THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VICTORINO BORBANO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

DE JOYA,J.:


Defendant-appellant Tictorino Borbano was accused of homicide in an
information filed in the Court of First Instance of Samar, charging that on
March 8, 1945, in the municipality of Calbayog, province of Samar, said accused
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without just motive and with the express
purpose to kill one Leoncio Castillano, assaulted, attacked and, stabbed the
latter with a knife, inflicting upon him a wound on the left chest which caused
his death.

After the trial of the case, the defendant was found guilty of the crime
charged and, on July 20, 1945, was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty,
ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day of prisidn mayor as minimum, to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, to the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased in the sum of Two Thousand P2,000.00, and to pay the costs, at the
same time giving him the benefit ofone half (½) of the preventive imprisonment
already From said decision, the defendant has appealed, alleging (1) that the
trial court had erred in admitting the medical certificate, marked as Exhibit
“A”, which this signed by a certain Dr. Fred E. Spangler, who attended the
deceased prior to his death, as part of the testimony of Dr. Irineo T. Ortiz;
and (2) In finding said defendant guilty of the crime of homicide,
notwithstanding he insufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution to
establish his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt.

At the trial of the case, the prosecution presented three (3) eyewitnesses,
namely, Gavino Layam, Demetrio Layam and Euataquia Jablon, mother of the
deceased, as well as the testimony of two physicians, namely, Dr. Irineo T.
Ortiz; and Dr. Anatolio Dasmariñas; and the documents marked as Exhibits A and
B.

On the other hand, the defendant presented only one witness, namely, Teodosia
Balolong, his wife, and his own testimony.

The witnesses for the prosecution have testified to the following facts:

That in the afternoon of March 8, 1945, the deceased Leoncio Castillano,
Gavino Layam and Demetrio Layam, among others, were in the house of
defendant-appellant Victorino Borbano, for the purpose of playing a certain game
called “cara-cara” in the locality, and while there they also drank
tuba; that defendant and one Fortunate Malabosa played the game, and
the latter left, after having won; that defendant, who was drank at the time,
became angry and seized a scythe and asked Leoncio Castillano if he was angry at
him, for having killed Leon Samplingan, Leoncio’s cousin; that on account of
fear, Leoncio left the house of the accused, and ran to his (Leoncio’s) mother’s
house, pursued by the defendant; that on reaching his mother’s house, Leoncio
Castillano armed himself with a piece of wood and told the accused that both of
them should drop their respective weapons, but the accused refused to do it, and
the two grappled for the possession of the scythe, axil the deceased succeeded
in seizing the scythe; that witness Gavino Layam tried to pacify the two, but
instead of calming down, defendant started to go back to his house, evidently to
get another weapon, and seeing that Demetrio Layam had a bolo tried to
seize it, but due to the resistance offered by Demetrio, the accused could not
take it; that defendant went back to his house and returned-with a bolo
which the deceased again succeeded in taking away from him; but the accused,
went back again to his house and got a fan knife, which he carried secretly, and
then returned to the place where Leoncio Castillano was, and on seeing him put
his left arm around the left shoulder of Leoncio, saying “We have no more
quarrel; you may Horn go home”, or words to that effect. And Leoncio tlfeing
thus off guard, the accused all of a sudden stabbed film with his fan knife on
the left side of the breast, inflicting upon him a wound three (3) centimeters
deep, involving the left lung and the heart, which produced pneumonia, from
which he died on March 15, 1945. The facts stated above have been substantially
established by Gavino Layam, Demetrio Layam, Eustaquia Jablon, mother of the
deceased, and Drs, Irineo T. Ortiz, and Anatolio Dasmarinas, who testified for
the prosecution.

On the other hand, defendant and his wife testified that at about five (5:00
p.m.) o’clock in the afternoon of the day in question, while defendant was in
his house holding a scythe and a receptacle for distilling tuba, Leonoio
Castillano came and invited him to play; that defendant refused, saying that
they were not adversaries and besides he did not know how to play; that on
account of defendant’s refusal to play, the deceased attempted to snatch away
his scythe, and in the struggle for the possession of the scythe, the accused
received wounds in the upper part of the abdomen, in the left forearm, and also
at the base of the forefinger of the right hand; that not satisfied with this,
the deceased insisted in going up the house of the accused to attack him that
the accused tried to prevent him from doing so, pushing him down three (3) times
from the stairway of the house, telling him at the same time to stop, as the
accused was already wounded; that the deceased persisted in his attempt to go up
the house, and to prevent him from doing so, the accused took his fan knife and
wourised the deceased, who at the time was armed with a piece of wood with which
ha had been trying to give the accused a blow, and which the accused prevented
with his fan knife; andsthat, after having been wounded, the deceased left the
place running, and that when the incident happened, nobody was present as Gavino
Layam and L.Demetrio Layam arrived afterwards. It also appears that
defendant-appellant surrendered himself to the authorities immediately after the
stabbing.

The facts stated above were testified to by the defendant himself and hia
wife Teodosia Balolong. No other-witness was called to testify for the
defense.

