 5, 1987, three armed men approached from the direction of an ice cream house. She stated that Wilson Suitos shot her father on the forehead without any word, after which Alvaro Suitos @ “Barang Suitos” fired at the victim and then Boy Villar also fired. She added that after the three accused fired, they ran toward the west, and thereafter Vic Suitos and Rey Suitos followed them by tricycle.

A second eyewitness, Vivian Ylarde, testified that she was inside the store a few meters away when she heard gunshots. She stated that when she went out, Boy Villar pointed a gun at her sister and then shot their father. She further testified that afterward she saw Wilson Suitos and Alvaro Suitos holding their guns standing in front of her father, and then the three men ran toward the west. Two additional witnesses corroborated the incident’s occurrence: Dra. Thelma Busto testified that she heard three gunshots, and Juan Ortiz admitted that during the shooting he heard three shots.

The Defense of Alibi and Supporting Testimony

The accused-appellant invoked alibi. He claimed that at six o’clock in the evening of September 5, 1987, he was at home in barangay Nangcalabasaan, Umingan, Pangasinan, taking supper together with his brothers, mother, and common-law wife. He stated that his neighbor, Valeriana Silvera, came to borrow rice. He further claimed that after supper at 6:30, he went to the balcony, watched “Newswatch” on television, and then went to sleep. To support the alibi, the defense presented Valeriana Silvera, who borrowed half a cup of rice, and Gloria Licanda, the accused’s common-law wife.

Findings of the Regional Trial Court

The trial court credited the prosecution witnesses’ identification of the accused. It acknowledged the natural interest the daughters had in seeking justice for their murdered father, yet held that such interest did not explain a fabrication that would expose the accused to conviction and long imprisonment. It found both Jovy and Vivian credible, emphasizing that their identifications were clear and positive and that their testimonies did not contain significant contradictions beyond minor and natural discrepancies expected from unrehearsed testimony. Based on these findings, the trial court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond peradventure of doubt of MURDER qualified by treachery.

Issues on Appeal and the Accused-Appellant’s Arguments

On appeal, the accused-appellant assigned two errors: first, that the trial court allegedly erred in not giving credence to his alibi because the prosecution supposedly failed to establish his presence at the scene; and second, that the trial court allegedly erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The defense contended that the eyewitnesses were biased because they were daughters of the victim and that their testimony merely implicated him without reliable basis. It also argued that the sworn statement of Jovy Ylarde allegedly indicated bias, referencing her belief that the shooting had something to do with the courtship of Boy Suitos, a soldier then assigned at Camp Dangwa, Benguet. The defense further argued that the witnesses did not immediately disclose the identities of the assailants to police when questioned after the crime, implying that their implication of the accused was an afterthought.

Appellate Court’s Assessment of the Eyewitness Testimony

The Court rejected the argument that the daughters’ relationship to the victim automatically disqualified their testimony. It held that the trial court’s appreciation of the witnesses’ credibility—both as to content and manner—was supported by careful evaluation and deserved great weight where no compelling reason appeared to disturb those findings.

On the defense claim of bias grounded on the sworn statement, the Court reasoned that the statement did not warrant an inference of hostility toward the accused-appellant. It observed that the quoted part of the sworn statement suggested a possible motive involving the deceased’s opposition to the courtship of Boy Suitos and his daughter Jovy, and it asked why the Suitos would have reason to be angry only at other persons if the deceased objected to the courtship.

On the claim of afterthought due to delay in disclosure to police, the Court held that the contention was not sustained. The Court noted that Jovy testified on rebuttal that she mentioned the Suitos(es) to the police when questioned after the incident. It also relied on the trial court’s explanation that extreme shock and panic prevented her from giving the names immediately. The Court further observed that even if Jovy could not name the assailants upon initial questioning, her credibility would not collapse solely on that basis.

Rejection of Alibi and Treatment of Negative Testimony

The Court held that alibi could not prevail in the face of positive identification by eyewitnesses. It reiterated the established principle that alibi does not prosper when the accused is positively identified and there is no physical impossibility of committing the crime. It found no physical impossibility based on testimony elicited from the accused on cross-examination: his house in barangay Nangcalabasaan was about one kilometer from the victim’s house in Poblacion, and travel time to the town proper by tricycle could take around five minutes, possibly less if the vehicle ran fast.

The Court also disregarded the defense reliance on Juan Ortiz’s testimony that the accused was not among the men he saw running away from the scene. It agreed with the trial court that negative testimony could not outweigh positive assertions, especially where Ortiz’s testimony was described as lacking clarity and cohesiveness.

Nature of the Criminal Liability and the Role of Flight

The accused-appellant argued that he was innocent because he did not flee. The Court acknowledged that flight, when unexplained, may indicate guilt as admission by conduct. However, it emphasized that the reverse does not automatically establish innocence. Reviewing the records, the Court found that the crime was Murder qualified by treachery.

Qualifying Circumstance: Treachery

The Court addressed the qualifying circumstance of treachery by applying the definition that treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms of execution that tend directly and specially to ensure execution without risk arising from any defense the offended party might offer. Citing People v. De la Cruz, it held that treachery requires the concurrence of: (a) means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) that such means were deliberately or consciously adopted.

The Court found these conditions present. It reasoned that three armed men, including the accused-appellant, suddenly appeared and shot the victim thrice in quick succession. The victim had no warning and did not know the men were about to attack while he was outside the store conversing with his teenage daughter. The Court also relied on the fact that although the first wound on the forehead was already fatal, the assailants continued to shoot to ensure death. It concluded that the attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim with no chance to defend or retaliate. It further found the acts to be consciously adopted because the assailants were armed with handguns, surprised the victim, and then fled together in the same direction after completing the attack.

Modification of Damages and Civil Liability Awards

While affirming the conviction, the Court modified the amounts of damages. It held that actual damages were proved in the amount of P11,575, not P20,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms