THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PRISCILLANO BADO ALIAS DODONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The appellant, PRISCILLANO BADO, was convicted of murder in Criminal
Case No. 307 of the defunct Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental. The information and the judgment read respectively as
follows:

”That on or about the 30th day of August, 1975, at barangay
dela Paz, in the municipality of Pana-on, province of Misamis
Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, stab and wound one Felix
Sumile with the use of a knife, inflicting upon the latter a stab wound
at the ‘inferior border of the 7th left rib and midsternal line’, with
treachery, the said accused having inflicted the fatal wound in a sudden
manner during nighttime on a road while the said Felix Sumile was
unaware of the attack, which injury caused the direct and immediate
death of Felix Sumile, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs in the
amount of not less than P12,000.00.” (Expediente, p. 20.)

“ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds the accused, PRISCILLANO BADO
alias DODONG, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and
applying the provisions of No. 1, Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code,
there being neither mitigating or aggravating circumstances which
attended the commission of the crime, the said accused, PRISCILLANO BADO
alias DODONG, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA, with all the accessory penalties provided for by law; to
in­demnify the Heirs of Felix Sumile the following amounts: P12,000.00,
as compensatory damages; P29,400.00 for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased, Felix Sumile, who was 51 years of age at the
time of his death, computed at his average monthly income of P175.00,
until age 65 years; P1,075.00, for funeral expenses; and, P6,000.00 as
moral damages for their mental anguish by reason of the death of Felix
Sumile; and, to pay the costs.” (Idem, pp. 83-84.)

The following is the People’s version of the facts:

“On August 30, 1975, at about 8:00 p.m., the accused together
with Candro Clavecilla, Porfirio Mapiot and Eduardo Mapiot, were at the
roadside at Barangay De la Paz, Pana-on, Misamis Occidental, having a
drinking spree with dog meat as their ap­petizer (tsn., April 2, 1976,
p. 19). While they were drinking, the accused had a hunting knife which
he used to slice the dog’s liver (tsn., June 4, 1976, p. 3). The
accused, who was distributing bottles of Pepsi Cola as chaser, got angry
upon knowing that Eduardo Mapiot got the last bottle (tsn., April 2,
1976, p. 20). Noticing this, Candro asked the accused to go home with
him. The accused agreed. After reaching home, Candro and the accused
decided to go to the seashore to buy fish. It was already 8:30 in the
evening. The accused brought with him his hunting knife. As there was
no fish for sale, they went back, and on their way home, they saw, at a
distance, a person walking with a lighted flashlight in hand. Candro
was walking ahead, about a fathom away from the accused (Id., p. 22).
When the person passed by the left side of Candro, the latter looked
back and saw the accused embrace the person with his left hand, and stab
him with the hunting knife in his right hand, hitting the person on the
left side of his body. During and after the stabbing, the flashlight
was on, being held by the person stabbed, who turned out to be Felix
Sumile, a fisherman of De la Paz. It was around 9:00 p.m. at that time.
Both Candro and the accused ran towards home (Id., pp. 24-26).

“Porfirio and Eduardo Mapiot came upon the body of Felix Sumile
lying on the ground with the lighted flashlight still in his hand.
Noticing that Felix Sumile had a stab wound on his left side, Porfirio
and Eduardo reported the matter to the victims’ younger brother, leaving
the body on the road. When they went back to the place, they saw the
body being examined by Dr. de los Santos and Sgt. Santos (tsn., June 4,
1976, pp. 6-9).

“Pana-on Municipal Health Officer Dr. Esrelita de los Santos
later examined the body of the deceased (tsn., June 17, 1976, pp. 6-8).
Dr. de los Santos found ‘a stab wound located at the anterior border of
the 7th left rib and midsternal line. The wound measured approximately
3 inches in length traversing all layers of skin, muscles, diaphragm,
lungs and heart’ (Exhibit “B”, p. 21, Records). According to Dr.
Alfonso R. Apduhan, Provincial Health Officer of Misamis Occidental, the
cause of death was internal hemorrhage resulting from the wound, which
could have been inflicted with a sharp bladed instrument such as the
hunting knife, Exhibit “A” (tsn., June 17, 1976, pp. 4-5).” (Brief, pp. 3-5.)