A cursory examination of the evidence submitted by the parties will readily
show, among other things, (1) that, according to the accused and his wife, the
hole incident took place in their house; whereas, according to the witnesses for
the prosecution, although the incident began in the house of the accused, the
greater part thereof took place in the yasrd of the house of the aother of the
deoeased; (2) that, according to the accused and his wife, the deceased had
already been wounded, when Demetrio Layam and Gavino Layam arrived; but these
two witnesses for the prosecution have flatly contradicted them; and (3) that
the defendant himself, in his testimony given at the preliminary investigation,
stated positively that Demetrio Layam, Gavino Layam, Teodosia Balolong and
Eustaquia Jablon were present at the place when the deceased and himself
fought.

After a careful consideration of the positive testimony given by the
witnesses for the prosecution, which is in open contradiction with that given by
the defendant and his wife, the learned trial judge, before whom; all of said
witnesses testified, and who had the opportunity to observe their conduct and
demeanor on the wit stand, accepted as more reliable and trustworthy this
evidence submitted by the prosecution.

Dr. Irineo T. Ortiz, government health officer in Calbayog, positively stated
that the deceased died from pneumonia, as a consequence of the stab wound
involving the left lung and heart of the deceased, which caused his death on
March 9, 1945, as shown by the medical certificate issued by Major Fred E.
Spangler, Medical Corps, Army, who treated the deceased before his death, and
had already left the province of Samar, at the time of trial of the case.

Gavino Layam and Bemetrio Layam, who have fully corroborated the testimony of
Eustaquia Jablon, mother of the deceased, appear to be disinterested witnesses,
and no reason has been advanced to show why they should have testified falsely
against the accused; and their testimony should, therefore, be given full force
and effect. The absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the
principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion
that no such improper motive existed, and that their testimony is worthy of full
faith and credit. (United States vs. Pajarillo, 19 Phil, 288; People
vs. De Otero, 51 Phil. 202).

After an examination of the evidence, the Court considers more acceptable,
coherent and reasonable the evidence adduced by the witnesses for the prosecutor
than the testimony given by the accused and his wife; specially if we consider
the fact that the principal-witnesses for the prosecution are disinterested
witnesses, whereas those for the defense are biased. In “weighing contradictory
declarations and statements, greater weight must generally be given to the
positive testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution than to the denials of
the defendant. (United vs. Bueno, 41 Phil. 447). And it has been
repeatedly held that the Supreme Court would not disturb the findings of fact
made by the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses, in view of their
opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying, and that their findings will generally be accepted and acted upon.
(People vs. De Asis, 61 Phil. 384; People vs. Garcia, 63 Phil.
296; People vs. Masin, 64 Phil, 757). In the instant case, there is
absolutely no cause or reason appearing in the record to warrant a departure
from such findings, and they must therefore be fully accepted. (People
vs. Istoris, 53 Phil, 91).

The claim of self-defense made by the accused is too flimsy and fantastic,
and does not deserve serious consideration on the part of the Court. In a
prosecution for homicide, in order that the defendant may be exempt from
criminal responsibility, the degree of proof of the facts constituting the
exemption, such as self-defense, must be sufficient, satisfactory and
convincing. (United States vs. Mallari, 29 Phil. 14; U. 3, vs.
Guendia, 37 Phil. 337).

The record shows that defendant-appellant surrendered to the authorities
immediately after the incident, and it should be considered as a mitigating
circumstance in his favor. On the other hand, it has also been sufficiently
established that, in stabbing the deceased, defendant-appellant acted with
treachery; and although, treachery has not been alleged either as a qualifying
or aggravating circumstance in the information, inasmuch as it has been
satisfactorily established, it may be properly considered as an aggravating
circumstance, to compensate the mitigating circumstance abovementioned, (U. S.
vs. Campo, 23 Phil. 369). In a criminal case, an appeal to the Supreme
Court throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of the
Court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from,
whether they are made the subjects of assignments of error or not. (People
vs. Olfindo, 47 Phil. 1).

The admission of the medical certificate, marked as Exhibit “A”, issued by
Maj. Fred. E. Spangler, Of the Medical Corps, U. S. Army, is a nonprejudicial
error. There is not the least doubt that deceased Leoncio Castillano died from
the wound inflicted upon him by defendant-appellant, who must be held
responsible for the natural consequences of his unlawful act. (United States
vs. Escalona, 12 Phil, 54; United States vs. Baoit, 15 Phil.
338.)

In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the guilt of the
defendant-appellant of the crime of homicide, as alleged in the information, has
been sufficiently established by the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt; and
there having concurred in the commission of the offense one mitigating
circumstance and an aggravating circumstance, which compensate one another, the
corresponding penalty should be imposed in its medium degree; and, in accordance
with the provisions of section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No.
4103), as amended, in connection with those of Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code, defendant-appellant Victorino Borbano is, therefore, sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty, ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and
one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, with the accessory
penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum
of P2,000.00, and to pay the costs. Defendant-appellant shall also be given the
benefit of one-half (1/2) of the preventive imprisonment suffered by him. Thus
modified, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Ozaeta, Perfecto, Hilado, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.