THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. URBANO DAMASO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Defendant Urbano Damaso seeks the reversal
of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, convicting him of the crime of parricide and
sentencing him to life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties prescribed by
law, and to indemnify the heirs of Raymunda Pascua in the sum of P6, 000, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, as well as to pay the
costs.

Appellant Urbano Damaso was married to Raymunda Pascua, who admittedly
died, in her house, in the barrio of San Agustin, municipality of Victoria,
Tarlac, in the evening of February 10 to 11, 1959, in
consequence of four (4) stab wounds in the thorax, on the left side of the
mammary line, aside from several injuries sustained in other parts of the body,
The only question for determination in this case is the identity of the
culprit.

The main direct evidence for the
prosecution consists of the testimony of Antonio Valdoz, who was about seven (7) years of age, at the time of
the occurrence. Antonio’s mother is Consolacion Pascua, a sister of the deceased Raymunda Pascua, with whom Antonio
lived because she was childless. He testified that Raymunda Pascua was crying when
appellant returned home late in the evening of February 10 to 11, 1959; that,
soon thereafter, the spouses quarreled with each other; that, in the course of
the quarrel, appellant held Raymunda by the neck, and
then wounded her several times with a scythe; that, subsequently, appellant put
off the lamp and then left; and that, overcome with fear, Antonio Valdoz, likewise, left appellant’s house and went to that of
his aunt Magdalena Damaso, whom he told that Raymunda was dead already, but Magdalena bade him to sleep,
which he did.

The theory of the defense is to
the effect that, from 8:00 p. on February 10, 1959, to 5:00 a.m., the next
morning, appellant in the house of his brother, Macario Damaso, about a kilometer
away from the scene of the occurrence, helping butcher, slice and cook a pig and
two goats, which were served during a party to celebrate the baptism of Macario’s children, which took place later, on February 11,
1959; that, when appellant reached his house, at about 6:00 a.m., he found his
wife dead, with the injuries adverted to above; and that, sometime later, that
same morning, lie noticed that the P200, in cash, he and his wife kept at the
foot of a cardboard, were missing.

In addition to his testimony,
appellant introduced the testimonies of Escolastica
Gadia and Feliciano Cordova, as regards his presence
in the house of his brother Macario, in the evening of
February 10 to 11, 1959. Through the testimony of Magdalena Damaso, he, likewise, tried to prove that Antonio Valdoz could not have witnessed the killing of Raymunda Pascua, because Antonio
had spent said evening in her (Magdalena’ s) house.

The lower court gave no credence
to these witnesses for the defense, and accepted the version of the prosecution.
Hence, the judgment appealed from. Upon a review of the record, we find no
plausible reason to interfere with the findings of fact and the conclusions
reached by His Honor, the trial Judge, who was in a better position than we are
to pass upon the veracity of the opposing witnesses.

Indeed, Antonio Valdoz had, admittedly, no possible motive to falsely
incriminate appellant herein. What is more, the former owed gratitude to the
latter for having, in effect, adopted and treated him as his own son. Besides,
the house of Macario Damaso
was only a kilometer away from that of herein appellant, who could have slipped
away from Macario’s house and gone to his
(appellant’s) own house, sometime after midnight, and then, after committing the
crime charged, returned to the house of Macario, to
mingle with those helping in the preparations for the forthcoming baptismal
party, and thus bolster up his alibi. Then, too, it is not unlikely that
appellant returned home earlier than he would have us believe, and then
committed said crime, in the manner testified to by Antonio Valdoz.

More important, still, is the
fact that his (Antonio’s) testimony has been corroborated by a number of
circumstances, about which there can be no doubt. Thus, for instance, he left
appellant’s house in the evening of the occurrence, and spent part of it in
another house. Antonio testified that he did so because of the fear generated by
the commission, in his presence, of the crime charged. In fact, when he went to
Magdalena’s house said evening, he told her that Raymunda Pascua was dead already.
This testimony was, in turn, confirmed by the fact that, upon seeing his mother
the next morning – while she was proceeding to appellant’s house, but before
either she or he had reached the same – Antonio embraced her and said, weeping:
“My Aunt Andang (Raymunda’s
nickname) is dead; my uncle Banong (appellant’s
nickname) killed her.”

