G.R. No. L-30249 April 30, 1974
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELPEDIO SURIO and FLORENTINO SURIO, defendants, ELPEDIO SURIO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Restituto Morales was fatally stabbed on May 19, 1963, in Barrio Canjumadal, Pambujan, Samar. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of Gregorio Sosing, who claimed to be an eyewitness and testified that appellant Elpedio Surio alone stabbed Morales inside Sosing’s house during a mahjong game. Based on this testimony, the trial court convicted Elpedio Surio of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while acquitting his co-accused brother, Florentino Surio. The defense challenged Sosing’s credibility, noting his prior theft convictions and an alleged variance between his trial testimony and a prior affidavit.
Crucially, the day after the incident, Elpedio Surio voluntarily executed a sworn statement before the chief of police admitting that he alone stabbed Morales. He detailed that the victim had serenaded his house, uttered insults, and drew a small bolo, prompting Elpedio to retrieve his own bolo and stab Morales in a confrontation. However, at the trial over five years later, Elpedio recanted this confession. He testified that it was actually his brother Florentino who committed the stabbing and that he, Elpedio, had been persuaded to confess because he was illiterate and a rural policeman, while Florentino was more educated.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the guilt of appellant Elpedio Surio for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of prosecution witness Gregorio Sosing to be credible and sufficient to establish Elpedio Surio’s guilt. The defense’s attack on Sosing’s credibility based on his prior convictions and an alleged inconsistent affidavit was unavailing; such factors affect the weight but not necessarily the admissibility of his testimony, and the trial court’s assessment of his credibility is accorded respect.
The Court gave significant weight to Elpedio Surio’s extrajudicial confession, which was executed voluntarily and without coercion, a fact conceded even by his counsel de oficio. This confession, which aligned with Sosing’s account of Elpedio as the sole assailant, possessed high probative value. His subsequent recantation at trial, claiming his brother was the perpetrator, was deemed a belated and unconvincing fabrication. The Court found it illogical that an innocent man would voluntarily confess to a serious crime and surrender himself. His explanation for confessing—to protect his brother—was contrary to ordinary human experience and thus incredible.
However, the Court credited the version of events contained in his voluntary confession regarding the circumstances leading to the stabbing. This account, which remained unrebutted by the prosecution, indicated that the attack was not premeditated but occurred during a sudden altercation where the victim allegedly drew a weapon first. Consequently, the Court held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not present, reducing the crime from murder to homicide. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was also appreciated. The penalty was thus modified to an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor as a minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as a maximum.