THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BUDA SINGH ET AL., DEFENDANTS. BUDA SINGH, APPELLANT.

OSTRAND, J.:


Early in the morning of the 19th day of March, 1921, Santa Singh, an East
Indian, was found dead on the sidewalk in front of his tienda in Cabanatuan,
Nueva Ecija.

There were three knife wounds on the body, one of them necessarily mortal.
Several articles of woman’s wear were lying nearby and, at first, it was thought
that the deceased had been killed by a woman, but investigations based upon that
theory proved fruitless.

Some time in the month of May of the same year, the accused Buda Singh
confessed to a friend of his, Ram Singh, that he had killed Santa Singh and
related the details of the crime, implicating five other East Indians in its
commission. On a subsequent occasion Ram Singh thought that Buda Singh looked at
him with “malos ojos.” Suspecting that Buda Singh regretted having made the
confession and contemplated killing him, Ram Singh reported the matter to the
authorities and the present action was instituted against Buda Singh and his
five alleged companions.

On motion of the fiscal the case was dismissed against all of the defendants
except Buda Singh. Upon trial, the court below found Buda Singh guilty of
homicide and sentenced him to suffer seventeen years, four months and one day of
reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties provided for in article 59 of
the Penal Code, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000 and
to pay one-sixth of the costs. From this sentence the defendant appeals.

The appellant presents eight assignments of error. The first four, as well as
the eighth, relate only to questions of fact in regard to which we see no
sufficient reason to disturb the findings of the trial judge who, in his
decision, analyzes the evidence very carefully and whose conclusions appear to
be well founded.

The appellant had strong reasons for committing the crime. It is not disputed
that the deceased had secured his conviction of the crime of estafa and that in
conse- quence thereof, he assaulted and wounded said deceased with a knife. This
led to his conviction of lesiones, which naturally increased his resentment. In
the light of these circumstances, there is nothing improbable in the testimony
of the witnesses for the prosecution. It would be too much to expect that their
statements should agree in every particular, but there is no reason to doubt
that they substantially told the truth and, if so, there can be no question as
to the appellant’s guilt.

The fifth and sixth assignments of error relate to the failure of the trial
court to rule out the testimony of Ram Singh in regard to the appellant’s
confession. It appears that after this testimony had been received without ob-
jection, counsel for the defendant moved that it be stricken from the record on
the ground that it had not been shown affirmatively by direct evidence that the
confession had been made freely and voluntarily. The court took the motion under
advisement and counsel asserts that it has never been ruled upon and that this
has resulted to the defendant’s prejudice, inasmuch as he has had no opportunity
to rebut the evidence of the confession.

There is no merit in this contention. The evidence was clearly admissible.
Act No. 619, upon which the argu- ment of counsel is evidently based, has been
repealed by the Administrative Code and evidence of a confession may now be
received without direct affirmative evidence that the confession was freely and
voluntarily made. (U. S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil., 308.) The fact that the
court, in its decision, takes the confession into consideration must be regarded
as a denial of the motion to strike it from the record and if the defendant
desired to introduce further evidence in rebuttal, the matter should have been
brought to the attention of that court through the appropriate motion. No such
motion having been presented, this court will not now reopen the case for a new
trial.

The seventh assignment of error merits no discussion.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance
against the appellant. So ordered.

Araullo, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avancena, Johns, and
Romualdez, JJ., concur.