G.R. No. L-23113; May 30, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIXTO COMIGJOD, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The body of Pastor Ladesa was found on July 28, 1960, with fatal incised wounds. Appellant Sixto Comigjod is the son-in-law of the deceased, as Ladesa was the common-law husband of appellant’s mother-in-law. Early the next morning, appellant’s wife, Juliana Calungsod, informed vice-barrio lieutenant Victorino Andres that appellant was the killer. This information was relayed to investigating policemen. When confronted by the policemen at the scene, appellant, after initially being silent, admitted to killing Ladesa upon being told of his wife’s report. He identified the bolo used, which was retrieved from his house and was stained with blood. Appellant later gave a sworn confession (Exhibit E) before the Justice of the Peace, stating he killed Ladesa because the latter had been too harsh on him. At trial, appellant recanted, claiming an alibi (that he was at Andres’s house from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on the day of the crime), denying the confession was voluntary, and alleging maltreatment by the police after he had thumbmarked the statement. The justice of the peace testified that the confession’s contents were accurately translated to appellant in Visayan and that appellant affirmed its accuracy. Appellant’s alibi was contradicted by Andres, who stated appellant arrived at his house only at 4:00 p.m. Appellant did not present his wife as a witness.

ISSUE

The sole question for determination is: Who killed Pastor Ladesa? Specifically, whether the evidence, particularly appellant’s extrajudicial confession and the circumstances, sufficiently proves beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Sixto Comigjod committed the murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found appellant’s confession (Exhibit E) to be voluntary and credible, as attested to by the justice of the peace who administered the oath after ensuring appellant understood its contents through translation. Appellant’s claims of duress and ignorance of the statement’s contents were rejected as untenable, especially since the alleged maltreatment supposedly occurred after he had already thumbmarked the confession. His alibi was not credible, being contradicted by Victorino Andres and weakened by his failure to present his wife, who could have been cross-examined about her initial report implicating him. The nature and location of the victim’s wounds indicated an attack from behind, establishing treachery (alevosia) and qualifying the crime as murder. With no modifying circumstances, the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court was proper. The decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao was affirmed.