THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VALENTIN DE JOSE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On the night of April 13, 1908, Valentin de Jose entered the house of Silverio de la Cruz, and, after an altercation that arose between both men, Valentin, who was armed, attacked the owner of the house with a kris or bolo, inflicting upon him five wounds – one in the right side, through which the intestines protruded; another in the back, another in the calf of the leg, and two others in the arm and the palm of the left hand.   As a result of these wounds the assaulted party died at a certain distance from the house, whither he was dragged by his aggressor.  A post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased showed that it bore three stab wounds, one in the right side, another  in the lumbar region of the left side,  and the third in the  right shoulder-blade in addition  to  two wounds of the nature  of cuts,  one in the  left  hand  and the other in  the  left foot.  The said examination was made by a curandero,  or medical  practitioner, who testified at the trial of the cause,  though the court decided that his  testimony  was admissible, inasmuch as he had seen  the said wounds, but not as an expert,  on account of  his not being  a  physician nor experienced in such matters, notwithstanding that he made the examination by order of the justice of the peace.

Because of the preceding facts, a complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of Capiz by the provincial fiscal, on  May 19, 1908, accusing Valentin de  Jose of the  crime of murder.  The trial having been held, the court, in view of the evidence adduced, rendered judgment, on December 15  of  the same year, finding the defendant guilty  of  the crime  of homicide and  sentenced  him to the penalty of fifteen years’ reclusion temporal, to the accessory penalties, to pay an indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased, and the  costs.  From this judgment an appeal was  taken.

Conclusive evidence was adduced at the trial of the violent death of Silverio de la Cruz as the result of  five wounds, one of them, that received in the right side, of a serious and mortal nature.  The  crime committed is that  of homicide, provided for and punished by article 404 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as the record does not show that its perpetration was attended by  any of the specific and qualifying circumstances  of homicide which  convert it  into murder and are  enumerated in article 403 of  the same code,  nor by those  of premeditation  and treachery,  expressed  in  the complaint.  Sufficient evidence was not adduced to prove that the aggressor deliberately,  and with premeditation, conceived the definite purpose of  depriving the deceased of his  life,  nor that the said aggressor availed  himself of ways and means  tending  directly  to obtain  the consummation of the crime without such  risk to his  person as might  originate from any defense offered by the assaulted party,  for the aggressor, provided with a bolo or kris and a lance, entered the house of the deceased on the night of the crime, and, after an altercation between the two, the defendant Valentin de Jose, who was drunk, seeing that  De la Cruz firmly refused to accompany him to a dance hall, in anger attacked the deceased in the  presence of the latter’s wife and struck him repeated  blows with a bolo or kris, first in the  calf of the leg, then in  the right side, through which  wound the intestines, protruded, on the palm  of the hand, on the  left arm and on the shoulder;  immediately thereafter he dragged the wounded man, almost dead, outside of the house and to a distance of 20 meters, where the body was afterwards found by the agents of  the Government authorities.

The defendant, Valentin  de  Jose, was  proved to be the sole perpetrator, by direct participation, of the said serious crime and was convicted  thereof.   His exculpatory allegations can not be  admitted, as they are  absolutely  devoid of proof and obviously improbable.

The facts were perfectly well established that the defendant, being armed, entered the house of the deceased on the said night and that, after a dispute brought about by the refusal  of the owner of the house to accept his invitation to go to a house where there was  a dance, he attacked the deceased,  in the presence of the latter’s wife, inflicting upon him the wounds which caused his death.  Although  the wife, possessed by fear because of what she had seen, fled from the house and hid  herself in a nearby wood, it is certain  that she saw the defendant drag the wounded man, almost dead, out of the house, which was low and had no stairs, and take him or his  body to a place about 40 yards away, where in fact it was found several  hours afterwards by agents of the Government authorities.

The defendant alleged that the  deceased awaited him at the place where they quarreled and, armed with a bolo and a lance, attacked him, wherefore he,  in order to defend himself, had to engage in a struggle with the  deceased,  who, in the midst of the struggle, inflicted upon himself with his own bolo the wounds from which he died, and that after defendant had succeeded in snatching away the weapon  he left the place, leaving the deceased stretched out on the ground. This allegation is entirely unsubstantiated, is incredible in itself on account of its unlikelihood, in view of the number of wounds borne by the body of the deceased, and does not appear to be corroborated even by circumstantial evidence, inasmuch  as it is undeniable that the assault took place in the house of the deceased on an occasion when the latter was disarmed and could  not  so much as defend himself from the attack, according to the testimony of  the victim’s wife, who saw the beginning of the assault and was present at the time; and if, afterwards, the body was found outside the house about 40 yards away, it was because it had been conveyed  there by  the  defendant,  for the  purpose undoubtedly of giving an appearance of truth to the allegation, made in his defense, that the deceased awaited him there to assault him.

Under the well-founded hypothesis that Silverio de la Cruz was assaulted and received his five wounds in his house, the fact admitted  by the defendant that he struggled with the deceased, though out of the house and in another  place and  without arms, according  to his unsupported allegation, united with the fact that the deceased died as the result of five  wounds, constitutes unimpeachable  proof that the slayer or the author of the wounds followed by the death of the deceased was the defendant, the only one who quarreled with the latter on the night in which  he  was killed; and because of the lack of proof of the facts  alleged  by the aggressor his guilt as  the author of the death of  his opponent must be considered as established.

With respect  to the commission of the  crime, we  must consider the  presence of the twentieth aggravating circumstance of article 10,  that is, that of the crime having been perpetrated in the dwelling of the deceased, who is not shown to have  provoked the same.   This  circumstance is counterbalanced in its effects by  the extenuating  one of intoxication, the sixth of article 9 of the Penal Code,  since the record does not show that the defendant was habitually intoxicated; wherefore, these two circumstances compensating each other,  the  penalty should be imposed upon the defendant in the medium degree.

For the foregoing reasons,  and considering the judgment appealed from  to  be in accord with the law, it is, in our opinion, proper to affirm,  and we hereby affirm, the judgment, with the  costs against  the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.