THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BONIFACIO GALLORA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appellant Bonifacio Gallora was charged
with murder in the Court of First Instance of Lanao
del Norte, found guilty and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to pay the heirs of the victim, Constantino
Elliadora, an indemnity of P6,000,
with costs.

The crime was committed in the evening of March 13, 1959, at barrio Soso,
municipality of Kapatagan in the aforesaid province.  Elliadora and his
wife, Felisa, were
asleep in their small nipa hut, together with
their three young children, when at about midnight
Felisa was suddenly awakened by an unusual sound, as
if some object had fallen.  By the light
of a small kerosene lamp placed on top of a
trunk near the door of the room, she saw her husband lying wounded on the floor.  Two men were standing near him, each with a
flashlight and a blood-stained knife in either hand.  Felisa’s testimony
is that she recognized one of them to be Bonifacio Gallora, as the handkerchief he had used to cover his face
had slipped down, but that she did not
know who the other was since he still had his face hidden.  Her call for help scared the two men away,
both of them exiting through the window, by which same opening they had
evidently gained access inside.  Andres Argonitas, a cousin of Felisa,
who said he was at the yard of his house a few meters away, about to chop some
firewood with which to cook food for his ailing child, responded to the
call.  When he reached the yard of Felisa’s house, he said, he happened to direct the beam of
his flashlight at the fleeing men and thereby recognized appellant, but not the
companion.

When Felisa and Andres turned their
attention to the wounded man he was already lifeless.  He had sustained six wounds, four in the
region of the chest and two in the
left thigh.  The municipal health officer
who examined the body the next morning pronounced that death must have been instantaneous, principally from the
punctured wound one inch below the left nipple.

On the strength of the testimony of the widow and of Andres Argonitas, the trial court returned a verdict of
guilty.  The main issue in this appeal
involves the sufficiency of the evidence identifying appellant as the culprit.

The motive indirectly ascribed for the killing was robbery,
although there is nothing in the
record to show that anything of value
was taken from the victim’s house that fatal evening.  According to Felisa,
some six days before she sold 40
cavans of corn at a corn mill for P200.00, and
appellant was then nearby, and conceivably saw her
receive the said amount in payment. 
Again, she testified, on March
9, 1959, or four days prior to the incident, a certain Pendong paid for P60.00 in her house to redeem a mortgage,
and appellant was then passing by.  It is
obvious that the evidence of the supposed motive is too tenuous to be given credence.

Appellant denied the charge against him, and denied likewise that he saw, or was even present, when Felisa was paid the two sums of money referred to in her
testimony.  Appellant’s house was about
600 meters away from that of the deceased, and from eight in the evening of March 13 to past midnight, according to his testimony, he was at
the house of his next door neighbor, Felix Pacunla, a
former municipal policeman of Kapatagan.  Pacunla had just
arrived that afternoon from Iligan
City, where he went in the morning
to attend to a loan application he had with the local branch of the Philippine
National Bank.  Appellant came to visit
with him and to inquire about his application. 
Other neighbors also came, but at about 10 o’clock Pacunla
ex­cused himself to eat his supper, and afterwards to catch some chickens for
roasting as the next morning he had an appointment with the bank inspector,
with whom he was to go to his land in Doblestan, Caromatan, Lanao del Norte, in
connection with the loan, and the chickens were to be their provision for the
day.  Appellant offered to help Pacunla.  They caught
three of the fowls roosting in a tree nearby, then slaughtered and roasted them
one by one, and even ate the internal organs. 
Appellant took his leave after midnight
and went back to his house just a few meters away.  About five minutes afterwards, as Pacunla was pre­paring to sleep, the barrio sub-lieutenant,
Ciriaco Clarion, arrived and called him from outside,
telling him to wake up because somebody had been killed.  He took his flashlight, went downstairs and
proceeded to Clarion’s house, which was also nearby.  A certain Vicente Yanong
was there, together with a companion.  It
was Vicente who had brought the news of
the killing and who, when asked by Pacunla, informed
the latter that Quintino (Constantino
Elliadora) had been killed but that assailant was
unknown.  Appellant Gallora
himself, who had heard the courier calling to Pacunla,
followed the latter to Clarions house, and while there was requested by Pacunla to write down a report of the incident as dictated
by him, to be signed by the barrio sub-lieutenant.  The report was prepared and signed
accordingly and then taken by rural policeman Antonio Lan­taca,
accompanied by Vicente Yanong and several others, to
the chief of police in the poblacion of Kapatagan.  Neither Pacunla nor appellant went to the house of the victim im­mediately
after they were informed of the killing.

The foregoing, in substance, was the mutually corroborative
testimony of Felix Pacunla and of appellant.

Continuing his own narration, appellant said that at 6:30 in the morning of the next day, March 14,
the municipal health officer of Kapatagan, Dr.
Rodolfo Padua, arrived in a jeep at appellant’s place, accompanied by the chief
of police and one patrolman.  They called
him and asked him to take them to the scene of the crime.  He rode with them in the jeep and together
they went inside the house where the dead man was lying.  The chief of police interrogated the widow,
asking her particularly if she recognized the killer, but she answered she did
not be­cause the killer’s face was covered with a handkerchief.  The
same question was put to Andres Argonitas, who
likewise could not make any identification because he was, he said, in his house at the time the crime was committed.

