The record shows that on July 26, 1925, several persons met in Jose Acebedo's rice field situated in the barrio of Entampilan, municipality of Panitan,  Province of  Capiz, who had been invited to reconstruct ridges and plow said land, the work being called daguiao in that locality.  Those who are invited to participate in this class of labor receive no pay, but food is served and some of them drink what is called tuba.  Later in the afternoon  of the  same day Egmidio Deviente happened to pass by the place, coming from  his  brother Laureano  Deviente's  house, and upon being seen by the accused and his companions, was invited to drink tuba.  Egmidio agreed and joined them, when one of those present, named Severino, offered him  some tuba, remarking that no one  could beat the said  Egmidio  in a finger contest, called juego al tornillo (screw game) in that locality.  The accused Evaristo Cabantug responded to Severino's remark, offering to play al tornillo with Egmidio Deviente,  but the latter refused saying that he did not wish to contest  with  Evaristo.  By this time it is to be presumed that they all  had  been drinking tuba; in fact, Severino offered Egmidio some tuba and while the latter held the receptacle to his mouth Evaristo Cabantug, who, by that time must have been under the influence  of the tuba,  unsheathed his bolo  and struck the said Egmidio, inflicting a wound on the calf of his right leg, the  record not showing any  cause for the attack.  When  Egmidio saw that he was wounded on the calf of the leg he immediately threw down his  receptacle of tuba, seized his bolo and a fight followed  between him  and the accused Evaristo  Cabantug.   Undoubtedly this unexpected bolo fight caused excitement among those present.  Some  of them caught Egmidio Deviente around  the waist,  who  leaned towards the floor, it is not known  whether from the exertion or he was pushed by some of  those who were holding him, and at that moment he was stabbed on the shoulder by the accused Evaristo Gabantug, while  the other accused Paulino Cabantug also stabbed him on the side.  It appears that the other accused Melecio Cadiz caused the wound on Egmidio  Deviente's hand.

As a result of said wounds, especially the one on the side marked No. 1 on the certificate of the health officer, Egmidio Deviente died the following  day in the municipality of Panitan, where he  was taken after the incident.

Such are the facts shown  by the evidence introduced by the prosecution, and upon which the trial court  rendered judgment sentencing each of the accused, Evaristo Cabantug and  Paulino Cabantug,  to twelve years and one day reclusion temporal, to indemnify jointly  and severally the widow of the deceased in the sum  of P500 and to pay the costs of the action. The other accused Melecio Cadiz was acquitted.

From this judgment the accused appealed and through their  counsel in this  instance  allege that  the  trial court erred: (a) In finding the accused and appellants  guilty of the crime of homicide; (b) in not considering the evidence of alibi presented by the appellant Paulino Cabantug; (c) in not taking into consideration the exempting circumstance of self-defense in favor of the accused Evaristo Cabantug; and  (d)  in not acquitting the accused and appellants.

We are convinced, in view of the  testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution,  that the guilt of  the accused was  duly proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  One of the eye witnesses Jesus Deviente, a 14-year  old boy,  who had accompanied his father the afternoon of the incident, gave a clear and natural account of the details of the fight which his father  had with the  accused  on  the afternoon  of the crime.  While the witness is the son of the deceased, yet his manner of testifying was plain and simple and we are convinced of the truth of his  story, the more so because there is nothing in the record to  show any motive for testifying falsely against the accused.  His testimony, furthermore, is substantially corroborated by the  other witness Geronima Dasal who was in front of Laureano Deviente's house, wherefrom the deceased had come, which is not very far from the place of the crime.  Geronima Deviente testified in the same terms as the preceding witness corroborating Jesus Deviente.  This  witness is the deceased's sister and at the time was in her other brother Laureano Deviente's house looking out of the window, watching the fight between the deceased and the accused.   This witness was a distance of about 50 meters from the place of the crime and was able  to see clearly what happened on the occasion when they were working on  Jose Acebedo's land by daguiao.

The chief of  police,  Patricio  del Fin, who went to  the place of the  crime the same  afternoon of July 26, 1925, found the deceased lying on the grass and upon being asked by the court to tell what took place in connection with the wounded, said: "I asked  him his name and what had happened to him and he told me that on that afternoon, as he was coming  from his brother's house where they had had a christening and passed a rice field,  he was  called by one Severino Dula and, according to Egmidio Deviente, shortly after, and while they were talking, he was wounded by Evaristo Cabantug on the calf and, according to him, when he felt  the wound he stooped  and unsheathed his bolo. Upon seeing this Jacinto Destura, Adriano Paderes and Paulino Cabantug  caught hold of him and while they were thus holding him he was wounded here (the witness pointing) on the side, but did not know who had wounded him.  It was  when  Jacinto Destura and the former who was holding him pushed  him.  After  being  pushed he got up  and started to run and while he was running  he was pursued by  those people without knowing who they were, and after receiving many wounds he fell."

In view of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution the defense of alibi set up by the appellant Paulino Cabantug is without merit.  The witnesses for the prosecution know this accused and saw him inflict the wound on the deceased Egmidio Deviente's side.   There being no legal reason for discrediting the witnesses  for the prosecution, the defense  of alibi cannot overthrow the weight of  their testimony.

In regard to  the defense alleged by the other accused Evaristo Cabantug to  the  effect that he wounded the deceased in  self-defense, the evidence, in our opinion,  likewise shows that this is untenable.  The witnesses for the prosecution  unanimously testified  that Laureano Deviente did not take any part in the fight.  And while it  is true that the  accused Evaristo Cabantug had several injuries upon his body,  yet it is also true  that the deceased,  after he had been wounded  on the  calf, had to defend himself from the blows  of the accused, Evaristo Cabantug, and  it is not strange that during the fight the said accused received blows inflicted by his opponent.  It is also  alleged  by the defense that the accused Evaristo Cabantug was attacked by the brothers Egmidio and Laureano  who had been angry on account of the trouble the  deceased had with Evaristo first in August, 1924,  for  having built a toilet on a  rice field, and later in May, 1925, the said deceased having suspected that  the  said accused Evaristo had  struck  a  goat belonging to him.   Aside from the testimony of Evaristo Cabantug  upon this point which has not been corroborated by  any evidence, it is incredible that  the deceased would risk his life in  a bolo fight with the  accused  for  such  a trifle  which happened  in August,  1924.

We find no substantial  error  in the judgment appealed from which  should be corrected by this court and considering that the trial court must have taken  into account the intoxicated condition of the accused which  was not habitual, in imposing upon  them the penalty in its  minimum degree, we are  of the opinion that it must be, as it is hereby, affirmed,  with  the  costs  against the appellants. So  ordered.

Avanceña,  C.  J., Johnson, Street, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.