EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9723. June 28, 1957.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . GERONIMO

SOLIMAN Y BUENAVENTURA alias EMONG and SOFRONIO PALIN Y
PAZ alias POLONIO , defendants-appellants.

Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Federico V. Sian for appellee.
Cipriano Azada and Buenaventura Evangelista for appellants.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; EVIDENCE; SELF-DEFENSE BELIED BY NATURE

OF THE WOUNDS. — The court found the testimony of the prosecution witness worthy
of credence not only because it is in part corroborated by the testimony of appellant G.
S. himself who admitted having inflicted the wounds that caused the death of the
victim, (although by way of self-defense) but also as found by the medical examiner in
his autopsy. Thus, the court found that the wounds on the body of the deceased could
not have been inflicted while the deceased was struggling or grappling with the
appellant but were inflicted when the deceased was in a lying position as testified to by
the prosecution witness.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WITNESSES; PREVIOUS CONVICTION DOES NOT DISQUALIFY
WITNESS. — The fact that a person has been previously convicted of a crime does not
necessarily disqualify him as witness for he may still prove to be a truthful one.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROOF OF CHARACTER OF DECEASED ALLOWED ONLY IN
HOMICIDE CASES. — The proof of the good or bad moral character of the deceased
may only be allowed in homicide cases to show "that it has produced a reasonable
belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a
prompt defensive action was necessary." (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,
1952 ed., Vol. 3, p. 126) This rule does not apply to cases of murder, where the killing is
committed through treachery or premeditation.

DECISION

BAUTISTA ANGELO , J : p

Appellants were charged with murder before the Court of First Instance of Manila
and were sentenced each to suffer the extreme penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs
of the deceased in the sum of P6,000, and to pay the costs. By operation of law, the
case was brought before this Court for review.

