FACTS

Alberio went to the municipal building and saw Ural, a policeman inside the jail where he wasboxing
prisoner Napola (who was imprisoned for being drunk). When Napola fell to the groundhe U kicked him
and poured some liquid on N

and then ignited N’s body.

Dr. Luzonia Bakil who treated the victim, said that he sustained 2nd

degree burns on the arms,neck, left side of the face and one half of the body including the back. She also
testified thatwithout any medical intervention, the burns would have caused death-

Napola died on Aug 25 1966. Death certificate indicated burn as the cause of death.-

During the trial, the prosecutors failed to present the detention prisoners who saw the burningof Napola
as witnesses as well as the wife of the deceased-

Nevertheless, Ural was convicted of murder, was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and wasordered to
pay for costs

ISSUE

Whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonabledoubt.

Held:

TC did not err in convicting Ural for murder.

Ural had his own version of the story. According to him he heard a scream for help from Napolawhose
shirt was in flames when found by him, he removed the shirt, but did not summon thedoctor because he
thought that the burns were not serious.

SC: this statement cannot prevail over the testimony of Alberio

This statement does not prove that he was not the one who burned Napola, at most thiscould only
mean that he was alarmed by the consequences of his evil act-
Ural assailed the credibility of Alberio as a witness, saying that he was not listed as a prosecutionwitness
and that he was convicted of murder in the past

Wouldn’t preclude him from being a credible witness.

Since there was no police investigation (accused a police officer), the investigation that

ensued was done by a special counsel of the fiscal’s office. A possible explanation of

alberio not being listed at first.

The statements of the witnesses for the defense were not inconsistent with that of

Alberio’s.

Therefore, there is no reason to not believe in Alberio’s testimony.

The present case is covered by article 4 (par.1-result greater than what was intended).

Aggravating circumstance: art 14(1).

TC erred in not appreciating the Mitigating circumstance “that the offender had no

intention to

commit so grave a wrong as that committed”

No intent to kill but only to maltreat the drunk napola who might have beenmaking a nuisance
of himself

He realized the fearful consequence of his felonious act, he allowed Napola tosecure medical treatment
at the municipal dispensary