Soon, later, that same morning,
Pat. Pacheco of the local police force, who investigated the occurrence, noticed
that Antonio Valdoz was not in appellant’s house and
located him in that of his natural parents, Alfredo Valdoz and Consolacion Pascua. As Pacheco inquired about the reason for his
presence in the latter’s house, Antonio Valdoz
replied: “I am afraid to go back to the house” of appellant and his deceased
wife. Pacheco asked for the reason of his fear, whereupon Antonio replied that
“Tatang Banong” had killed
“Nanang Andang.” When
Pacheco and Patrolman Custodio, thereafter, brought
him to appellant’s house, Antonio began to cry and told them that he was afraid.
Prompted to explain what he was afraid of, the boy answered: “Tatang co Banong patay na Nanang co Andang. ” Urged to-
describe how appellant had killed his wife, Antonio answered: “dugsol, dugsol, dugsol, Nanang,” meaning that he
“stabbed, and stabbed and stabbed, auntie.” As he searched appellant’s house
Pacheco found tucked into one of its walls a wet bolo or scythe (Exh, C) with blood stains near the ring around the base of
the blade. Upon seeing the scythe, Antonio said: “That is the instrument. That
is the instrument with which my uncle stabbed my Aunt.”

This, in substance, was
reiterated by Antonio in an affidavit made that same date, before the justice of
the peace of Victoria, Tarlac, and at the preliminary
investigation conducted the next day. He similarly testified before Judge Bernabe Aquino – who presided over
the lower court, when this case was first heard in 1961 – and, later, in 1963 –
upon Judge Aquino’s retirement – before his successor
in office.

Again, Cipriano Pascua, father of the
deceased, testified that, sometime before the occurrence, he had overheard
appellant and his wife quarreling in their house, which was only six (6) meters
away from his own dwelling; that, the argument between said couple was due to
the illicit relations of appellant with his cousin and neighbor, Magdalena Damaso; and that, on January 8, 1959, Raymunda Pascua reported to her
father that, three (3) days before, she had caught appellant having carnal
relations with Magdalena, in the latter’s house, and that they threatened to
kill her (Raymunda) if she did not stop “broadcasting”
their affair.

In addition, the records disclose
inter alia, the following circumstances, indicating
that the theory of the prosecution is substantially true, and that the evidence
for the defense merits no credence, namely:

1. An echymosis on the anterior left forearm of the deceased,
indicating that she had struggled with her assailant, was confirmed by a scratch
on appellant’s left forearm, which he tried to explain by saying that it had
been caused by the pig slaughtered in the house of his brother Macario;

2. Clotted spots of blood were
found on the left pocket of his polo shirt and on the portion of his trousers
corresponding to his left thigh and left leg. Admittedly, the blood was that of
the deceased, although appellant would have us believe that it was due to the
fact that, upon finding her dead, he lifted her body and brought it to the
living room of their house. However, said spots were caused by the spurting
blood of a person still alive or who was dying, according to the unimpeached testimony of Dr. Briones, the municipal health officer of
Victoria;

3. Appellant did not report the
death of his wife either to the authorities or even to his father-in-law, Cipriano Pascua, whose house was
only a few meters away from that of appellant. In fact, when Cipriano expressed the wish to have the death of his
daughter investigated, appellant objected thereto, saying: “Why should you ask
for the investigation when she is already dead?”

4. The scythe with which Raymunda had been wounded, according to Antonio Valdoz, was found washed – although still with traces of
human blood – and tucked in a wall of appellant’s house.

5. By testifying that, soon after
he had found his wife dead, he noticed the disappearance of P200, appellant
sought to insinuate that robbery was the motive for her assassination. However,
he had never mentioned the alleged loss of said amount to the peace officers who
investigated him.

6. The witnesses for the defense,
namely, Escolastica Gadia,
Feliciano Cordova and Magdalena Damaso, were
appellant’s cousin-in-law, brother-in-law and cousin, respectively, apart from
the fact that their testimony are contradictory in many respects. It may not be
amiss to note, moreover, that Magdalena is the alleged mistress of appellant
herein, who, likewise, tried to deny his relationship with Gadia and Cordova.

Being in accordance with the
facts and the law, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby,
affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

IT IS SO
ORDERED.

Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ.,
concur.