THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. APOLONIO SOMBILON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The accused in this case stands charged with murder. The
evidence for the prosecution shows that in the afternoon of September 22, 1944,
the barrio of Talaga, municipality of Argao, Province of Cebu, was celebrating
its local fiesta. Gathered in its cockpit was a large crowd, who indulged not
only in cockfighting but also in a game they call hantak, which m similar to
cara y cruz. Among the participants in that game were Aguedo Camillo, Antonio
Ortega and Dionisio Sombilon. Aguedo was flipping the coins, while Antonio was
handling the bets for him. After winning about P40, Aguedo decided to quit.
Dionisio objected to Aguedo’s quitting when he himself was losing and voiced his
objection by asking Aguedo: “Why stop playing when I still have money?” Provoked
by this remark, Aguedo replied, “Why control a gambler’s actions?” and then
boxed Dionisio, hitting him in the mouth. He was about to give Dionisio another
fist blow when Ortega intervened and pacified the two. Hardly had Aguedo
separated from Dionisio, however, when the former withdrew from the crowd and
called to his followers, saying: “Where are my boys, come here to rae.” As if in
answer to the call, several persons were seen to rally around Aguedo, one of
them being the now deceased, Julian Camahalan. Sensing trouble, Apolonio
Sombilon, brother of Dionisio, hurriedly followed Julian and stabbed him from
behind with a dagger. Wounded in the back, Julian staggered, ran a distance of
about 50 meters, sat down and died.

The above facts were established by the testimony of three
eye-witnesses, while the doctor who examined the cadaver of Julian Camahalan
gave the opinion that the wound he found in the latter’s back was the cause of
his death.

Testifying in his defense, the accused denied having been the
one who stabbed the deceased. He admitted being in the cockpit on that occasion
and having even seen his brother Dionisio with face bleeding and shaking hands
with Aguedo. But he claimed that he did not see the stabbing, which, according
to him, took place some time afterward, when he was already inside the ring,
holding his rooster with its gaff attached and ready to fight the opposing
rooster held by Jose de la Pena. He said that he was thus occupied when he
noticed that there was an uproar and people were shouting from the outside: “There is a fight, and the Japanese are coming.” Fearing the
Japanese and seeing other people run away, he did likewise.

The accused was corroborated by Juan Templa, a compadre of his
brother Dionisio Sombilon.

The trial court found the accused guilty of homicide and
sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor
to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased in the sum of P2,000, to suffer the accessory penalties, and to pay
the costs. From this judgment, the accused has appealed to the Court of Appeals.
But that court has certified the case here, being of the opinion that the
accused is guilty of murder and should be sentenced to life imprisonment.

The case hinges on the credibility of the witnesses. The
defense tries to discredit the witnesses for the prosecution, but fails to point
out any substantial flaw in their testimony. And although the accused claims
that Antonio Ortega testified against him because he failed to continue
supplying Mm with chickens and vegetables as he had promised, the imputation is
denied by Ortega, and there is no showing that the latter is the kind of a man
who, for so trivial a cause, would be capable of testifying falsely against one
accused of so serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, the testimony of
defense witness Juan Templa does not inspire much confidence since he is
admittedly a close friend of the accused, being a compadre of his brother. On
the whole, we find no reason for disturbing the findings of fact of the trial
judge, who was in a better position to gauge the credibility of the witnesses
after observing their demeanor on the witness stand.

The accused testified that while he had heard people say that
the deceased was a trouble-maker, he himself had never had any “disgusto” with
him, for they had not even met. And it is now argued by counsel that the accused
could have had no motive for killing the deceased. But we “think that the
unlawful aggression was sufficiently explained by the witness Antonio Ortega,
who, in answer to a question of the court, declared that the accused stabbed the
deceased because his brother Dionisio Sombilon was boxed by Aguedo Camillo and
he believed that the deceased was an ally of Aguedo since he was one of those
who rallied around the latter in answer to his call. The fact, that according to
the accused himself, the deceased had the reputation of being a trouble-maker
does lend weight to this theory.

While the lower court has found the accused guilty of mere
homicide, we agree with the Solicitor General and the Court of Appeals that the
crime proved is murder, qualified by treachery, as charged in the information,
since the accused unexpectedly attacked the deceased from the rear, stabbing him
in the back, thus employing a form of aggression which insured its execution
without risk to himself arising from any defense which the deceased might have
made.

Wherefore, the judgment below is modified in the sense that the
accused is declared guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The
rest of said sentence is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon,
and Tuason, JJ., concur.