THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GAUDENCIO NODALO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In the court of first instance of Leyte, Gaudencio Nodalo, his
father Leon, and his brothers Conrado and Atilano, were prosecuted for
the murder of Fortunato Mareto. Leon was discharged, at the request of
the Fiscal, after the first witness had testified. Conrado and Atilano
were acquitted after the trial. But Gaudencio was found guilty of
homicide, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 yrs.,
8 months and one day and to indemnify the heirs of the dead man in the
amount of P2,000.00. He appealed to the Court of Appeals.

That court, believing the crime was murder punishable with life
imprisonment, forwarded the record to us pursuant to statutory
provisions.

After reviewing the expendiente, we also believe the offense was
murder, the facts being as follows:

In the night of June 8, 1949, Dolores Mareto, 18, single, went to
fetch water from the well near the house of her uncle Cipriano Iñon in
barrio Dakhay, Dulag, Leyte. There she was accosted by Gaudencio
Nodalo, who lived nearby and who had been courting her. Seizing her
arms he pleaded with her to follow him. But she struggled and screamed,
calling her brother Fortunato who was in the house of Iñon. Fortunato
hurried down with a penknife but was intercepted by Atilano Nodalo who
stabbed him, with a bolo, on the right breast. Meanwhile, releasing
Dolores, Gaudencio faced Fortunato and slashed him with a bolo on the
left side of the head, inflicting on him a wound four inches long, one
inch wide. Conrado Nodalo joined the attack by cutting Fortunato’s left
shoulder with a big bolo known locally as dipang (American bolo). As a
consequence of the wounds Fortunato fell, and died soon after, that
very evening.

Assuming full responsibility for the occurence to exclude his two
brothers (who asserted they were in another town that night) Gaudencio
claimed self-defense and swore that he met Fortunato at the well; that
he demanded payment of Fortunato’s one peso debt; that Fortunato
resenting the demand opened a knife and attacked him (defendant); that
he grappled with Fortunato, and succeeded in wrestling the weapon but
found it necessary to stab the latter repeatedly to death.

Gaudencio’s version is rather incredible, in view of the large
wounds found on the cadaver by Eleno Martinez, sanitary inspector, who
swore they could not have been inflicted with a penknife. Besides it is
unlikely that being smaller than Fortunato this appellant could finish
the fight without a single scratch. True, he said he was wounded on the
right temporal region, and that the wound was treated by Martinez the
next morning; but the sanitary inspector on rebuttal, affirmed that
Gaudencio had not been treated by him for a wound on the head.

Consequently the story of the prosecution witnesses Dolores
Maroto and Cipriano Iñon must be accepted, and the declaration made
that, armed with bolos, the three brothers assaulted Fortunato that
evening of June. It was murder qualified by abuse of superior strength
and the aid of armed men^[1].
Needless to say, in this instance the findings of the trial judge
exonerating the other two brothers are not binding because the whole
record is open for revision. Nevertheless under the rules of jeopardy
the said brothers of Gaudencio, are now beyond the reach of the
prosecution and may not be punished for the same offense, they having
been acquitted in the court below.

It appears that Gaudencio voluntarily surrender to the
authorities. That mitigating circumstance compensates the aggravation
of night time. Life is therefore indicated by Art. 248 and other
provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding application and
graduation of penalties.

WHEREFORE, having committed murder, this appellant Gaudencio
Nodalo, should be, as he is hereby, sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and
to pay the indemnity prescribed in the appealed decision, which is
affirmed with modification. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo
and Labrador, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Art. 248 Rev. Penal
Code; U.S. v. Sornito 4 Phil., 357; U.S. v. Bomagale 24
Phil., 69; U.S. v. Lasada 21 Phil., 287.