G.R. No. 1552. April 22, 1904

The defendant in this cause was charged with the crime of
assassination. He was tried by the Court of First Instance of the
Province of Cebu on the 19th day of August, 1903, and was dismissed,
because the court found that the testimony of Anatalia Ngojo, the wife
of the deceased, was contradictory with reference to some of the
important facts.

The testimony of Anatalia Ngojo shows that she knew the accused;
that the accused lived in the house a short distance from where she and
her husband, Prudencio Godines, lived; that Prudencio Godines was her
husband; that she and her husband lived together, and were sleeping
together on the floor of their house on the night of the 30th of April,
1903; that the floor was made of bamboo strips, with open spaces
between the strips; that the defendant, on said night, went under the
house where she and her husband were sleeping, and thrust a “pinuti” up
through the interstices in the floor through the body of her husband;
that this occurred between 7 and 8 o’clock on the said night; that the
window of her house was open; that she looked out of the window and saw
the defendant coming out from under the house with a “pinuti” in his
right hand, running toward his (defendant’s) house; that the moon was
shining sufficiently bright for her to discern the face of the accused;
that her husband died the following day, in the afternoon; that her
husband, after being wounded, on the same night was taken to the
tribunal of her pueblo; that the defendant was arrested and brought to
the same tribunal about 11 o’clock on the same night.

After several other witnesses were sworn, Anatalia Ngojo was
recalled, and gave further testimony. In her second testimony she swore
that she saw the defendant while he was under the house in the act of
wounding her husband; that she and her husband were sleeping upon a
petate, and that she saw the defendant while he was under the floor of
her house, through the floor, at the head of the bed where she and her
husband were sleeping. Nothing is said in her second examination with
reference to her having seen the defendant also while he was in the act
of leaving her house, after her husband had been wounded. She does not
say, in her second examination, that the only time she saw the
defendant was while he was under her house.

The court below found that this second statement contradicted her
first statement with reference to the time and place when and where she
saw the accused. This conclusion is not justified from the evidence.
The evidence, as it stands, shows that on her first examination she saw
the defendant as he was leaving the house, running, with a “pinuti” in
his hand. The second examination shows that she saw the defendant also
while he was yet under her house and in the act of wounding her
husband. We must conclude, therefore, that she saw the accused on two
different occasions, and identified him.

The testimony of Serapia Godines shows that she knew the accused, as
well as the deceased, Prudencio Godines; that Prudencio Godines died
about the end of the month of April, 1903; that the accused lived near
the house of the deceased; that on the night when the deceased was
wounded she met the accused coming out from under the
house of Prudencio Godines, carrying a “pinuti” in his right hand; that
at the time she saw the defendant he was about four “brazas” from the
house of the deceased; that she saw the deceased on the night he was
wounded, and that he had a wound in his body in the costal region,
which was made by a sharp instrument, and which extended clear through
his body; that the defendant was arrested on the same night, in his
house, at about 11 o’clock p. m.

The testimony of Leocadio Dignos shows that he knew the defendant,
as well as the deceased, Prudencio Godines; that the deceased,
Prudencio Godines, died from the effect of wounds which he received on
the night of the 30th of April, 1903; that he, together with certain
municipal policemen, arrested the defendant about 11 o’clock at
night on the 30th day of April, 1903, in his house.

The testimony of the witnesses, called oil behalf of the
prosecution, shows that the accused and the deceased had a quarrel
concerning the possession of a certain tract of land, and that the
accused charged that he had been put out of the possession of this land
through the influence of the deceased. This evidence was introduced for
the purpose of showing the motive on the part of the accused for
committing the alleged offense.

The accused was sworn in his own behalf and stated that on the night
that Prudencio Godines was killed, he, together with others, went out
from their houses at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon for the purpose
of fishing and did not return until about 3 o’clock the next morning,
and therefore could not have been present at the house of Prudencio
Godines at the time the crime was committed. Three witnesses were sworn
in support of this fact whose testimony agreed exactly with that of the
accused.

We are not inclined to believe the proof of alibi. From the foregoing testimony we reach the following conclusions :

First. That the accused, on the night of the 30th day of April,
1903, did, with premeditation, while one Prudencio Godines was lying
upon the floor in his house, thrust a “pinuti” up through the
interstices in the floor of the house and through the body of the said
Godines, from which wound the said Prudencio Godines died the following
afternoon.

Second. That the said acts were committed by the defendant at nighttime and with treachery.

The court, having found that the defendant committed the crime
charged, with premeditation as a qualifying circumstance, and the
existence of two aggravating circumstances, to wit, nocturnity and alevosia,
it does hereby revoke the sentence imposed by the Court of First
Instance of the Province of Cebu, and does hereby sentence the said
defendant to be imprisoned for the period of his natural life, with
accessories imposed by the law, and to pay a fine in the sum of P1,000,
Philippine currency, for the use and benefit of the widow of the
deceased, and the costs of both instances.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, McDonough, and Mapa, JJ., concur.