THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ZACARIAS RAGAZA (ALIAS PAYE), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

VILLAMOR, J.:


The Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros found the appellant guilty of
the crime of homicide, as alleged in the complaint, and sentenced him to the
penalty of twelve years of reclusion temporal with one-half of the
costs, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Pelagio Quinamot in the sum of
P500.

His Honor, the judge who tried this case, after the introduction of evidence,
rendered the following decision: “The complaint in this case charges Zacarias
Ragaza (alias Paye), and Domingo Quiquilat with the crime of homicide
committed upon the person of Pelagio Quinamot.

“On or about January 24, 1924, in the barrio of Atimo, municipality of
Siaton, Oriental Negros, Pelagio Quinamot, with his wife Dominga Imbo and his
son Alfonso Quinamot, was accidentally in the house of one Tomas resting from a
trip, where, a few moments later, the defendants appeared accompanied by one
Marcelino. The defendant Zacarias asked for a buyo (compound of
bonga-fruit, betel-leaves and lime for chewing) from the deceased, who gave him
one, and the accused immediately struck him with his lance which he was then
carrying. Upon seeing said aggression, Dominga and Alfonso ran away for fear and
came back on the morning of the next day to the place of the event, where they
found the corpse of Pelagio with the lance thrust into the body from side to
side. These facts were established by the testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution and of the aforesaid wife and son of the deceased, Dominga and
Alfonso, who have also testified that the accused Domingo assisted his coaccused
in the aggression. The accused Zacarias admits having killed the deceased with
his lance, but alleges that he acted in lawful self-defense. The testimony of
the accused Zacarias, as witness on his own behalf, is as follows:

” ‘That on reaching the place of the event he saw the deceased, Dominga and
Alfonso roasting some tubers of ube and bolot on a fire prepared for the purpose
about three brazas from the line of the exterior of the house; the
accused squatted beside the fire at a distance of one meter, and told Alfonso
that he wanted to help roast the tubers and eat with them. That at the time the
accused Zacarias said those words, Alfonso began to throw the firewoods to one
side of the fire until nothing remained but the live coals. That the deceased,
who was also seated in the same way at a distance of three brazas from
the fire, making an angle with the accused and Alfonso, on seeing what Alfonso
had done, approached the latter and slapped him on the face several times. That
immediately after slapping Alfonso, the deceased, who was on the opposite side
of the fire at a distance of about two brazas from him, approached the
accused making a curve or semi-circular line up to the back of the accused
Zacarias, who kept himself seated in a squatting position beside the fire, and
held the accused by the two shoulders, tramping upon the left foot of the
accused, whereby the accused Zacarias assumed a position in which his right knee
was in contact with the live coals and the left knee, with the leg extended
backwards, also in contact with the ground, but outside of the radius of the
fire; and that the two hands of the accused were resting on the ground
supporting his body while the deceased was mounted on the back of the accused;
that the accused Zacarias has been in such a position, held by the deceased, for
an hour, at the end of which the deceased left him and went to take a bolo from
a place about three brazas from the fire; that while the deceased was
coming back toward the accused, with the bolo in his hand, the accused, who was
standing erect and quite near the fire, went to the place where his lance was,
which was two brazas from the fire; that the accused Zacarias wounded
the deceased with the lance he had in his hand, there being a distance of one
braza between them. The accused exhibited a scar which was round in form and one
inch in diameter, on the inferior part of the right knee.’

“Exhibit 2 of the defense speaks of a round burn on the right knee of the
accused Zacarias and a bruise on the left.

“Exhibit 1 of the prosecution, which is a certificate of the autopsy made of
the body of the deceased, describes the following wounds found on the body:

“‘Wound, incised, longitudinal, on the abdomen little above the umbilicus;
½centimeter long, 1 centimeter wide and depth penetrating down the abdominal
cavity, thus exposing part of the large intestines.

” ‘2. Wound, incised, on the left side between the eighth and ninth ribs; 8½
centimeters long, 1½ centimeters wide and depth penetrating down the abdominal
cavity.

