THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO TOLENTINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The record is conclusive that Espiridion Candelaria died from the
wound inflicted on him by the defendant who admits that he killed the
deceased, but claims that he acted in self-defense. The defendant is
the only eye-witness to the commission of the crime. Soon after it was
committed, the deceased was found lying with his back on the floor in
his room with his body and, in particular, his head bathed with blood.
Dr. Sixto A. Francisco, who made the personal examination of the
deceased, testified that the body “showed one big, clean cut wound in
the head.”

“The direction of the wound is horizontal; its size
is six and a half (6 1/2) inches long; three-fourth (3/4) inch wide,
and one and a half (1 1/2) inches deep. It is on the right side, just
about half an inch above the right ear, extending from the temporal
region to the dorsal region of the neck.”

” ‘CAUSE OF DEATH

” ‘Due to the extensive hemorrhage from this wound in the head’ “

The doctor also testified that the wound on the back of the head
must have been inflicted with a sharp instrument by some person
standing behind the victim. But upon cross-examination, stated that the
wound could have been inflicted by a person standing in front of
Candelaria if the deceased “stooped about 45 degrees.”

The defendant in his own behalf testified:

“That on the morning of November 1, 1928, he was
studying at the same table with Espkidion Candelaria; that the latter
told him to stop studying because he (the accused) ‘already had a tomb
to which he replied, ‘Mind your own business;’ that upon hearing these
words, Candelaria threw a book at him, which he caught and placed on
the table; that thereupon, Candelaria opened a knife and said: ‘I will
open your stomach* and at the same time stood up and ran towards him in
the attitude of stabbing him; that he (the accused) ran away towards
the other end of the room where he kept his bolo, unsheathed it, and
ran with said instrument in his right hand towards the door, passing in
front of Candelaria but that Candelaria chased him towards the door,
and, believing that Candelaria was going to stab him and having no time
to escape, he attempted to disable with his bolo the hand of Candelaria
which was holding the knife, but that, instead its blade hit Candelaria
on the head, the accused not knowing at the time on what particular
part of the head Candelaria was struck; that in the belief that he was
still being pursued by Candelaria, the accused opened the door, went
out and ran away, and never returned until the time that he surrendered
himself to the authorities on December 13, 1928; and that Candelaria’s
attempt to stab him produced a wound near the wtfst of his right arm,
leaving a scar on that spot” (s. n. pp. 28, 30-34).

The evidence for the defense tends to show that the deceased was
very quarrelsome, aggressive, overbearing and violent, and that the
defendant was of a meek, submissive and peaceful character. The
defendant also exhibited a wound on his forearm, which he claims was
inflicted upon him by the deceased, and Dr. Calupitan testified that
the scar exhibited by the defendant was from three weeks to three
months old. The defendant and the deceased were living together in the
same room in a house near the School of Forestry in Los Banos, and were
both students of that school.

Ciriaco Arriola, a witness for the prosecution, testified that on
that day it was his turn to sweep the house, and at that time and for
that purpose, he went to the porch of the house, and while there heard
some noise from the room and later saw the defendant running out of it
with an unsheathed bolo in his left hand, which he lifted against the
witness and chased him. That he ran as fast as he could to the nearest
house, and later came back to the room and found Candelaria lying on
the floor dead with his clothes saturated with blood and a wound on the
back of his head.

If, as the defendant claims, the deceased inflicted the injury upon
his forearm, it must have been done with some kind of a weapon. Yet
there is no claim or pretense that a weapon or instrument of any kind
was found in the room with the body of the deceased. The trial court
who saw the wound and heard the defendant testify, did not believe that
the wound was inflicted by the deceased. Again, the doctor’s testimony
as to the location, nature and extent of the blow that killed the
deceased flatly contradicts the evidence of the defendant that he acted
in self-defense.

That is to say, the actual undisputed, physical facts flatly
contradict the whole theory of self-defense. First, because no weapon
of any kind was found in the room of the deceased with which he could
have inflicted the scar on the forearm of the defendant; and, second,
the nature, character, location and extent of the wound, as testified
to by the doctor, clearly show that the deceased was either struck from
behind or while his body was in a reclining position. From which it
must follow that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Assuming
that the deceased was quarrelsome and the defendant was a quiet and
peaceable man, as the evidence tends to show, it may be that the
deceased said something which provoked the defendant, and that by
reason thereof he should have that as a mitigating circumstance. The
lower court sentenced the defendant to fourteen years, eight months and
one day of reclusion temporal.

For the reasons above stated, that judgment is modified and reduced,
and the defendant is sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusion
temporal, and in all other respects affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.