THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CANUTO TUZON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The information charges the appellant with the crime of homicide, and the
Court of First Instance of Tayabas that tried the case, after due hearing, found
the defendant guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to fourteen years,
eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, the accessory
penalties, P1,000 indemnity, and the costs.

The above judgment is now assailed upon the ground that the trial court erred
in giving credit to the sole testimony of Eulalio Rutaquio, and in not
concluding that the case for the prosecution was weakened by the failure of the
prosecuting attorney to present the witnesses listed in the information, which
failure gives rise to a presumption adverse to the prosecution. It is also
contended that the accused should have been given the benefit of a reasonable
doubt.

We have examined the record and find nothing to justify a holding that the
trial court erred in its findings of fact. The defense of alibi has not been
established, for the evidence adduced to that end is insufficient and lacking in
weight to overcome the convincing testimony of witness Eulalio Rutaquio.

With reference to the witnesses listed in the information, some of whom were
not presented, there is nothing to show, or from which to infer that their
testimony was absolutely necessary to establish the crime, inasmuch as the only
eyewitness, besides the defendant and the deceased, has been produced and
testified. Even if the omitted witnesses were eyewitnesses, which by no means
appears, failure to bring them in to testify shall not of necessity give rise to
the presumption as provided in section 334, No. 5, of the Code of Civil
Procedure. (U. S. vs. Gonzalez, 22 Phil., 325.) At any rate the
testimony of the omitted witnesses would be simply corroborative evidence, and
the presumption referred to does not apply to the suppression of merely
corroborative evidence. (U. S. vs. Dinola, 37 Phil., 797.)

As the crime and the defendant’s guilt have been sufficiently proved, and
there being no merit in the assignments of error made by the defense, the
judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So
ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand,
Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.