THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE CASAS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Vicente Casas and Dionisio Saclolo were prosecuted for murder in
the Court of First Instance of Leyte. Saclolo was acquitted on a
reasonable doubt but Casas was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to
the corresponding penalty. From this sentence Casas appealed to the
Court of Appeals but that court certified the case here on the ground
that the crime committed was murder and the penalty imposable could not
be less than life imprisonment.

It is a proven fact that at about 7o’clock in the evening of
June 14, 1950, while the now deceased Catalino Tinapay was lying on his
back at the edge of the azotea of his house in barrio Villalon,
Calubian, Leyte, he was without any warning attacked by two men, one of
whom hit him in the thigh or knee with a piece of wood while the other
stabbed him in the breast with a knife. A sturdy man, Tinapay managed
to get possession of the knife, whereupon his assailants fled.
Seriously wounded in the breast just below the right clavicle, Tinapay
died as a consequence thereof the following day.

The question is who stabbed the deceased.

We find the answer to this question, first, in the testimony of
his widow, Natividad Botero, who said that as she came out to the azotea
in answer to her husband’s call for help he showed her the knife in his
hand, saying: “Here is the knife with which Vicente Stabbed me.” When
there is the ante-mortem statement of the deceased taken down by a
policeman in the presence of a municipal councilor, naming Vicente Casas
again as the one who had stabbed him with a knife. And lastly, we have
the testimony of Salvador Billato, Casas’ friend and co-worker, who
accompanied him to the house of the deceased but did not take part in
the assault. This witness testified that the day before the assault
Vicente Casas received a scolding from the deceased in connection with
the hiring of the latter’s launch; that early in the evening of the day
following Casas met him, and Dionisio Saclolo on the street and asked
them to go with him to the house of the deceased to find out, so he
said, how brave the deceased really was Casas at the same time handing
him a bolo and Saclolo a piece of wood; that, although he was reluctant,
he felt compelled to go because Casas threatened him with bodily harm;
that upon nearing the house of the deceased, they spotted him on the azotea
lying on his back, whereupon Casas stepped upon the trunk of a coconut
tree and stabbed the deceased with a knife, while Saclolo at the same
time stood on a chair beside Casas and struck the deceased on the thigh
with the piece of wood he was carrying; that losing heart because of
what he was and fearing that Casas might take him to task for not
helping, he threw the bolo under the house of the deceased and ran away.

Testifying in his own defense, the appellant Vicente Casas
denied having stabbed the deceased to death. He said that from 6 to 3
o’clock that evening he was in the house of an elder brother drinking
tuba with Vicente Kilaton; that hearing from people passing by that the
deceased was spitting blood, he “wanted to leave to find out” but was
dissuaded by his brother for fear that something might happen to him, so
what he did was to go to sleep, and he did not wake up till the
following day.

Appellant’s alibi was not convincing. In fact his conduct that
night was suspicious. Although he was in a way related to the deceased
(his bilas according to him) and heard that the latter was in
trouble, he said that he did not go to see him but, on the contrary, he
slept the rest of the night. Moreover, his self-serving declaration
cannot be allowed to prevail over the ante-mortem statement of
the victim corroborated by the impartial testimony of appellant’s friend
and co worker. Salvador Billato, who, as he himself has admitted, had
no grudge against him.

The suggestion that the wound found on the body of the deceased
could not have been inflicted with the knife presented in evidence is
refuted by the fact that the said knife had a 3-inch blade and the wound
was 3 inches deep.

After going over the evidence it is our conclusion that the
trial court did not err in finding the appellant guilty. But the crime
committed is not merely homicide as found below, but murder, it
appearing that the attack was sudden and unexpected and the deceased was
lying in a defenseless position. There being neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstance, the penalty that should be imposed is reclusion
perpetua.

Wherefore, the judgment below is modified and appellant
declared guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua
with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs
of the deceased in the sum of P6,000.00 and to pay costs.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason,
Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.
Jugo, J., voted in favor of this decision.