THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PLACIDO SUSANO, ET AL., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Susano versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Placido Susano, a criminal appeal from a conviction for the complex crime of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the defense of alibi against positive identification by eyewitnesses who knew the accused. Second, it shows the Court applying the constitutional requirement of the requisite number of votes before the extreme penalty may be imposed, and commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment when that number is not obtained.

Procedural History

An information for robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries was filed against Placido Susano and two other persons whose identity was not established. Susano pleaded not guilty and went to trial before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The trial court convicted him as charged, sentenced him to the extreme penalty, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Gregorio Vergara in the sum of 6,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. Susano appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in March 1964.

Facts

On the night of May 22, 1959, between ten and eleven o'clock, while Gregorio Vergara and his wife Victoria Rivera were asleep in their house in the barrio of Bagumbayan or Bagombong, Caloocan, Rizal, several persons broke in and beat the couple. One of the malefactors fired the gun with which he was armed. Victoria Rivera lost consciousness from the maltreatment. When she came to, her husband was already dead, and 25 pesos in cash together with several pieces of jewelry, valued all together at 440 pesos, had disappeared.

A medical examination the next day showed that Gregorio Vergara had sustained lacerated wounds, contusions, and fractures, particularly in the occipital and temporal regions, which caused his death by hemorrhage, intracranial and traumatic. Victoria Rivera had a contusion requiring medical treatment from five to seven days. About two weeks later, on June 5, 1959, the information was filed. On April 16, 1960, less than ten months later and about eleven months after the occurrence, Susano was apprehended in the barrio of Kalina, Tagkawayan, Quezon.

At trial, Victoria Rivera identified Susano as the one who hit her husband with a gun and who fired at her. She testified that she recognized him because there was a lighted gas lamp in the house and the moon was shining, and because she had known him since childhood, they being neighbors. Her son-in-law Antonio Zuniga testified that he was awakened by a gunshot in his house about fifty meters away, and that as he approached the Vergara house, Susano darted from the gate and pointed a gun at him, so he ran away shouting for help. Susano set up alibi, claiming he had eloped with Mercedes Marcos and stayed with her in Bulacan and then in Quezon. The Court found the alibi witnesses interested and contradicted, and upheld the identification.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused for robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries was established beyond reasonable doubt, given his defense of alibi against the positive identification of the eyewitnesses.
• Whether or not the extreme penalty of death may be imposed upon the accused.

Applicable Provisions

The Constitution, on the votes required for the imposition of the death penalty, provides:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

This guarantee of due process underlies the Court's insistence that the extreme penalty may be imposed only upon the concurrence of the requisite number of votes.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the lower court did not err in finding the appellant guilty as charged. The presence and participation of the accused in the occurrence were established by the positive testimonies of Victoria Rivera and Antonio Zuniga, both of whom had known him since childhood. Against these positive identifications, the alibi could not prevail. The Court noted that the defense witnesses had a clear interest in the fate of the accused, and that the alibi was directly contradicted by the testimony of Bismarco Tuazon, a Constabulary intelligence member and resident of the same barrio in Meycauayan where Mercedes Marcos lived, who testified that she had never left that barrio during May 1959.

On the second issue, the Court held that for lack of the requisite number of votes, the extreme penalty imposed by the lower court should be commuted to life imprisonment. The Court affirmed the decision in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.

Doctrine

First, alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses who had known him since childhood and who had ample opportunity to recognize him, especially where the alibi is contradicted and its corroborating witnesses are shown to be interested. Second, the extreme penalty of death may not be imposed unless the requisite number of votes is obtained; where that number is lacking, the penalty is commuted to life imprisonment. These rules are tied to the constitutional guarantee of due process quoted above, which protects life and liberty and requires that the gravest penalty rest on the concurrence the law demands.

Disposition

The appeal was denied. The Court affirmed the conviction of Placido Susano in all respects, but commuted the extreme penalty to life imprisonment for lack of the requisite number of votes, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize this line: alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by eyewitnesses who knew the accused, and the death penalty requires the requisite number of votes or it is commuted to life imprisonment. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy of evidence between alibi and positive identification, and the vote requirement for the extreme penalty.