Appellants  were charged with murder before  the Court of  First Instance  of Manila and  were sentenced each to suffer the extreme penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in  the  sum of P6,000, and  to pay the costs. By  operation of law,   the  case  was brought  before this Court for review.
 
In the morning of  April 29,  1955,  at  about  2 o'clock, while  Ernesto Basa  was sleeping in  a  pushcart  placed along the sidewalk of Sto.  Cristo Street near the southeast corner of  that street  and  Azcarraga,  Manila, and Ernesto  Balaktaw  was also sleeping  on a  box situated near the pushcart,  with their heads opposite each other, Balaktaw was awakened when someone kicked  his  hand. Upon awakening,  Balaktaw  saw  Sofronio Palin proceed toward the head of Ernesto  Basa and  hold the latter by the shoulder  at which  moment  his  companion  Geronimo, Soliman approached Ernesto  Basa and  stabbed him  many times with  a  balisong.  Thereafter, the  assailants ran away.

Balaktaw  took Basa  to a calesa and proceeded  to a police outpost  at  the   corner of  Azcarraga  and Elcano Streets and reported the incident to Patrolman Tolentino. The patrolman  boarded  the calesa and  directed the driver to proceed to Mary Johnston Hospital.  From there, the three transferred to an ambulance and proceeded to the North General  Hospital where Basa was treated, but he expired in the morning  of the same  day.  At 4  o'clock in the afternoon, Dr. Mariano Lara, Chief  Medical Examiner of  the Manila  Police Department, made an autopsy of the deceased  and found that the  cause of  death  is !as follows:  "Profuse  exsanguinating hemorrhage (only 850 cc. recovered) and shock due to multiple (7)  stab wounds, two (2)  being  fatal, piercing the pyloric portion of the stomach,  duodenum, jejunum,  hepatic  flexure  of  colon and right kidney."

Appellant Soliman testified that prior to the present incident,  or  on April  21,  1955,  the   deceased tried to borrow his pushcart and, as he was not able to lend  it to him, the deceased boxed him  and as a consequence, he suffered physical injuries;  that that incident was settled amicably on the same day by the companions of the deceased ; that  on another  occasion the  deceased beat  up Soliman with an iron pipe and the latter had to undergo medical  treatment;  that in the  night of April  29,  1955, after he had eaten in Folgueras St., he proceeded to a  truck of the United Bus Line of  which  he was a watchman; that  while  he was passing Sto. Cristo  Street,  the deceased called him and asked for a drink; that he told the deceased he  had no  money,  but the  deceased  forced  him to give him money  and even boxed him; that because the deceased had three companions, he pulled  out his knife  and upon seeing this,  the three  companions ran away; that  he and the deceased fought  in the course of which he stabbed him; that while  they  were fighting, one  Sofronio Palin  came and separated them; and that when they were  separated Palin advised him to surrender to the police, so he went home and asked his brothers to accompany him to the Meisic Station.

Appellant Palin merely corroborated  the  testimony of his co-accused by declaring that while he was eating at a restaurant  at the corner of Sto.  Cristo  and  Azcarraga Streets in the  morning in  question, he saw Soliman and the deceased  grappling  with  each other;  that  he tried to separate them and succeeded in doing so; that  after the two  were separated, he  asked Soliman  to surrender and the latter heeded his  advice. The  two  appellants are charged with  a very  serious crime  as in  fact they  were  sentenced to  the extreme penalty of death.  It is therefore important that we scrutinize carefully the  evidence on which  the  conviction is made to depend.  In  this case, we  notice that the conviction  is mainly predicated  on  the  testimony  of one eyewitness  supported  by some circumstantial  evidence. This witness is Ernesto Balaktaw.  Whether this witness has told the  truth or not in narrating the aggression which led to  the death of the  victim, much depends  upon the degree of his credibility.  As  usual, this is the function of the  trial  court.  Because  of its opportunity to observe the conduct, demeanor and  manner of  testifying of the witness,  the trial court  is in a  better position to pass upon and gauge their credibility.

In this respect, we notice  that the trial court has been most careful in taking notice not  only  of the conduct of the  witness during  the  trial,  but of  other  extraneous matters that may help  in reaching a  correct conclusion. The  Court  found the testimony  of Balaktaw worthy  of credence not only because it is in  part  corroborated by the testimony  of  appellant  Soliman  himself  who  admitted having inflicted  the wounds that  caused  the death of the victim, (although by way of self-defense) but also because it is  supported by the nature of  the wounds as found  by Dr.  Lara in his autopsy.  Thus, in  brushing aside  the defense of appellant Soliman because the same runs counter to the nature and character  of  the  wounds inflicted  on the  deceased, the court  said:

"The  contention  of  the defense that the  wounds  were  inflicted while the deceased Ernesto 'Rasa was struggling or grappling with Geronimo is belied by the testimony of the  medical examiner and by the  nature and character of the wounds  on  the  body  of the deceased, as may be seen in  Exhibits  D, D-1,  D-2 and D-3.  An examination of the pictures  of the deceased as appears in Exhibits D-1  and D-2,  especially the wound that  appears a little  above the duodenum, shows clearly that  the  wounds were inflicted when the deceased was  in a lying  position as testified to by the witness for the  prosecution, Ernesto Balaklaw.  The wounds  that  may  be seen  under the left armpit  of the deceased could  not have  been possibly inflicted  if the deceased was in a standing position.   This wound under  the left armpit is the result  of  the  stab when the deceased was  in  a lying position with  his hand extended upwards in self-defense."

