THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SIXTO COMIGJOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal by Sixto Comigjod
from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao,
convicting him of the crime of murder, with which he is charged, and sentencing
him to life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Pastor Ladesa,
in the sum of P4,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
as well as to pay the costs.

It is not disputed that on July 28, 1960, at about 7:30 p.m., the
body of Pastor Ladesa was found in a coffee
grove, about 200 to 300 meters from his house, in Balaban,
Astorga, municipality of Sta. Cruz, Davao, with several incise
wounds on the head, which must have caused his death at about 2:00 p.m., due to
cerebral concussion and cerebral hemorrhage, as well as internal and external
hemorrhage.  The only question for determination in this case is:  who killed him? Appellant Sixto
Comigjod is married to Juliana Calungsod,
daughter of Ana Albano.  The latter is, in turn, Ladesa’s
common-law wife.  Hence, the witnesses
herein refer to Ladesa as appellant’s father-in-law.

Early in the morning, July
29, 1960, Juliana informed vice-barrio lieutenant Victorino Andres, that Ladesa’s
killer is her husband, appellant
herein.  Soon thereafter, that same morning,
Andres transmitted the information to Policemen Frank Bumpus
and Modesto Alama, who had come to investigate the
occurrence.  Thereafter, the policemen
pro­ceeded to the scene of the occurrence, where appellant was.  Bumpus asked him
whether it was he who killed Ladesa, but, appellant
did not reply.  When policeman Alama confronted him with the report given by his wife to
Andres, appellant admitted being the killer. 
Queried about the instrument used to commit the offense, Comigjod answered that it was a bolo he had in his
house.  Forthwith, the policemen ac­companied
him thereto, where Comigjod turned over to them the
bolo Exhibit D, which was still stained with blood.

Brought to the police station, appellant was further investigated
by Bumpus, to whom the former confessed that he had
killed Ladesa because he had been too harsh at
him.  Thereupon, Bumpus
typewrote the statement Exhibit E, which appellant thumbmarked
and swore to, on July 30, 1960, be­fore the Justice of the Peace of Sta. Cruz, Artemio Cometa.

Appellant testified that, on July 28, 1960, he was with his wife
in the house of the aforementioned Victorino Andres,
from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; that when the policemen asked him, at the scene
of the occurrence, why he had killed Lade­sa, he
(appellant) denied having done so; that the bolo Ex­hibit D was taken from his
house by the policemen, not de­livered by him to them; that he thumbmarked the statement Exhibit E without knowing its contents,
because the police­men assured him that, after affixing his thumbmark
thereon, they would release him; and that, instead, however, they took him back
to his cell, where, later in the evening, they boxed him on the stomach and
kicked him on the forehead.

Needless to say, the policemen denied having used the alleged
duress.  Indeed, the same was obviously
unnecessary because it was resorted to, according to appellant, after he had thumbmarked
the statement Exhibit E.  Moreover, the
justice of the peace affirmed positively that he had caused the contents of the statement to be translated, in his presence, to appellant herein, into the Visayan dialect; that he checked
whether the translation was accurate or not; that he (Cometa) even inquired from appellant whether the
translation into English contained in the statement was, likewise, accurate;
and that appellant answered in the affirm­ative.  Again, nobody ever saw any external sign of
appel­lant’s
alleged maltreatment, or was even informed by him about it.  It seems only too obvious that appellant’s tes­timony
cannot prevail over that of the justice of the peace.

Upon the other hand, appellant’s alibi was
contradicted by Victorino Andres, who declared that
appellant went to his (Andres’) house at 4:00 p.m., and was not,
accordingly, there at 2:00 p.m., when the crime charged was committed.  What is more, appellant did not introduce the
testimony of his wife, who according to the theory of the defense, was with him
when they allegedly went to said house at 11:00 a.m. and stayed there
continuously up to 4:00 pm.  And the
reason seems obvious for, had she testified for the defense, she would have
been cross-examined on the fact that
it was she who revealed to Andres,
early in the morning of July 29, 1960, that the mur­derer was her husband.  This was
impliedly confirmed by ap­pellant himself, he having admitted, on the witness
stand, that, while at the scene of the occurrence, the policemen asked him why
he had killed Ladesa. 
It will be recalled, in this connection that, before proceeding to said
place, the peace officers had passed by the house of Andres, who conveyed to
them the information given to him by appellant’s wife.

We are fully satisfied, therefore, that
appellant has committed the act charged. 
The nature and location of the injuries found in Ladesa’s
body indicate that he was attack­ed from behind.  This and other circumstances set forth in
appellant’s confession sufficiently establish the fact that appellant had acted
with treachery, and that the offense com­mitted is, murder.  No modifying circumstance having attended the
perpetration of the crime, the penalty prescribed therefor
should be imposed in its medium period, which is that meted out in the decision
appealed from.

WHEREFORE, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against
appellant Sixto Comigjod.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Castro, JJ., concur.