People vs. Sudoy

Positive identification by witnesses who had adequate opportunity to observe the accused prevails over alibi, and treachery qualifies a killing where the unarmed victim is summarily executed by gunfire without any risk to the attackers from any defense the victim could make.

Saturnino Quiambao was killed on the night of January 30, 1970 in Barrio San Vicente (Paitan), Magalang, Pampanga, by armed men reputed to be Huks; Edison Sudoy was later charged as one of the armed men. According to the prosecution, at about six-thirty in the evening of January 30, 1970, more than ten armed men entered the barrio and met Juan Guintu, a fifty-two-year-old farmer who had come from the town. They asked him whether there were "army people" in the places where he had passed, and he replied in the negative. They ordered him to accompany them to the house of Saturnino Quiambao. On arriving at the yard of Quiambao's house, some of the men peeped through the hole in the wall. A member of the group directed Guintu to call Quiambao. When Quiambao came out of the bedroom, one of the men told him: "Cong Atong, don't be afraid. I am Fidel." Quiambao returned to the bedroom. His wife, Nieves Garcia, went to the sala. Fidel told her: "Ate, do not be afraid. We are with you." Fidel asked her to open the door. When Nieves Garcia opened the door, three armed men rushed inside the sala and called Quiambao. Guintu also went inside the house. The three men identified themselves as Commanders Berting, Fidel and Eddie (Edison Sudoy). Marina Quiambao, a seventeen-year-old daughter of Quiambao who had finished the sixth grade, was also in the sala. She saw and heard the three men telling her mother their identities. Quiambao was near the cupboard lighting a cigarette. One of the men tapped him on the shoulder. After some conversation, which was punctuated with laughter, one of the men requested Quiambao to help them look for Policarpio Gonzales, the barrio captain. The three commanders, accompanied by Quiambao and Guintu, left the house. Sudoy's arm was around Quiambao's shoulder.

On the street they met Emiterio Gonzales, a forty-four-year-old resident of the barrio, who was on his way to return a piece of rope (guyod) to the house of the barrio captain, who is his uncle. One of the armed men collared Emiterio and asked him to lead them to the barrio captain's house. The men also told him to go with them to the mountains. He was frightened. He knew that the men were killers. When they reached the barrio captain's house, the men deployed near the kitchen and in front of the house. Emiterio called his uncle. A son of the barrio captain opened the door and informed the men that the barrio captain was not at home. When the door was opened, the light from the house illumined the face of Edison Sudoy who was standing on Emiterio's right, next to the man who was holding Emiterio by his shirt collar. Sudoy's features were stamped in Emiterio's memory. The armed men directed Emiterio to lead them to the house of Eulogio Gonzales which was about forty meters away. Eulogio is the nephew of Emiterio. He called for Eulogio. The latter was not in his house. Then, the armed men, with Guintu, Emiterio and Quiambao, proceeded to the school. On the street, in front of the school, Sudoy and his companions shot Quiambao who was only five meters away from Emiterio Gonzales. About thirty shots were fired. When the shooting was perpetrated, it was as if a streak of lightning flashed upon the scene. After shooting Quiambao, the armed men set fire to the barracks which were being constructed as quarters for the soldiers to be stationed in the barrio. They left Emiterio in the shed where his carabao was tethered. They told him that if he squealed he would be killed. They went to the brook and headed for the mountains. Quiambao was killed because he had joined the Barrio Self-Defense Unit (BSDU), an anti-Huk organization. Emiterio Gonzales was well-acquainted with Quiambao because they lived in the same barrio.

Doctor Rosauro Alejandrino, the municipal health officer, conducted an autopsy of the victim's body. He found that the thirty-nine-year-old Quiambao sustained twenty-two wounds. He noted that eight hundred and three hundred cubic centimeters of blood had accumulated in the victim's chest and abdominal cavities, respectively. Death was attributable to "shock, internal hemorrhage, secondary to the" twenty-two wounds. He found three bullets in the victim's body. There were about twenty entrance wounds and fifteen wounds of exit. On March 30, 1970, Sudoy, while on board an El Transit bus, was arrested by Magalang policemen and BSDU members. Perto Valenzuela, the bus driver, with whom Sudoy used to work as a conductor, who happened to be a passenger in the same bus, informed a policeman that Sudoy was the brother of a Hukbo. On April 1, 1970, the Magalang chief of police filed a complaint for murder against Sudoy, Commander Berting, "HMB Fidel" and some unknown person designated as Does. The complaint was based on the sworn statements of Marina G. Quiambao and Emiterio Gonzales. Sudoy waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation. The case was remanded to the Court at First Instance. A district state prosecutor filed in the Circuit Criminal Court at San Fernando, Pampanga an information for murder against Sudoy.