On  the other  hand, the trial  court  made also careful observation   of  the  conduct  and  demeanor of  the  two accused during  the trial  and in this  respect, made the following observation:

"During the course  of the hearing,  in order to  give every iota of evidence its proper probatory value, the Court had paid special attention to  the  manner in which the accused and   he witnesses testified, as well as their general appearance.  The accused Soliman is  a  well-built man,  robust  and  apparently  strong.   The  accused Palm  is a  little bigger than the  other  accused  and of stranger physique.  The deceased, as  it appears  from  the pictures, while  he may be slightly higher in .stature than the accused Soliman, has a thinner  constitution and  much  smaller  than the  accused  Palm.  Judging these  two  accused  from  the  manner they testified in court, their apparent indifference to all  the court  proceedings in spite of the seriousness  of tire crime  charged against  them, and the manner  of testifying in  short, curt and  confused manner, convinced this  Court that they gave little importance to the case against them and  to the proceeding in court."

The  defense,  however,  claims  that  the  testimony of Ernesto Balaktaw should  not be  given credit because it is self-contradictory and inconsistent with the testimony of Pat. Tolentino and Det. Senen.   But,  aside  from the fact that the alleged  contradictions refer to unimportant details  or circumstances,  they  can  be  explained  and reconciled.   This was  done  by the Solicitor General in his brief.   After going  over  the  explanation and reconciliation made by this official, we are satisfied that the alleged contradictions or inconsistencies cannot destroy the credibility of the  witness.

An important flaw pointed out by  the defense  refers to the  manner  the  witness  identified  the  two  defendants. It is claimed  that when this witness was made to identify accused Soliman he pointed to accused Palin and  when he was asked to  identify  the latter, he pointed to the former. And he also committed a mistake in  designating   the nick  names of the two accused.

While it is true  that  at  the  start  of his testimony this witness  was. confused in identifying  the accused  by their names,  however, when  he was asked  by the  court immediately thereafter to  put his hands on each  of them, he was able  to  identify them correctly.   The court  then made the following observation:

"Witness identified both accused-  At the time when  he pointed to the accused  he apparently  made  a mistake may  be due to the fact that the accused were both seated together and when he pointed to the accused  he might have  been out of his sense  of  direction." (pp. 2-3, t.s.n.,  Lloren.)

The defense also claims that the  trial  court  erred in not granting its motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence which consists  of the  criminal record of prosecution  witness Ernesto  Balaktaw.  This  claim is  untenable.  In the first place,  the criminal  record of Balaktaw  cannot be considered as newly  discovered  evidence because the same was available to the defense much prior to the  trial  of  this  case.   It appears  that said record can be obtained from the Criminal  Identification Section of the Manila  Police  Department for,  with the exception  of  one conviction  rendered  on September 1, 1955, all the  other convictions and  charges date as far back as January 19, 1955, months prior  to the trial  of the instant case.   In the  second  place, the fact that a person has been previously convicted of a crime  does not  necessarily  disqualify him  as a witness for he  may still prove to  be a truthful one.

The claim that the trial court also erred in not allowing the defense to  prove that the deceased  had  a violent, quarrelsome or provocative character  cannot also deserve consideration.  While good or bad moral character may be availed of  as an aid to determine the probability or improbability  of the  commission  of  an offense  (Section 15, Rule 123), such is not necessary in a crime of murder where  the killing is committed through  treachery or premeditation.  The proof of such character may  only be allowed in  homicide cases  to show "that it has  produced a reasonable  belief of  imminent danger in  the mind of the accused and a justifiable  conviction  that a .prompt defensive  action was  necessary."  (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952  ed.,  Vol. 3, p. 126.  This rule does  not apply to cases of murder.

While the Court  is of the  opinion  that  the evidence is a sufficient to convict both appellants of the crime charged, some members however expressed doubt as  to  the propriety  of imposing  the  extreme penalty and  so, for lack of  the  necessary number of votes,  the Court has resolved to  impose upon,  them the  penalty of  reclusion  perpetua.

Wherefore,  the decision  appealed  from   is  modified in the sense of imposing upon  appellants merely the penalty of  reclusion perpetua,  affirming the decisions  in  all other respects, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes,  A., Labrador,  Conception,  Reyes,  J.  B.  L.,  Endencia,  and Felix, JJ., concur.