G.R. No. L-37; May 25, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTORINO BORBANO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant, Victorino Borbano, was charged with homicide for stabbing Leoncio Castillano on March 8, 1945, in Calbayog, Samar, causing his death. The trial court convicted him and imposed an indeterminate penalty. The defendant appealed, contesting the admission of a medical certificate (Exhibit A) signed by Dr. Fred E. Spangler, who was unavailable at trial, as part of Dr. Irineo T. Ortiz’s testimony, and the sufficiency of the evidence for conviction.
The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses (Gavino Layam, Demetrio Layam, and Eustaquia Jablon, the victim’s mother) and two doctors. Their testimony established that the incident began in the defendant’s house during a drinking session and a game. The defendant, who was drunk and angry, confronted the deceased about a past killing. The deceased fled to his mother’s house, pursued by the defendant. After a struggle where the deceased disarmed the defendant of a scythe and a bolo, the defendant returned with a fan knife. He pretended to reconcile, put his arm around the deceased, and then suddenly stabbed him in the chest. The wound, involving the lung and heart, led to pneumonia and death on March 15, 1945.
The defense, presented only by the defendant and his wife, claimed self-defense. They testified that the deceased initiated the attack in their house, wounded the defendant during a struggle for a scythe, and persisted in attacking. The defendant claimed he used the fan knife to prevent a blow from a piece of wood the deceased was wielding. They stated the prosecution’s eyewitnesses arrived after the stabbing. The trial court found the prosecution witnesses more credible and rejected the defense version, noting contradictions in the defendant’s own statements.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the medical certificate (Exhibit A) as part of Dr. Ortiz’s testimony.
2. Whether the evidence for the prosecution was sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the admission of the medical certificate was a non-prejudicial error. The cause of death was conclusively established by other evidence, specifically the testimony of Dr. Ortiz and Dr. Dasmariñas, and the defendant’s responsibility for the fatal consequences of his act was clear.
2. On the second issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s findings. The positive, coherent, and credible testimony of the disinterested prosecution eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, sufficiently proved the defendant’s guilt for homicide beyond reasonable doubt. The claim of self-defense was found to be flimsy and unworthy of credit. The Court deferred to the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility, finding no reason to overturn it.
The Court found that one mitigating circumstance and one aggravating circumstance attended the crime, which compensated each other. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the Revised Penal Code, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with accessory penalties, an indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs, costs, and credit for one-half of preventive imprisonment.