The appellant  Esteban Cabajar  (together with Simeon Sabal, who  was  acquitted)  was tried for  homicide  as charged in the information by the Court of First Instance of Cebu, found guilty,  and sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, the accessories of law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-half of the costs.

From  this judgment the accused Esteban Cabajar  appealed,  alleging that the trial  court erred  in  not finding that he acted in self-defense when  he wounded the deceased which caused his death, and in not acquitting him on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The record shows that ill-feeling  existed  between the deceased and the appellant, caused by the betrothal of the deceased Mariano  Taborada's son and Esteban  Cabajar's daughter.  When the  latter's hand  was asked for, her father demanded that, the prospective groom give  him a P150 in cash, a carabao, and a house, by way of dowry, or what was formerly called "bugay" in  Visayan,  "bigay kaya"  in Tagalog,  and "sab-ong" in the Ilocano  dialect. The young man and his father were agreeable, but Esteban  Cabajar then asked for P160 more.  As  Mariano Taborada and his son could not pay the additional amount, they consulted a lawyer in  Cebu, who  advised  them to try  to  arrange matters amicably with  Cabajar.  After another interview with Cabajar, they obtained his consent, and he told them they could apply for the marriage license. They did so,  and  the  wedding  took  place on October  1, 1930, after which the couple called upon Esteban Cabajar to ask his blessing.  But he refused, saying  it was not a custom in his family. This, however,  did  not prevent them from holding a marriage  feast,  which  Esteban Cabajar himself attended.

The trouble between  the two fathers-in-law thus seemed to have been patched up by their children's marriage.  But Cabajar heard that Taborada,  his  daughter's  father-in-law, went about saying that he (Cabajar) had  asked too much  for  his daughter's  hand,  and this  soured their relations.

One afternoon in the month of October, 1930, Mariano Taborada was in the barrio of Himaomaoan, municipality of Cebu, Province  of Cebu,  in a coconut grove where one Simeon Sabal was distilling tuba.  Besides Simeon Sabal, there were tuba.  It  is not  known  whether it was  intentional  or a mere coincidence,  but  Esteban Cabajar came upon  the  scene.  According  to the witnesses for the defense,  when Mariano Taborada caught sight of him,  he exclaimed: "I'm glad you  have come, Compadre, now we can settle our little difference," and  drew  his bolo  or dagger; Esteban Cabajar also pulled out a long, pointed bolo.  According to witnesses Simeon Sabal,  his son,  Simeon Sabal,  jr., Arcadio Labrador, and  Severo Gabucan, the barrio lieutenant, all ran  away upon  seeing Tabprada  and  Cabajar  draw their bolos and left  them facing each other, battling with the bolos in their hands.

Pedro  Padayao, witness for the prosecution, testifies that he was present at the scene and remained until  Cabajar had struck at Mariano Taborada twice, when Simeon Sabal stepped  in and  stabbed Mariano Taborada twice in the back with a sickle or curved bolo used in extracting tuba. But  the  trial court refused to believe  this witness, not only because the witnesses for the  defense are unanimous in declaring that Padayao was not present, but also, and perhaps  mainly, because he did not report Simeon  Sabal's alleged part in the crime to the authorities until he was called to Cebu a week later.   Pedro Padayao affirms that he told Mariano  Taburada's son of Simeon Sabal's part in the fight, but if this were  true, says the trial court, we cannot understand how the  son of the  deceased  did not report this fact to the authorities  when Esteban Cabajar was  prosecuted.

The trial court, as we have  stated,  refused to  believe witness Padayao  of  the prosecution, and we do not feel justified in departing from this finding.  Upon the strength of the testimony  adduced by the defense,  the  trial court found that the accused and Mariano Taborada fought face to face and, in consequence, the latter died on the sixth day.

The appellant contends that he wounded  the deceased in self-defense.  But since  the  fight  occurred, as the trial court found, with both combatants  ready to settle  the differences  between them by force, and considering the eleven wounds in  the face, back, and  other parts of the corpse, whereas it  does  not appear that the accused  sustained a single wound,  and considering,  furthermore, the  defendant's own testimony of record, he cannot  be  said to have acted in self-defense.

In applying the minimum period of the penalty, the trial court took  into account the  defendant's  lack  of  education as a mitigating circumstance, which was quite within  his discretion.  Since the  judgment  appealed  from  is  in  accordance  with the  law, it  must  be affirmed with  costs against the appellant.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm,  Romualdez, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.