It should be added the appellant is a recidivist. On October 31, 1973,
he was found guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries and
sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of seven (7) days by the City Court
of Iligan in Criminal Case No. 9065-AF. (See testimony of Elizer Sumile
on August 13, 1976, and Exh. E on p. 92 of the Expediente.)

In his appeal, Bado claims that it was Candro Clavecilla, his companion,
who killed Felix Sumile and “that even granting arguendo that the
accused-appellant authored the killing of the deceased, yet the same was
not attended by treachery so as to qualify the offense committed to
murder.” The People insists that Bado was the killer but admits that the
crime he committed is homicide only, not murder. We sustain the
People.

Who killed Felix Sumile? There were only two eye-witnesses to the crime
– the appellant and Candro Clavecilla – and each pointed to the other
as the killer. Unfortunately, We cannot render a Solomonic judgment by
declaring both of them guilty for there was only one death weapon and
the deceased suffered only one stab wound. Hence, it has to be one or
the other and according to the trial court the appellant was the killer.
We have to sustain the trial court’s finding because it was in a
better position to determine the credibility of the witnesses.

The appellant disclaims guilt by indulging in the “probability x x x
that it was Candro Clavecilla who might have killed the de­ceased.” He
bolsters his conjecture by claiming that he had no motive to kill the
deceased for they had no misunderstanding and, moreover, he had been a
resident of De La Paz for only a few days. This posture of the
appellant is without merit. Considering that he had been drinking that
evening for quite sometime, the presence of motive is not necessary to
attribute the crime to him. A person who is high on liquor does not
always act rationally. Moreover, there are circumstances mentioned by
the trial court which point to the appellant as the author of the crime:

“From a perusal of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Estelita
G. delos Santos, then Municipal Health Officer of Pana-on, who examined
the dead body of Felix Sumile, it is apparent that the direction of the
stab wound at the 7th left rib was upwards, towards the lungs and heart
which were traversed by the wound, and which, according to Dr. Alfonso
R. Apdujan, Provincial Health Officer of Misamis Occidental, whose
competency as an expert and as a physician was admitted by the de­fense,
could be caused by a hunting knife, such as Exhibit “A”, thrust upward.
This is confirmed by the testimony of Judge Casiano L. Yuzon, Jr., who
said that, at in­quest, he noticed the wound of Felix Sumile to be
directed upwards towards the breast from the left side.

“There seems to be no question, therefore, that such a wound would
naturally be caused only by a stab, with the right hand, directed
towards the left side of the body, thrust upwards, which, according to
Candro Clavecilla was made by the accused, but impossibly by a stab with
the left hand, thrust forward, as demonstrated by the accused, as
having been made by Candro. For if such were the case, the wound of
Felix Sumile should have been directed straight in­wards his body. Much
more so, because, on rebuttal, Candro denied being left handed, and
proved that he is right handed by showing callouses on his right palm,
and none on his left; and, also because the testimony of the accused to
the effect that the knife thrust of Candro was directed towards the
right side of the body of Felix Sumile, contradicts the bare physical
fact, which is not in dispute, that the wound of Felix Sumile was at his
left side.

“Furthermore, it does not seem possible that it was Candro
Clavecilla who stabbed Felix Sumile, as claimed by the defense, because
the actuations of the accused, and the events occurring, after the
stabbing incident, demonstrate otherwise. This is explicit from the
failure of the accused to explain why, as testified to by Pana-on Acting
Chief of Police Severiano Vertudez, the hunting knife used, still with
blood in it, which is Exhibit “A”, was found inside his room three (3)
days after the incident. And, much more so, because, according to the
said Acting Chief of Police, the accused admitted to him, in his office,
which the accused never denied categorically, that the said hunting
knife belongs to him.” (Idem, pp. 79-81.)

We sustain the opinions of both the appellant and the appellee that
there was no alevosia in the commission of the crime. True it is that
the attack upon the deceased appears to have been sudden and unexpected,
but there is no showing that the mode of attack was consciously adopted
to insure or facilitate the commission of the crime. On the contrary,
the crime was the result of a casual encounter so that the appellant had
no time to reflect on the method of executing it.

The crime committed is homicide only, not murder. The accused is a
proven recidivist but this aggravating circumstance is off-set by the
mitigating circumstance of drunkenness which does not appear to be
habitual.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is modified: the appellant
is found guilty of homicide and sentenced (a) to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal,
as maximum; (b) to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of
Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos; and (c) to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Acting C.J., (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.