Sudoy, a twenty-two-year-old unmarried laborer, a resident of Barrio San Antonio, Arayat, Pampanga, testified that he worked as a helper in the Dycayo Grocery at Angeles City from September 12, 1969, to March 30, 1970, when he got sick, which was also the date when he was arrested. Prior to his grocery job or from February, 1968 to September, 1969, he worked as a conductor of El Transit in its route covering Angeles City, Magalang, Arayat and other places in Pampanga. On January 30, 1970, when Quiambao was liquidated, Sudoy was allegedly in the grocery where he worked from six o'clock in the morning to nine o'clock in the evening. He slept in the grocery. Florencio Dycayo, the owner of the grocery, Carlito Bautista and Icasiano Garcia, the co-workers of Sudoy in the grocery, corroborated his alibi. However, Dycayo admitted that he did not keep any record of his employees. He did not have any payroll. He did not make any Social Security contributions. Bautista, who, like Sudoy, was twenty-two years old and hailed from Barrio San Antonio, Arayat, cockily testified that Sudoy started working in the grocery on September 12, 1969. He could not tell when he himself started working in the grocery. He declared that he had been working in the grocery "for almost a year" prior to August 5, 1970, when he testified. But he could not "really remember" the exact date when he commenced to work in the grocery. A moment later, he declared that he started working on May 15, 1969. That would mean that he had already worked in the grocery for over a year at the time when he testified. He could not explain why he remembered that on January 30, 1970 Sudoy worked in the grocery but he could not remember the more recent date when Sudoy was arrested. Bautista said that Sudoy was a cane-gatherer before working in the grocery. The truth is that he was a bus conductor. Bautista said that when he talked with Sudoy in jail after his arrest, it did not occur to him to tell the police that Sudoy was in Angeles City on January 30, 1970. Florencio Dycayo testified that on January 30, 1970 he had in his grocery an employee named Rudy who, according to him was Sudoy. He admitted that he did not know the full name of his employees. Icasiano Garcia declared that Sudoy was known in the grocery as Eddie.

After Sudoy's arrest on March 30th, he was allegedly boxed by policemen and BSDU members on the second floor of the municipal building of Magalang. He was maltreated on five occasions. He had to secure medical treatment for his injuries. The policemen and BSDU members kept on asking him about the whereabouts of his brother, Cornelio, who was a Huk ("No carin ya ing capatad?"). He told his tormentors that he did not know the whereabouts of his older brother. He was brought to Barrio Paitan (San Vicente). At the confrontation between him and Marina Quiambao, the latter allegedly said that "he was not the one" ("aliwa ya yan"). Emiterio Gonzales told Marina to point to Sudoy as the one who killed her father. Marina again said that Sudoy "was not the one". On the return trip to the poblacion of Magalang, his guards told him to jump from the jeep. He replied: "If you want to kill me, kill me here." He surmised that if he would jump out of the jeep, he would be killed and then the BSDU members would make it appear that he was killed while trying to escape. Sudoy admitted that he did not know any reason why Marina Quiambao and Emiterio Gonzales implicated him in the killing of Quiambao.

• Alibi: Sudoy argued that the trial court erred in not giving credence to his alibi; he testified that on January 30, 1970 he was at the Dycayo Grocery in Angeles City from six o'clock in the morning to nine o'clock in the evening and slept there, corroborated by Florencio Dycayo, Carlito Bautista and Icasiano Garcia.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Sudoy argued that the trial court erred in believing the testimonies of Marina Quiambao and Emiterio Gonzales; his counsel assailed Emiterio's credibility because he failed to identify Sudoy's companions, and the defense presented testimony that Marina said at the confrontation that Sudoy "was not the one" and that Emiterio told her to point to Sudoy.
• Guilt for Murder: Sudoy argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of murder.

• Alibi: Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to Sudoy's alibi.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in believing the testimonies of Marina Quiambao and Emiterio Gonzales.
• Murder and Qualifying Circumstances: Whether Sudoy was guilty of murder, and whether evident premeditation and treachery qualified the killing.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.