” ‘3. Wound, incised, on the right side little below the axilla between the
3d and 4th ribs; 3 centimeters long, 4/5 centimeter wide and depth penetrating
down the chest cavity.’

“The question here to be decided is whether or not the accused Zacarias acted
in lawful self-defense, with all the requirements fixed by the law for his
exemption from criminal liability. The testimony of the accused Zacarias,
explaining how he happened to kill the deceased, is not corroborated by any
other evidence, even circumstantial; beside the lack of corroboration, said
testimony is in itself deficient and appears improbable on many points—according
to the facts of the case there was a short distance between the accused and the
deceased when the latter took his bolo, and the deceased was very near the
accused when he had the bolo in his hand and the accused was without his weapon,
that is, before taking his lance, and in spite of all of this the accused did
not receive any blow or scratch with the bolo of the deceased; the position of
the accused with his two hands resting on the ground and supporting his body,
with a knee on the fire and the other knee backward, as if he were in an
attitude to run, or of that of a quadruped watching some prey and held by the
deceased for one hour, is in the opinion of the court too improbable to prove
the fact that the deceased held the accused in the manner stated by him, and
under such circumstances it cannot be explained how the accused could have kept
himself in that position for an hour without having fallen to the ground and
over the fire by the force of the deceased, or at least by the very force of
gravity. Furthermore it cannot be explained how, the accused and the deceased
being in front of each other at a distance of about three brazas and
with the fire between them, the deceased, in order to approach and reach the
back of the accused, should have had the necessity of making a curve— a
semicircular figure—when in a straight line there was no obstruction or
difficulty. Besides, there appears no such motive as was explained by the
accused why Alfonso, upon the mere request that he wanted to help, and have a
part of the tubers they were roasting, should have behaved himself in that
manner, putting out the fire and stopping the roasting; and the same thing is
true with regard to the conduct of the deceased who, upon seeing Alfonso throw
the firewoods, approached the latter and slapped him in the face and axter
slapping him, rushed upon the accused, causing him to take the position above
described.

“In view of the allegation of the accused in this case, it was entirely
incumbent upon the defense to show all the circumstances that must concur in
order to establish the fact that the accused acted in lawful defense.

“The court finds that the accused Zacarias has not duly shown that he had
acted in lawful defense. Exhibit 1 shows that the deceased received three
tremendous mortal wounds inflicted by a lance; this quantity and quality of the
wounds show that the accused acted cruelly and nega- tives the idea of a mere
defense. The court finds that the testimony of Dominga and Alfonso, as witnesses
for the prosecution, appear to be more natural and in harmony with the facts,
which testimony is in itself sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, and
is, moreover, corroborated in part by the testimony of the accused Zacarias
himself. The evidence of both parties does not show the guilt of the accused
Domingo.

“For all of the foregoing the court finds the accused Zacarias Ragaza
(alias Paye), 32 years of age, a native from the mountains, guilty,
beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime of homicide as principal, as stated in
the complaint, and taking into consideration that he is ignorant, without Bishop
of Nueva Caceres vs. Municipality of Tabaco any kind of instruction, he
is sentenced to twelve years of reclusion temporal with one-half of the
costs, and to pay an indemnity to the heirs of the deceased Pelagio Quinamot in
the sum of P500. The accused Domingo Quiquilat is acquitted with one-half of the
costs de officio. So ordered.”

We have thoroughly examined the testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution and the defense, and find nothing authorizing the reversal of the
judgment appealed from.

The testimony of the accused as to how the fight between him and the deceased
occurred is so improbable that we cannot give it entire credit, as the trial
judge also did not believe it.

Defendant’s counsel does not point out in his brief any substantial error
committed by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of the appellant; and the
judgment appealed from being in accordance with the merits of the cause, the
same must be, as is hereby, affirmed with costs, with the modification that the
penalty to be imposed is twelve years and one day of reclusion
temporal. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avancena, Ostrand, and Romualdez,
JJ., concur.