G.R. No. L-49887; October 28, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO TOLENTINO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Batangas sentenced appellant Alejandro Tolentino to reclusion perpetua for the murder of Gerundio Alcazar on November 19, 1941, in barrio Bangin, Lemery, Batangas. Prosecution witnesses Juan Mendoza, Ireneo Sangalang, and Agripina Alcazar testified that at about 1 p.m., Tolentino held the reign of Alcazar’s horse and stabbed him with a pen knife, causing Alcazar to fall, after which Tolentino stabbed him several more times, leaving him dead. According to Sangalang, the motive was Alcazar securing permission from his mother to use a madre cacao post for his house, despite Tolentino’s objection and warning that “something will happen.” Agripina Alcazar testified that on the morning of the killing, she saw Tolentino sharpening his pen knife and saying, “Leave me alone. You will know it before the afternoon.” Ruperta Balani declared that Tolentino said earlier that day, “Baguio would occur before the afternoon.” At trial, Tolentino offered to plead guilty if the charge was reduced to homicide, but pleaded not guilty to murder. He testified that Alcazar dismounted and attacked him with a bolo, and he acted in self-defense with a pen knife during a struggle. His wife, Felisa Alcazar, testified only about the deceased’s ill feelings toward Tolentino, stemming from opposition to their marriage and the conflict over the madre cacao post.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted Alejandro Tolentino of murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s sentence. It held that Tolentino’s uncorroborated testimony on self-defense could not prevail over the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court found no reason for the prosecution witnesses, many of whom were Tolentino’s relatives, to testify falsely. The alleged motives for the deceased’s attack—opposition to Tolentino’s marriage in 1936 and the conflict over the madre cacao post—were deemed insufficient to explain an attack five years later, and instead corroborated the prosecution’s version that Tolentino was spited by the deceased’s actions. Tolentino’s willingness to plead guilty to homicide further indicated his culpability. The sentence was in accordance with Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and Commonwealth Act No. 284 . The motion for a new trial was denied for lack of merit. Justice Hilado dissented based on his view regarding the validity of judgments from Japanese-sponsored courts during the occupation.