THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CANDIDO AQUINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This case was brought up on appeal filed by counsel for the accused from the
judgment dated September 15, 1913, whereby the Honorable Francisco Santamaria,
judge, found him guilty of the crime of homicide and sentenced him to the
penalty of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, to the accessories of
article 59 of the Code, to pay an indemnity of P1,000 to the family of the
deceased, and to the costs.

It appears to have been duly proven in said case that in the early morning of
Monday, May 19,1913, Candido Aquino attacked Ceferino Cristal, because the
latter had tried to take away a carabao of his or of Braulio Cacatian, as is
recorded on page 33. Cristal was near the inclosed lot where Candido Aquino had
his carabao quarantined, in the territory of the pueblo of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur.
Aquino inflicted upon him four wounds, the first a stab in the right shoulder
near the spinal column, which penetrated his chest; the second in the upper
right portion of his breast, which also penetrated his chest; the third in the
lower part of the same region near the diaphragm and the fourth in the middle of
his neck near the larynx. As a result of these wounds the victim fell face
downwards on the ground and must have died a few moments afterwards.

At the time of the occurrence, Braulio Cacatian was leaving his house in
search of fodder for his carabao and, upon going by the place, saw the corpse
with spots of blood on its back; he also saw his uncle, Candido Aquino, near the
place where the corpse was. Cacatian asked him who had killed the man stretched
out on the ground and the person addressed answered that he himself had killed
him, whereupon Cacatian, amazed and terrified, went back into his house to get
away from the accused, without asking any further questions about the affair.
Candido Aquino there-upon returned to his house with his shirt stained with
blood, and there told his son, Nemesio Aquino, 19 years old, that he had killed
Ceferino Cristal, but did not state his reason.

A little while later in the same morning Candido Aquino went to the garden of
Mariano Liberato, the lieutenant of the barrio, approached the place where
Liberato was working, and voluntarily stated to him that he had killed the
unfortunate Ceferino Cristal. But the lieutenant of the barrio, doubting the
truth of the occurrence, went to the place where the corpse wad said to be and
there actually saw it stretched out on the ground. He did not inquire into the
motive or make any investigation, because of his fear, but conducted the accused
to the house of the councilman of the barrio. There the accused was placed under
arrest and taken to the justice of the peace, Rufino Viloria, before whom, upon
examination, he pleaded guilty, affirming that he had killed Ceferino Cristal
with a knife because the latter had attempted to take away a carabao of his.

The facts set forth constitute the crime of homicide, penalized under article
404 of the Penal Code, for Ceferino Cristal was violently done to death by means
of a deadly weapon; but it has not been ascertained whether any qualifying
circumstance concurred in the commission of the crime, which must therefore be
classified merely as simple homicide.

At the trial of the case the accused did not plead guilty, nor did he on his
part reveal the motive that induced him to kill the deceased; but his counsel
alleged that the court erred in finding him guilty and in imposing upon him the
penalty for the crime of homicide, and in not dismissing the case and acquitting
the accused, saying, moreover, that evidence of the guilt of the accused was
lacking, and that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient for his
conviction.

In spite of these allegations the case furnishes circumstantial evidence
which produces in the mind, beyond all doubt, complete proof of the guilt of the
accused as the sole proven author by direct participation of the violent death
of Ceferino Gristal. The fact that the accused Aquino was seen with his shirt
stained with blood near the place where the corpse was stretched out; the free
and voluntary statement that he made to Braulio Cacatian that he had killed the
deceased, Ceferino Cristal; also the statement that he afterwards made in his
house to his own son, Nemesio Aquino, who saw his father’s shirt covered with
blood, that he had killed the deceased; the third statement, also voluntary,
that he made a few hours afterwards to Mariano Liberate, the lieutenant of the
barrio, who, doubting the truth of the occurrence, went to the place where the
corpse lay, guided by the accused himself; and the confession that he afterwards
made to the justice of the peace who conducted the preliminary examination, and
to whom he stated that the motive which led him to kill the deceased was that
the latter had attempted to take away his carabao—the declarations of these four
witnesses, one of them the son of the accused himself, constitute conclusive and
decisive proof of his guilt as the undoubted author of the violent death of the
said Ceferino Cristal.

The courts must apply the penalties set forth in the code when the guilt of
the accused is proven by any of the duly accepted means, according to the rules
of sound judgment. Among these, grave and convincing circumstantial evidence may
serve as ground for the conviction, when it is derived from facts duly proven,
when there exists more than one circumstance, and when the combination and
connection of the circumstances leave no reasonable doubt of the guilt of the
accused, in the ordinary and natural course of hu man affairs.

This case offers more than two circumstances, and the merits and facts which
it brings out demonstrate the guilt of the accused in a positive manner. No
aggravating circumstance is to be considered as concurring in the commission of
the crime, but the special circumstance established in article 11 of the Code in
connection with Act No, 2142 must be applied.

For the foregoing reasons, whereby the errors assigned to the judgment
appealed from are deemed to have been refuted, it is proper to affirm the same,
as we hereby do, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, Moreland, and Araullo,
JJ., concur.