G.R. No. L-5535
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CIRIACO PELLEJERA, defendant-appellant.
March 18, 1910

FACTS:
Ciriaco Pellejera, a member of the municipal board of Dimas-Alang, was convicted of homicide. On or about December 31, 1905, in the court-house, Pellejera assaulted Pedro Abejero by kicking and striking him, causing various contusions, particularly on his head and right side. Abejero was immediately confined to bed and died three days later, on January 3, 1906, as a consequence of these injuries.

Prosecution witnesses testified that Pellejera struck Abejero with a fist blow under the left ear, felling him, and then kicked him in the side with a shoe heel. They also described the visible injuries on Abejero. A medical expert testified that the described blows were severe and could individually cause death due to potential laryngeal inflammation/edema, peritonitis from liver laceration, and traumatic shock. The defense presented contradictory evidence, leading to a conflict in witness testimony.

The trial court found Pellejera guilty, relying on the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. During the trial, the court adjourned the case from September 1908 to February 1909 due to the absence of some prosecution witnesses (one subpoenaed but absent, another sick) and the fiscal’s uncertainty about their testimony. The defense objected to this adjournment, arguing it was an abuse of discretion. Pellejera appealed the conviction.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt for homicide.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in adjourning the trial from September 1908 to February 1909.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of conviction.

1. The Court found that the death of Abejero was conclusively caused by the injuries inflicted by the accused. In weighing the contradictory evidence, the Court deferred to the judgment and discretion of the trial court regarding witness credibility, as the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses directly. The Court found that the trial court’s conclusion on the facts was fully justified by the evidence.
2. The Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the adjournment. The reasons cited by the trial court for the adjournmentthe gravity of the charges, the absence of duly subpoenaed or sick witnesses, the fact that it was the first time the cause was brought for trial, and that the accused was admitted to bailwere considered valid and within the court’s discretion.