The foregoing testimony of appellant is corroborated by Dr. Padua and by the chief of police himself,
both of whom testified that during the former’s
examination of the body of the deceased as well as during the latter’s spot
investigation appellant was present.  
Nobody pointed an accusing finger at him; the widow simply said she did
not recognize the person who killed her husband because his face was covered at
the time.

As may be noted, the whole
case against appellant depends on the identification made by the widow, Felisa Elliadora, and her cousin
Andres Argonitas. 
Under the circumstances, it is a
slender thread indeed by which to hang a finding of guilt.  First, there is no reasonable explanation why
both of them did not denounce appellant and identify him as the killer when
they were investigated by the chief of police in the morning after the
incident.  Felisa’s
excuse that her voice was hoarse from crying is certainly too lame to be credible.  As for Andres, he said at the trial that he
was afraid he himself might be killed if he should point to appellant.  But the fact is that both he and Felisa, did so one week later, that is, on March 21, 1959, when they signed their respective
written statements; and Andres did not explain why he was no longer afraid
then.  Secondly, the motive attributed to
appellant rests on a very shaky foundation. 
He denied having been present on the two occasions when Felisa was paid the sums
of P200 and P60, respectively.  And
if the motive was
robbery, the precipitate killing
of the victim would seem
entirely necessary.  A preliminary threat
and demand for the money would have been the logical step for the malefactors
to take.  In this connection, it is quite
strange that with her hus­band sleeping beside her Felisa
did not wake up until after the six wounds had been inflicted, without catching
any part of the actual physical aggression.  
Thirdly, it is no less
strange that Andres would be chopping wood in the middle of the night, and
using a scythe instead of a bolo or an axe for the purposes.  A minor contradiction between his testimony
and that of Felisa thus acquires significance:  while according to Andres he had not yet
started to chop wood when he heard Felisa’s call for
help, the latter that she knew he was in the yard because she heard the sound
of chopping immediately after she awoke.

An intriguing fact in
this case was not thoroughly explored at the trial.  At one point in his testimony appel­lant said
that after the investigation in the morning of March 14, conducted by the chief
of police at the scene of the crime, “they (evidently referring to the
chief of police and the patrolman with him) brought with them two
persons.” Pressed for an explanation, appellant continued:

“When the chief of police went downstairs from the house of
the widow he saw a man walking from the farm with a handkerchief hanging from
the pocket and the chief of police took the handkerchief and said that there
was blood and he said that that was the mask used by the killer.”

The man’s name, according to appellant, was “Lesajero,”+ and his
companion was Wenceslao Seban.  Appellant did not know if they were
subsequently charged with the crime. 
Felix Pacunla testified, however, that when he
arrived home Sunday, March 15, 1959,
after having gone to his land with the bank inspector the previous day, March
14, “there was one Luis Ajero who was detained
in the municipal jail of Kapatagan as the suspected killer of Constantino Elliadora, but on the
following day, Monday, he was released.”

The trial Judge himself
took note of this fact in his decision, as follows:

“After the investigation conducted by the Chief of Police on March 14, 1959 two persons were
brought to the municipal building as suspects. 
When the Chief of Police came down, he saw a man with a handkerchief
dangling out of his pocket.  The man was
a certain Angel Ajero (sic) who upon being confronted
by the widow, Felisa Elliadora
Guardiaquivil, the same said that it was the very
handkerchief that was used as mask.  No
charge was filed against any of the two suspects.”

Apparently His Honor attached
no importance to the foregoing circumstance. 
However, no reason for such cavalier attitude has been given.  Certainly if the handkerchief used as a mask was identified, it constituted
a damning piece of evidence and should not have been dismissed without a
satisfactory accounting of its possession.

The trial court refused
to believe appellant’s alibi on the ground that Felix Pacunla’s
corroborative testimony was incredible, since he admitted on cross-examination
that the person for whom he prepared the roasted chickens never came the
following morning.  But Pacunla did
not say that that person was coming; what he did say was that they had an agreement
to meet in the municipal
building of Kapatagan, from where they would proceed to the land to be inspected, which
was situated in yet another
place, namely, Dobleston, Caramotan, of the same province.

The corroborated alibi of
appellant; the fact that he did not hesitate to go with the municipal
authorities to the scene of the crime; the failure of the two material
witnesses for the prosecution to identify him when identification would have been most timely and in accord with
natural human reaction; the absence of evidence concerning motivation; and the
finding of the tell-tale handkerchief in the possession of another
person – all these circumstances cannot but cast a grave doubt as to the guilt
of appellant.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed and
the defendant Bonifacio Gallora
is acquitted of the charge and ordered forthwith released from detention, with
costs de oficio.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.

+ As written in the transcript of stenographic
notes.