People v. Surio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Restituto Morales was feloniously assaulted and mortally wounded in the abdomen on May 19, 1963, in Barrio Canjumadal, Pambujan, Northern Samar. The victim sustained stab wounds and cuts on his forearms and died the following day due to severe hemorrhage and shock. The prosecution, through its sole witness Gregorio Sosing, alleged that Elpedio Surio stabbed Morales during a mahjong game. On May 20, 1963, Elpedio Surio executed a sworn statement admitting he alone stabbed Morales, detailing the motive and manner of the stabbing. In this statement, Surio claimed Morales and his companions serenaded his house, insulted his daughter, and when Surio went down to the yard, Morales drew a bolo. Surio then went to his house, got a bolo, returned, and upon Morales poising to stab him, Surio slashed Morales, hitting him in the abdomen, and also slashed him again. Morales also stabbed Surio on the left thumb. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Samar convicted Elpedio Surio of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Restituto Morales. His brother, Florentino Surio, was acquitted. The trial court based the conviction on Sosing's testimony. Elpedio Surio appealed. The Petition: The defense assailed Sosing's testimony, noting its variance with his affidavit which implicated Florentino Surio, and highlighted Sosing's prior convictions. Elpedio Surio, during the trial, offered a different version, claiming his brother Florentino stabbed Morales and confessed to him, and that Elpedio agreed to assume responsibility because he was a rural policeman and illiterate, while Florentino had finished elementary school. Elpedio claimed he surrendered to the chief of police at Florentino's behest. The Supreme Court reviewed Elpedio Surio's sworn statement (Exh. 2) and his subsequent testimony.
Issue(s)
Whether Elpedio Surio's sworn statement admitting to the stabbing should be given effect despite his later repudiation and alternative version during trial. Whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were proven, thus constituting murder. Whether the circumstances surrounding the stabbing warrant the appreciation of mitigating circumstances, namely provocation, immediate vindication of a grave offense, obfuscation, and voluntary surrender. Whether the penalty for the offense committed should be modified based on the presence of mitigating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. Elpedio Surio was convicted of homicide, not murder, with three mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of five (5) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. The indemnity to the heirs of Restituto Morales was increased to twelve thousand pesos.
Ratio Decidendi
On the effect of Elpedio Surio's sworn statement: The Court held that Elpedio Surio's sworn statement (Exh. 2), admitting that he alone stabbed Morales, should be given effect. It was considered a voluntary declaration against his penal interest and was not assailed for its voluntariness by the defense counsel. The Court found that this admission sustained the main thrust of the prosecution's evidence that Elpedio Surio alone killed Morales. The subsequent repudiation and the alternative version presented during the trial, where he claimed his brother Florentino was the assailant, were deemed unusual and suspicious, especially considering Florentino had already been acquitted. The Court noted that the defense had ample time to change its strategy after Florentino's acquittal, making the repudiation of Elpedio's admission a calculated move. The Court emphasized that evidence introduced without objection becomes part of the record and all parties are amenable to its effects, applying this to Surio's admission. On the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation: The Court ruled that the offense committed was simple homicide, not murder, because the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proven. The circumstances recited in Elpedio Surio's statement indicated that he did not employ a treacherous mode of attack. The stabbing was impelled by a momentary impulse and immediately provoked by the insults hurled by the victim at appellant Surio and his daughter. Therefore, the elements of treachery (a.l.s.o. employing means, methods or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the injured party might make) and evident premeditation (a.l.s.o. that the offender had previously planned the commission of the crime) were not met. On the appreciation of mitigating circumstances: The Court found that Elpedio Surio was entitled to the mitigating circumstances of provocation, immediate vindication of a grave offense to himself and his daughter, and obfuscation. These circumstances were inferred from his sworn statement, which detailed how Morales insulted him and his daughter. The Court noted that Morales' behavior constituted sufficient provocation and naturally obfuscated appellant Surio's mind. Furthermore, in administering the 'comeuppance' to Morales, Surio acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to himself and his daughter. The Court also appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as Surio voluntarily surrendered to the chief of police on the day following the incident, and his testimony on this point was not rebutted. The Court stated that obfuscation could be merged with provocation. On the modification of the penalty: Since there were at least three mitigating circumstances in favor of Elpedio Surio and no aggravating circumstances, he was entitled to a one-degree reduction of the penalty for homicide, as provided by Article 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the penalty of "life imprisonment" imposed by the trial court was modified to an indeterminate penalty of five (5) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. The indemnity to the heirs of Restituto Morales was also increased to twelve thousand pesos.
Main Doctrine
An extrajudicial confession admitting guilt, though later repudiated, can be given effect as a declaration against penal interest, especially when it sustains the prosecution's evidence and is corroborated by the corpus delicti. However, the circumstances recited in the confession may establish mitigating circumstances such as provocation, immediate vindication of a grave offense, obfuscation, and voluntary surrender, warranting a reduction in penalty.