THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. BENJAMIN ABIBUAG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

As testified by Raymondo Lobaton, during an amateur contest which took place
in the plaza of Sagay, Negros Occidental, on October 16, 1945, appellant
Benjamin Abibuag and Patriotico Lobaton were engaged in a fight. Napoleon
Rodriguez approached them for the purpose of separating them. Because they would
not separate, Napoleon whipped appellant twice with a whip, and appellant ran
away.

On November 13, 1945, at about seven o’clock in the evening while taking
supper in the house of Sabina Tan with three companions, Napoleon Rodriguez was
shot in the head and died.

No one in the house saw who fired, but Florencio Tribotante testified that at
about seven thirty of the same evening, Abibuag went to his house, related to
him that he get some trouble while in the beach, and confessed having shot
Napoleon Rodriguez, saying that ha was a spy of the Japanese. He was carrying
with him a carbine and stated as reason for his act the fact that he was whipped
by Napoleon. Abibuag dismantled the carbine, wrapped it in a sack, and placed it
in a corner under the house, and requested Tribotante to notify his parents
regarding tke incident.

When Chief of Police Ceferino Barredo arrested appellant, appellant made the
admission appearing in Exhibit “B”, fee the effect that when he saw Napoleon
Rodriguez eating in a house he shot him with his carbine, because of the
personal grudge due to the fact that about two weeks ago before the shooting,
appellant was whipped and kicked by the deceased in the town plaza of Sagay.
Because appellant had been laughed at, he decided to kill Napaleon to alleviate
his humiliation.

On November 15, 1945. when.appellant was brought before Eliseo Benatua,
acting Justice of the Peace of Sagay, far preliminary investigation, because
appellant was reluctant to answer, the complaint was read to him several times,
and he admitted having committed the offense on reasons for which he would not
plead guilty.

Exhibit “B” was read at the preliminary investigation by the Chief of Police,
but as accused seamed to be reluctant whether he would sign it or not, the
Justice of the Peace advised him that it was his right to sign the document or
not, and accused stated that ha preferred not to sign it, but, as oefctifiad by
the Justice of the Peace in Exhibit “C” shewn by appellant, the accused admitted
have shot the deceased Napoleon Rodriguez, but pleaded not guilty of the offense
charged.

The carbine, Exhibit “D” used by the accused for shooting Napoleon Rodriguez
was retired by the Chief of Police in the house of Florencio Tribotante,
dismantled inside a sack, after the accused had admitted that he was the one who
shot Napoleon Rodriguez with a carbine, and told the Chief of Police that he
buried it somewhere in the cemetery of Sagay. The accused went with the Chief of
Police and three policemen to the place where he allegedly had buried tha
carbine, but they found it finally in the house of Tribotante; the sack
containing the dismantled carbine was buried under the ground. With the carbine
the peace officers found magazines and bullets which are marked Exhibit “D”.
Below the kitchen of the house where the shooting took place, the Chief of
Police found an empty shell which is Exhibit “F.” He found it at exactly 7:12
p.m.

Appellant’s testimony in the hearing and his witnesses’ testimonies as to his
good conduct are without merit in the face of the overwhelming evidence
presented by the prosecution which conclusively show his guilt. In a way,
Simeona Palma, one of the witnesses for the defense, residing in the vicinity of
the shooting, corroborated the prosecution when she testified that before the
shooting, at four o’clock in the afternoon, she saw the accused, going towards
his house alone.

The lower court found appellant guilty of murder, with the aggravating
circumstance of nocturnity and a mitigating circumstance of and sentenced to
reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of P2,000.00
and the costs.

There being no error in the lower court’s decision, the judgment of the same
is affirmed with costs against appellant.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon,
Briones, and Tuason, JJ., concur.