G.R. No. L-25702, October 21, 1926
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EVARISTO CABANTUG and PAULINO CABANTUG, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On July 26, 1925, in Panitan, Capiz, several persons, including appellants Evaristo Cabantug and Paulino Cabantug, were engaged in a communal work called “daguiao” in a rice field. The deceased, Egmidio Deviente, passed by and was invited to drink “tuba.” During the gathering, a remark was made that no one could beat Egmidio in a finger contest (“juego al tornillo”). Evaristo Cabantug offered to play, but Egmidio refused. Without any prior provocation shown, Evaristo, who appeared to be under the influence of liquor, suddenly unsheathed his bolo and struck Egmidio on the calf of his right leg. Egmidio then drew his own bolo, and a fight ensued. During the struggle, some individuals, including Paulino Cabantug, held Egmidio. While Egmidio was being held, Evaristo stabbed him on the shoulder, and Paulino stabbed him on the side. Egmidio died the next day from his wounds. The trial court convicted Evaristo and Paulino of homicide and sentenced each to twelve years and one day of *reclusión temporal*, with indemnity to the widow. They appealed.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the guilt of the appellants for the crime of homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the defense of alibi by appellant Paulino Cabantug should be sustained.
3. Whether the exempting circumstance of self-defense in favor of appellant Evaristo Cabantug should be considered.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment.

1. Guilt Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the eyewitness accounts of the victim’s son (Jesus Deviente) and sister (Geronima Deviente), to be clear, natural, and credible. Their testimonies were consistent and corroborated by the dying declaration of the victim to the chief of police. The evidence established that the appellants inflicted fatal wounds on the deceased without any lawful justification.

2. Defense of Alibi Rejected: The Court held that the positive identification of Paulino Cabantug by credible eyewitnesses as one of the assailants who held and stabbed the victim rendered his defense of alibi worthless. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.

3. Self-Defense Not Established: The Court found Evaristo Cabantug’s claim of self-defense untenable. The evidence showed that it was Evaristo who commenced the unlawful aggression by suddenly and without cause attacking the deceased with a bolo. The injuries Evaristo sustained were a natural consequence of the fight he himself started, as the victim had the right to defend himself. The alleged prior quarrels between Evaristo and the deceased were deemed insufficient motive for the deceased to initiate a life-threatening attack.

The Court noted that the trial court had already considered the mitigating circumstance of voluntary intoxication (non-habitual) in imposing the minimum penalty. Thus, the appealed judgment was affirmed in its entirety.