G.R. No. L-11388; July 28, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANIEL CABANOG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On August 25, 1915, in Malabuyoc, Cebu, Daniel Cabanog was charged with the crime of assassination. The complaint alleged that he treacherously attacked Tomas Lomocso with a penknife, inflicting fatal wounds. After a preliminary examination, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance. Upon arraignment, Cabanog pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found him guilty of assassination qualified by alevosia (treachery), with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. He was sentenced to cadena perpetua (life imprisonment), ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000, and to pay the costs. Cabanog appealed, arguing that the lower court erred in its factual findings, that treachery was not present, that he was not guilty of assassination, and that he did not cause Lomocso’s death, claiming instead that he acted in self-defense.

ISSUE:
Whether the lower court erred in convicting the defendant of the crime of assassination qualified by treachery.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the issue raised was purely factual. After a careful examination of the record, it found an irreconcilable conflict between the prosecution and defense evidence. The prosecution’s theory, supported by three or four witnesses, was that Cabanog attacked Lomocso without sufficient provocation. The defense claimed self-defense. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of credibility, noting that the prosecution witnesses were more consistent and disinterested, while some defense witnesses had made prior inconsistent statements. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Cabanog attacked Lomocso from behind while the latter was seated on the floor, without warning or opportunity to defend himself, thereby constituting the qualifying circumstance of alevosia (treachery). Finding no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty was properly imposed in its medium degree. The sentence of the lower court was affirmed in its entirety.