In the morning of April 29, 1955, at about 2 o'clock, while Ernesto Basa was
sleeping in a pushcart placed along the sidewalk of Sto. Cristo Street near the
southeast corner of that street and Azcarraga, Manila, and Ernesto Balaktaw was also
sleeping on a box situated near the pushcart, with their heads opposite each other,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Balaktaw was awakened when someone kicked his hand. Upon awakening, Balaktaw
saw Sofronio Palin proceed toward the head of Ernesto Basa and hold the latter by the
shoulder at which moment his companion Geronimo Soliman approached Ernesto Basa
and stabbed him many times with a balisong. Thereafter, the assailants ran away.
Balaktaw took Basa to a calesa and proceeded to a police outpost at the corner
of Azcarraga and Elcano Streets and reported the incident to Patrolman Tolentino. The
patrolman boarded the calesa and directed the driver to proceed to Mary Johnston
Hospital. From there, the three transferred to an ambulance and proceeded to the North
General Hospital where Basa was treated, but he expired in the morning of the same
day. At 4 o'clock in the afternoon, Dr. Mariano Lara, Chief Medical Examiner of the
Manila Police Department, made an autopsy of the deceased and found that the cause
of death is as follows: "Profuse exsanguinating hemorrhage (only 850 cc. recovered)
and shock due to multiple (7) stab wounds, two (2) being fatal, piercing the pyloric
portion of the stomach, duodenum, jejunum, hepatic flexure of colon and right kidney."
Appellant Soliman testi ed that prior to the present incident, or on April 21, 1955,
the deceased tried to borrow his pushcart and, as he was not able to lend it to him, the
deceased boxed him and as a consequence, he suffered physical injuries; that that
incident was settled amicably on the same day by the companions of the deceased;
that on another occasion the deceased beat up Soliman with an iron pipe and the latter
had to undergo medical treatment; that in the night of April 29, 1955, after he had eaten
in Folgueras St., he proceeded to a truck of the United Bus Line of which he was a
watchman; that while he was passing Sto. Cristo Street, the deceased called him and
asked for a drink; that he told the deceased he had no money, but the deceased forced
him to give him money and even boxed him; that because the deceased had three
companions, he pulled out his knife and upon seeing this, the three companions ran
away; that he and the deceased fought in the course of which he stabbed him; that
while they were ghting, one Sofronio Palin came and separated them; and that when
they were separated Palin advised him to surrender to the police, so he went home and
asked his brothers to accompany him to the Meisic Station.
Appellant Palin merely corroborated the testimony of his co- accused by
declaring that while he was eating at a restaurant at the corner of Sto. Cristo and
Azcarraga Streets in the morning in question, he saw Soliman and the deceased
grappling with each other; that he tried to separate them and succeeded in doing so;
that after the two were separated, he asked Soliman to surrender and the latter heeded
his advice.
The two appellants are charged with a very serious crime as in fact they were
sentenced to the extreme penalty of death. It is therefore important that we scrutinize
carefully the evidence on which the conviction is made to depend. In this case, we
notice that the conviction is mainly predicated on the testimony of one eyewitness
supported by some circumstantial evidence. This witness is Ernesto Balaktaw. Whether
this witness has told the truth or not in narrating the aggression which led to the death
of the victim, much depends upon the degree of his credibility. As usual, this is the
function of the trial court. Because of its opportunity to observe the conduct, demeanor
and manner of testifying of the witness, the trial court is in a better position to pass
upon and gauge their credibility.
In this respect, we notice that the trial court has been most careful in taking
notice not only of the conduct of the witness during the trial, but of other extraneous
matters that may help in reaching a correct conclusion. The Court found the testimony
of Balaktaw worthy of credence not only because it is in part corroborated by the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 testimony of appellant Soliman himself who admitted having in icted the wounds that
caused the death of the victim, (although by way of self-defense) but also because it is
supported by the nature of the wounds as found by Dr. Lara in his autopsy. Thus, in
brushing aside the defense of appellant Soliman because the same runs counter to the
nature and character of the wounds inflicted on the deceased, the court said:
"The contention of the defense that the wounds were inflicted while the
deceased Ernesto Basa was struggling or grappling with Geronimo is belied by
the testimony of the medical examiner and by the nature and character of the
wounds on the body of the deceased, as may be seen in Exhibits D, D-1, D-2 and
D-3. An examination of the pictures of the deceased as appears in Exhibits D-1
and D-2, especially the wound that appears a little above he duodenum, shows
clearly that the wounds were inflicted when the deceased was in a lying position
as testified to by the witness for the prosecution, Ernesto Balaktaw. The wound
that may be seen under the left armpit of the deceased could not have been
possibly inflicted if the deceased was in a standing position. This wound under
the left armpit is the result of the stab when the deceased was in a lying position
with his hand extended upwards in self-defense."
On the other hand, the trial court made also careful observation of the conduct
and demeanor of the two accused during the trial and in this respect, made the
following observation:
"During the course of the hearing, in order to give every iota evidence its
proper probatory value, the Court had paid special attention to the manner in
which the accused and the witnesses testified, as well as their general
appearance. The accused Soliman is a well-built man, robust and apparently
strong. The accused Palin a little bigger than the other accused and of stronger
physique. The deceased, as it appears from the pictures, while he may be slightly
higher in stature than the accused Soliman, has a thinner constitution and much
smaller than the accused Palin. Judging these two accused from the manner they
testified in court, their apparent indifference to all the court proceedings in spite of
the seriousness of the crime charged against them, and the manner of testifying
in short, curt and confused manner, convinced this Court that they gave little
importance to the case against them and to the proceeding in court."
The defense, however, claims that the testimony of Ernesto Balaktaw should not
be given credit because it is self-contradictory and inconsistent with the testimony of
Pat. Tolentino and Det. Senen. But, aside from the fact that the alleged contradictions
refer to unimportant details or circumstances, they can be explained and reconciled.
This was done by the Solicitor General in his brief. After going over the explanation and
reconciliation made by this of cial, we are satis ed that the alleged contradictions or
inconsistencies cannot destroy the credibility of the witness.
An important aw pointed out by the defense refers to the manner the witness
identi ed the two defendants. It is claimed that when this witness was made to identify
accused Soliman he pointed to accused Palin and when he was asked to identify the
latter, he pointed to the former. And he also committed a mistake in designating the
nicknames of the two accused.
While it is true that at the start of his testimony this witness was confused in
identifying the accused by their names, however, when he was asked by the court
immediately thereafter to put his hands on each of them, he was able to identify them
correctly. The court then made the following observation:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 "Witness identified both accused. At the time when he pointed to the
accused he apparently made a mistake may be due to the fact that the accused
were both seated together and when be pointed to the accused he might have
been out of his sense of direction." pp. 2-3, t.s.n., Lloren.)
The defense also claims that the trial court erred in not granting its motion for
new trial based on newly discovered evidence which consists of the criminal record of
prosecution witness Ernesto Balaktaw. This claim is untenable. In the rst place, the
criminal record of Balaktaw cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence
because the same was available to the defense much prior to the trial of this case. It
appears that said record can be obtained from the Criminal Identi cation Section of the
Manila Police Department for, with the exception of one conviction rendered on
September 1, 1955, all the other convictions and charges date as far back as January
19, 1955, months prior to the trial of the instant case. In the second place, the fact that
a person has been previously convicted of a crime does not necessarily disqualify him
as a witness for he may still prove to be a truthful one.
The claim that the trial court also erred in not allowing the defense to prove that
the deceased had a violent, quarrelsome or provocative character cannot also deserve
consideration. While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid to
determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an offense (Section 15,
Rule 123), such is not necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is committed
through treachery or premeditation. The proof of such character may only be allowed in
homicide cases to show "that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger
in the mind of the accused and a justi able conviction that a prompt defensive action
was necessary." (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed., Vol. 3, p. 126. This
rule does not apply to cases of murder.
While the Court is of the opinion that the evidence is suf cient to convict both
appellants of the crime charged, some members however expressed doubt as to the
propriety of imposing the extreme penalty and so, for lack of the necessary number of
votes, the Court has resolved to impose upon them the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is modi ed in the sense of imposing
upon appellants merely the penalty of reclusion perpetua, af rming the decisions in all
other respects, with costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com