THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SANTIAGO TILOS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Rolando Banhao^[1]
and Santiago Tilos were detention prisoners in the Negros Occidental provincial jail situated in Bacolod City.  On
January 6, 1965, they were removed from their cells and taken to the yard, also
within the jail, by and under the custody of Francisco Castillo, one of the
provincial guards.

It was the practice of the Guards to take out from the cells some
prisoners and assign them some work in their households inside the jail or at
the yard therein.  In such cases, the
guard who takes the prisoners signs for their custody.

At around eleven o’clock that evening, Rolando Cas­tillo, son of
provincial guard Francisco Castillo, who lived with his father inside the jail,
came from the dance hall about 100 meters in front of the jail, where there was
a dance, and went inside the jail.  And
there he in­vited detention prisoners Santiago Tilos
and Rolando Ban­hao to go with him to the dance.  At first Banhao
said that he did not want to go without the permission of Ro­lando Castillo’s
father, their custodian.  Rolando
Castillo, however, told him not to worry as he, Rolando Cas­tillo, will answer
for the consequences.  And, thereupon,
the three went out through the prison’s rear gate and proceeded towards the
dance hall.

At the dance hall’s entrance, Rolando Castillo and Santiago Tilos bought tickets. 
Rolando Banhao preferred to stay outside,
saying that he did not know how to dance. 
Rolando Castillo and Santiago Tilos entered
the dance hall.  Rolando Banhao stood near the dance hall by the side of its gate;
his two companions were able to dance.

After a while, there was a shower.  Rolando Castillo and Santiago Tilos were standing near Banhao,
after hav­ing brought the girls they were dancing with to their res­pective
places.  Since there was a shower, the
people in the dance hall went out of said hall. 
At this point, while people were going out, Rolando Banhao
saw Santiago Tilos stab a man in white shirt, hitting
the latter in front.  Said man who was
stabbed went back to the dance hall. 
Shouts of stabbing followed. 
Santiago Tilos and Rolando Castillo ran back
to the provincial jail.  Rolan­do Banhao followed them. 
And there, inside the jail, Banhao overheard
his two companions talk about the stab­bing.

The person stabbed, identified as Gaudencio
Olivas, died the next day in the provincial hospital
of Negros Occidental, due to a stab wound, two inches
long, which penetrated and cut through his abdominal cavity, causing severe
internal hemorrhage.

The foregoing is the substance of the prosecution’s evidence
against defendant Santiago Tilos in support of the
information for murder filed against him on September 9, 1965 in the Court of
First Instance of Negros Occidental.  Rolando Castillo also included in said
information, was at large and thus not included in the trial.

The defense sought to establish, on the other hand, that Santiago
Tilos never left the jail that day.  Aside from his own testimony to this effect,
defendant through counsel presented the prison’s “Custodians Report of
Prisoners for January 6, 1965” (Exh. 1)^[2]
which shows Ro­lando Banhao in the list of those
under protective cus­tody (taken out of the cell) that day, but does not in­clude
defendant’s name.  Francisco Castillo,
the provin­cial guard, was also presented by the defense to prove that
defendant never got out of the jail on the date in question.

After trial, defendant was found guilty, as charged, of murder
and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify the deceased’s heirs in the amount of P6,000.00
and to, pay the costs.  Appeal was taken
by defendant to the Court of Appeals which properly certified the same to this
Court, in view of the penalty imposed.

The present case turns on the credibility of prose­cution
eyewitness Rolando Banhao.  Appellant contends that said witness merely
“invented” the story against him because they had previously quarrelled, and almost came to blows, over the rationing of
food in the jail.  Such an incident,
though capable of producing some bad feelings between the two, cannot suffice
to cause Rolan­do Banhao to testify falsely against
the defendant and impute on him the grave offense of murder.  The friction engendered by such quarrel,
therefore, does not impair Rolando Banhao’s
credibility, as found and sustained by the court a quo.  The rule to follow here is that the finding
of the trial court in regard to credibility of a witness shall not be disturbed
in the absence of serious, forceful and cogent reasons that render the
testimony un­acceptable.  And in this
case, We found none.

The so-called list of persons taken out from the cells in the
“Custodian’s Report” for the day is not con­clusive evidence that
defendant was not so taken out.  For, his
own witness, provincial guard Francisco Castillo, testified that he took
defendant that day out of his cell and into his custody (TSN, Akot, p. 34), and that, on January 6, 1965, he was the guard
in custody of Rolando Banhao and the defendant (TSN, Akot, p. 42).

As well observed by the court a quo, the trio could
have easily passed through the rear gate, considering that Rolando Castillo was
the son of one of the provin­cial guards. 
Neither was said rear gate heavily guarded.  Francisco Castillo testified that it had only
“a guard” (TSN, Akot, p. 40).

The Solicitor General in his brief recommends that defendant be
found guilty only of homicide, stating that, in his view, treachery is not
borne out by the evidence.  Our
consideration, however, of the facts shown in the record, particularly Rolando Banhao’s testimony, convinces Us
that treachery has been adequately esta­blished.  As recounted by said witness, defendant
stabbed the deceased at the time when, on account of the shower, people were
going out of the dance hall to seek for cover. 
Advantage was therefore taken by defendant of the rela­tive confusion
created by the shower on the crowd, so that his act and identity would not be
detected by the people in the dance hall, and so that his escape would be
facilitated.  The record, therefore,
fully supports defendant’s conviction for murder.  The sentence imposed is correct.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is affirmed, without
costs.  Let a copy of this decision be
sent to the Hono­rable Secretary of Justice, for proper action with reference
to the continuation of the prosecution of Rolando Castillo.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1] Alias Rolando Fortaleza.

^[2]
This Exhibit is not in the record, the same having been “withdrawn”
as stated in the minutes of July 16, 1966, Rollo,
p. 16.