[ G.R. No. 12700. September 04, 1917 ] 36 Phil. 828
[ G.R. No. 12700. September 04, 1917 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PANTALEON OLAIS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
The findings of fact are clearly stated by the trial court as follows:
“This case happened at midnight of the cited date when Vivencio Tercero, on coming from a house where there was a certain dead person (casa mortuoria), in order to husk palay, was returning to the house of one Julian where he used to sleep because his own house was quite far. On the way, these two accused and one Braulio had been waiting for Vivencio Tercero, and when the latter arrived at the place where they were, they called him, and the accused Jacinto Robles asked him why he had been in the house where the dead was. Vivencio Tercero answered Robles that he was courting a young lady named Paciencia Lera. Jacinto then told him to stop courting the girl. Vivencio answered that he could not do so, and that if Jacinto and his companion liked to court the girl they could do so at any time. The accused Pantaleon Reyes replied that whether Vivencio Tercero desisted or not they would injure him on that night, and they began to assault him. Vivencio Tercero fell to the ground, and his aggressors left him there thinking he was dead.
“The wounds of the offended party lasted for thirty-five days before they were cured with medical assistance, he having spent for medicine the sum of P10. All the wounds are now healed; but the wound inflicted on the right hand which cut the arteries of the ring finger and the little finger makes said hand useless or at least the two lingers mentioned.”
Additional to the foregoing it is only necessary to mention that the testimony of one witness is sufficient to support a judgment of conviction if it satisfies beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case the testimony of the complaining witness is positive, clear, and free from contradiction. (U. S. vs. Dacotan [1903], 1 Phil. Rep., 669; U. S. vs. Mondejar [1911], 19 Phil. Rep., 158.) The accused relied on an alibi. But, to establish such a defense, it must be proved by nothing less than full, clear, and satisfactory evidence. In the present case an alibi has not been proved by probable evidence which reasonably satisfies the court of the truth of such a defense. (U. S. vs. Pascua [1903], 1 Phil. Rep., 631; U. S. vs. Oxiles [1915], 29 Phil. Rep., 587.)
There being present in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, the sentence of the trial court must be modified by imposing upon the defendant and appellant the maximum penalty, which is two years eleven months and eleven days of prision correccional, with one-half of the costs of the first instance and all the costs of this instance, and to indemnify, with his coaccused who did not appeal, singly and jointly, the offended party Vicente Tercero in the amount of P62.50, or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Johnson, and Araullo, JJ., concur.