THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAXIMO REYES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On
the night of November 5, 1923, in the barrio of Santa Clara,
municipality of Santo Tomas, Province of Batangas, the accused attacked
Maria Jaurigue, Higino Mayuga and Antonio Mercado with a bolo,
inflicting several wounds on different parts of the body of Maria
Jaurigue, three of which were necessarily mortal, according to medical
opinion, and caused her death five days after the event, on account of
certain complications. Higino Mayuga also received wounds which healed
after one month, and Antonio Mercado was wounded on the back, the
breast and on one side, his wounds having been serious, and, according
to the testimony of the physician who made the autopsy, two of said
wounds, those on the back and the side, would have caused his death had
not the weapon met with an obstacle, namely, the ribs, which prevented
it from reaching the lungs and kidneys.

The accused was
prosecuted separately for the death of Maria Jaurigue and the wounds
inflicted upon Higino Mayuga and Antonio Mercado. The three cases were
tried jointly by agreement of the parties approved by the court, and
the trial court rendered separate judgments finding the accused guilty
of the crime of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity for the death of Maria Jaurigue, and sentencing him to
seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal,
with the accessories provided by the law, to indemnify the heirs of
Maria Jaurigue in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs of the
action, crediting him with the imprisonment suffered by him as
detention prisoner. For the wounds of Higino Mayuga the trial court
found the accused guilty of the crime of lesiones graves, without any modifying circumstance, and sentenced him to one year and eight months of prision correccional,
with the accessories provided by the law, to indemnify the offended
party Higino Mayuga in the sum of P200, to suffer, in case of
insolvency, the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the
costs of the action; and for the wounds of Antonio Mercado, the trial
court found the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide,
with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and sentenced him to
ten years and one day of prision mayor, with the accessories
provided by the law, to indemnify the offended party, Antonio Mercado,
in the sum of P530 and to pay the costs of the action, it being
understood that the accused shall serve the penalties imposed upon him
successively in the order of their relative gravity.

The defense argues that the trial court erred in not giving credit to the declarations of the witnesses for the defense.

We have examined the record before us, and find that the evidence shows
beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the three
crimes he is charged with. The accused was a suitor of one Maria
Encarnacion Jaurigue, niece of the deceased Maria Jaurigue, and
believing himself rejected by the spouses Antonio Mercado and Maria
Jaurigue, in whose house the girl was living, he decided on the night
in question to do away with them, which he did as follows: Said spouses
Antonio Mercado and Maria Jaurigue were then working in the camarin
(shed) of Higino Mayuga, engaged in the drying of coconuts for the
manufacture of copra. The deceased was near a furnace where there was a
lamp, while Antonio was about 15 brazas from her, seated upon his
heels, gathering coconut shells and putting them in a sack. Suddenly
Antonio was attacked with a bolo while he was with his back toward the
aggressor, and received the wounds above-mentioned, having spent P50
for medical assistance and P80 for medicines to cure them. This
offended party distinctly identified his aggressor as Maximo Reyes,
because there was a lamp in the place, with which Antonio illuminated
the coconut shells that he was gathering. And due to his wounds, he
fell to the ground unconscious.

Higino Mayuga, the owner of the camarin,
upon hearing the cries of Maria, who was about 15 meters from his
house, ran immediately to see what was happening, and there he met
Maximo Reyes, who also assaulted him, wounding him near the stomach and
on the forearm, and fleeing away thereafter.

Higino Mayuga was incapacitated to walk on his hacienda for more than one month, and spent P200 for medical attendance and medicines.

The testimony of these witnesses was corroborated by Francisco Reyes and Aquilino Belleza.

The defense presented two witnesses by the names of Bonifacio Landicho
and, Andres Mendoza who in substance testified that on that night, due
to the disturbance aroused by the wounding of the three persons, they
left their homes, just as the accused Maximo Reyes did, having seen
near the camarin a person who was running and whom they did not recognize, but supposed he was the author of the crime in question.

The trial court gave no credit to the testimony of the witnesses for
the defense, and we are of the opinion that this is no error. The
testimony of the witnesses of the accused seems to us so improbable
that we cannot see how it can be believed without ignoring the rules of
sound judging. His Honor, the trial judge, who saw and heard these
witnesses, says that their testimony had been studied by heart and we
add that they had not learned the lesson well, for we find in the
testimony of the principal witness Bonifacio Landicho several
substantial contradictions which entirely discredit him. We hold that
the testimony of the witnesses for the defense in the instant case is
worthless, as compared with the declarations of the witnesses for the
prosecution.

The Attorney-General observes that the accused
must be held guilty of the crime of frustrated murder for the wounds
inflicted upon Antonio Mercado, in view of the treacherous manner in
which said offended party was assaulted by the accused, and recommends
that the judgment appealed from be modified so that the maximum degree
of the penalty be imposed upon the accused, which is from presidio mayor in its maximum degree to cadena temporal in its medium degree, that is to say, fourteen years, eight months, and one day of cadena temporal, with the accessories provided by the law.

As thus modified, the judgment appealed from must be, as is hereby,
affirmed with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.