THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GERARDO CORNEL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Albay
sentencing the defendant, for the crime of homicide, to an indeterminate prison
term ranging from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, with corresponding accessory
penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Fabian Burac, in the sum of
P2,000, and to pay the costs.

The first feature of appellant’s case as presented by his counsel de
oficio, refers to the alleged inadequacy of the evidence for the prosecution
establishing appellant’s identity. Trinidad Coral, however, personally saw (1)
the appellant suddenly assault her deceased husband (Fabian Burac) with a bolo
as the latter was descending the stairs of his house in the barrio of San
Miguel, municipality of Tabaco, Province of Albay, at about 6 o’clock in the
afternoon of June 8, 1945; (2) after Fabian Burac (then wounded in the forehead)
fell, the appellant throw a stone which hit Fabian’s right clavicle, and (3) the
appellant thereafter fled in the direction of his house. The positive testimony
of Trinidad was given full credit by the trial court, and the latter’s advantage
of observing and hearing the witness should not be disregarded particularly
where, as in this case, Trinidad knew the appellant well and the latter merely
relies on the conjecture that Trinidad might have made a mistake in identifying
her husband’s assailant, considering the time of the attack. Apart, therefore,
from the testimony of another witness for the Government (Caspara Bendicio) to
the effect that when she asked Fabian not long after the incident in question as
to what had happened, Fabian replied that he had been boloed by the appellant,
which testimony (alleged by the appellant to be inadmissible) was accepted by
the trial court under the rule of res gestae, there is sufficient proof
regarding appellant’s identity. Moreover, it should be remembered that the
appellant was prosecuted, though only for physical injuries, even before
Fabian’s death which occurred several days after June 8, 1945.

Under the third assignment of error, counsel for the appellant adopts the
view that the wound on Fabian’s forehead, described by Dr. Mariano Cruel, a
government witness, as “an incised vertical wound extending from a little above
the middle of the eyebrows down to the lower root of the nose,” and cutting “the
frontal and the nasal bones also,” was produced not by a bolo or any long,
sharp-cutting weapon but by an irregular and hard object with a sharp edge such
as a heavy piece of stone with one or more sharp edges which, when thrown
forcibly from a distance, will necessarily produce, a small apparently “incised”
wound and render the victim unconscious. This contention may be tenable in
forensic medicine, but it is still conjectural and cannot be accepted where a
criminal assault is proved through an eyewitness.

Contrary to appellant’s pretension, the death of Fabian Burac is established
by the testimony of his wife and mother-in-law. The certificate of the civil
registrar of Tabaco dated August 3, 1945, to the effect that the matter had not
been registered in his office, merely shows that no report was made up to the
date mentioned, but it cannot conclusively negative the fact of Fabian’s
death.

We have no doubt that Fabian Burac died, as certified by Dr. Mariano Cruel,
“of tetanus secondary to the infected wound.” When Fabian last reported for
treatment on June 15, 1945, Dr. Cruel already noticed Fabian’s rigid muscles and
slight lock-jaw, and this is the very reason why he prescribed anti-tetanic
serum, which, not being then available in the place, was never actually
administered on the patient. Appellant’s surmise that Fabian might not have died
of tetanus, because there are other diseases sometimes exhibiting symptoms of
tetanus, cannot prevail against the conclusion of Dr. Cruel who in fact treated
Fabian’s wound and saw the manifestations of tetanus. The appellant must of
course be held responsible for the natural consequences of his unlawful act.
(People vs. Borbano, 76 Phil., 702.)

Appellant’s defense of alibi—that between 5 p. m. of June 8, 1945 and
the morning of June 9, 1945, he was in Tabaco, Albay,—may be worth inquiring
into, if Trinidad Coral (already found to be truthful) was not an eyewitness to
appellant’s criminal attack. The motive for the offense is undoubtedly supplied
by circumstance that Fabian once arrested and threatened the appellant during
the Japanese occupation.

The appealed judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
So ordered.

Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Hontiveros, and Tuason,
JJ., concur.