• Alibi: No. Sudoy's alibi cannot be sustained because he was positively identified by Marina Quiambao and Emiterio Gonzales.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The trial court did not err in believing Marina and Emiterio; Emiterio's failure to identify Sudoy's companions was explained by darkness and covered faces, while Marina remembered Sudoy's face because he sat near the kerosene lamp.
• Murder and Qualifying Circumstances: Yes as to murder and treachery; No as to evident premeditation. Treachery attended because the unarmed victim was summarily executed by gunfire without any risk to the attackers from any defense he could make; evident premeditation was not proven.
• Penalty: Yes. With no mitigating circumstances, the penalty for murder was correctly imposed in its medium period, reclusion perpetua, under Articles 64(l) and 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Alibi: The SC agreed with the trial court that Sudoy's alibi could not be sustained. Marina Quiambao positively identified Sudoy as the Huk commander who was sitting near the kerosene lamp in her parents' house sometime before her father left the house and was killed near the school. Emiterio Gonzales identified Sudoy as the armed person standing on his right when the son of Policarpio Gonzales opened the door of his father's house and the light from the kerosene lamp revealed Sudoy's physiognomy to Emiterio. Emiterio was certain that Sudoy was among the armed men who killed Quiambao by a fusillade. This positive identification defeated the alibi.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The SC rejected the attack on Emiterio's credibility based on his failure to identify Sudoy's companions. Emiterio declared that because of the darkness of the night, he could not see the faces of the other armed men; some of their faces were covered; they were not natives of Barrio San Vicente. Marina Quiambao remembered Sudoy's face because he sat near the kerosene lamp while he was in her parents' house. Thus the trial court did not err in believing their testimonies.
• Murder and Qualifying Circumstances: The charge against Sudoy was murder qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. Evident premeditation was not proven. Treachery attended the killing because Sudoy and his confederates resorted to a mode of execution which insured the consummation of the killing without any risk to themselves arising from any defense which Quiambao could have made. The unarmed victim was in no position to have made any defense and was summarily executed by gunfire. The SC cited U.S. vs. Vitug, People vs. Manabat, and People vs. Sawit. Treachery absorbed nocturnity, abuse of superiority, band and aid of armed men; while there may be instances where any of these circumstances may be treated independently of treachery, under the facts they formed part of the treacherous mode of attack, as supported by U.S. vs. Abelinde, U.S. vs. Larion, People vs. Magsilang, and People vs. Umali.
• Penalty: There being no mitigating circumstances, the penalty for murder was correctly imposed by the trial court in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua, under Articles 64(l) and 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Alibi — A defense that places the accused elsewhere; it cannot prevail over positive identification by witnesses who had adequate opportunity to observe the accused. In this case, Sudoy's alibi was rejected because Marina and Emiterio positively identified him.
• Treachery (alevosia) — A qualifying circumstance where the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense the victim might make. The SC applied it because the unarmed victim was summarily executed by gunfire and had no chance to defend himself.
• Absorption of aggravating circumstances by treachery — When nocturnity, abuse of superiority, band, or aid of armed men form part of the treacherous mode of attack, they are absorbed by treachery and cannot be separately appreciated. The SC applied this to the facts.
• Evident premeditation — A qualifying circumstance that must be proven; it was not proven in this case. The SC held that the charge was murder qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, but only treachery attended.
• Positive identification and credibility — The failure of a witness to identify the accused's companions does not necessarily discredit the witness where darkness and covered faces prevented identification, especially when the accused himself was positively identified under sufficient light. The SC applied this to Emiterio's testimony.

• "We agree with the trial court that Sudoy's alibi cannot be sustained. He was positively identified by Marina Quiambao as the Huk commander who was sitting near the kerosene lamp in her parent's house sometime before her father left the house and was killed near the school." — The SC rejected the alibi on the strength of Marina's positive identification.
• "The charge against Sudoy is murder qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. Evident premeditation was not proven. Treachery (alevosia) attended the killing." — The SC narrowed the qualifying circumstance to treachery.
• "Sudoy and his confederates resorted to a mode of execution which insured the consummation of the killing without any risk to themselves arising from any defense which Quiambao could have made. The unarmed victim was in no position to have made any defense. He was summarily executed by gunfire." — The SC applied treachery to the killing.
• "Treachery absorbed nocturnity, abuse of superiority, band and aid of armed men." — The SC treated those aggravating circumstances as part of the treacherous attack.

• U.S. vs. Vitug, 17 Phil. 1 — Cited in support of the finding of treachery where the victim was summarily executed by gunfire.
• People vs. Manabat, 82 Phil. 471 — Cited in support of treachery.
• People vs. Sawit, 100 Phil. 507 — Cited in support of treachery.
• U.S. vs. Abelinde, 1 Phil. 568 — Cited on treachery absorbing other aggravating circumstances.
• U.S. vs. Larion, 2 Phil. 476 — Cited on the same point.
• People vs. Magsilang, 82 Phil. 271 — Cited on the same point.
• People vs. Umali, 96 Phil. 185 — Cited on the same point.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder; the SC applied it because the killing was qualified by treachery.
• Article 64(l), Revised Penal Code — Provides for the medium period when no mitigating circumstances; the SC applied it to impose reclusion perpetua.