G.R. No. L-10121. December 29, 1960
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. BIENVENIDO BERGANIO AND ERNESTO BERGANIO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
BARRERA, J.:
Court of First Instance of Iloilo (in Crim. Case No. 5007) with the crime of
murder, for the killing of Arsenio Sante. Upon a plea of not guilty, they were
duly tried and, after trial, the court found them guilty as charged, and
sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and
to pay indemnity in the amount of P6.000.00 and costs. Not satisfied with this
judgment of conviction, they interposed the present appeal.
It is undisputed that the victim Arsenio Sante died of 2 penetrating stab
wounds, both mortal, described by the examining physician as follows:
“Head and Neck: One penetrating stab wound (1-1/4 inches long) located at the
right ear and penetrating into the internal portion of the same.Thorax and abdomen: One penetrating stab wound (1-1/4 inches long) located at
the left portion of the back and on the level of the armpit and close to the
vertebral column, penetrating and wounding the left lungs, causing internal
hemorrhage.* * * * * * *
“Cause of death: Hemorrhage (external and internal) due to stab
wounds.” (Exh. A.)
How and by whom the above-mentioned wounds were inflicted on said victim is
the question.
The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, established the following
facts: On the night of May 12, 1955, between 6:30 and 7:00 o’clock, Arsenio
Sante, his wife Beatriz Villareal, his brother Desiderio Sante and Honorato
Nacor, all coming from the public market place of La Paz, Iloilo City, passed by
the Serantes gasoline station, located at General Luna Street, in the same city,
where Desiderio and Honorato were working as “shovelers”. Upon nearing the said
station, they happened to pass by where appellants Ernesto and Bienvenido
Berganio were apparently arguing. Desiderio presumably stopped out of curiosity.
Thereupon, Ernesto asked him who he was and what he wanted, and Desiderio
answered, “Nothing.” Irked by Desiderio’s laconic reply, Ernesto boxed him. As
Arsenio (Desiderio’s brother) tried to intervene, Ernesto also confronted and
boxed him. A fight among the three ensued. Bienvenido Berganio, seeing the
fight, approached the group and unsheated his bolo, prompting the Sante brothers
to desist from the fight and to flee. Beatriz Villareal (wife of Arsenio Sante)
and Honorato Nacor remained at the gasoline station. Later, Arsenio returned,
but before he could reach the gasoline station, he was suddenly and unexpectedly
grabbed by Ernesto Berganio, who had been apparently shadowing him all along.
Ernesto embraced Arsenio face to face and placed his arras around the latter’s
waist, ¦ holding down Arsenio’s arms, pressing them tightly, with his
(Ernesto’s) fingers crossed and interwoven, around Arsenio’s back, rendering the
latter immobile. At this instant, Ernesto shouted to his, brother Bienvenido
saying, “Here he (referring to Arsenio) is now. Come and liquidate him,” to
which Bienvenido answered, “Do not release him, as I am coming.” Bienvenido then
rushed towards Arsenio and plunged his bolo (Exh. B.) at Arsenio’s back. The
push behind the thrust was so strong that Arsenio and Ernesto, the latter still
embracing the former, fell to the ground, with Arsenio on top of Ernesto, with
the bolo sticking on the back of Arsenio. Ernesto then pushed Arsenio aside and
immediately got up. Seeing the bolo still sticking at Arsenio’s back, Ernesto
pulled it out and with it instantly stabbed the victim on the right ear.
The victim’s wife, Beatriz Villareal, who had seen the entire tragic
occurrence, shouted for the police. Her outcries were, however, cut short by
Ernesto, who chased her with the bolo. Appellants, thereafter, fled from the
scene and hid in an uninhabited house belonging to one Severino Acot. Returning
to the place half an hour later, Beatriz Villareal found her husband Arsenio
already dead.
The Iloilo City police, having been apprised of the incident, hastened to the
scene and inquired from the people who where gathered thereat as to the identity
of the culprits. Upon being informed that they were appellants and that they had
hidden at Severino Acot’s house, Police Captain Hormillosa immediately went to
the place and called for Ernesto. Responding to the call, Ernesto came out and
surrendered to the police. He also surrendered a butcher’s knife in his
possession. Asked where his brother Bienvenido was, Ernesto readily told the
police that he was hiding in his house. Police Lieutenant Patriarca then went to
arrest Bienvenido. The latter also surrendered to the police the bolo (Exh. B)
used in the killing of Arsenio.
Appellants’ version of the incident, is as follows: On the evening of May 12,
1955, Ernesto Bergamo and his sister Celedonia Berganio, were discussing near
Uya’s store at La Paz, Iloilo City, about a pair of shoes which Ernesto,
allegedly, bought on credit from Celedonia’s husband. Seeing that they were
discussing, their brother Bienvenido Berganio who was nearby, advised them not
to do so in said place; he then proceeded to the Serantes gasoline station.
Shortly thereafter, Arsenio Sante and his brother Desiderio Sante, approached
Ernesto and Celedonia and asked in a loud voice what they were arguing about, to
which, Ernesto replied that Desiderio had no business asking him, as the matter
simply involved a discussion between a brother and sister. Offended by Ernesto’s
reply, Desiderio told him that he (Ernesto) was acting “as if he was somebody”
and immediately boxed him. They exchanged blows and. Arsenio noticing the fight,
came to the aid of his brother Desiderio. At this juncture, Bienvenido, who was
then at the Serantes gasoline station just a few meters away, having seen the
fight, rushed to the scene and helped his brother Ernesto fight the Sante
brothers. Francisco Serantes, owner of the Serantes gasoline station, seeing the
fight, intervened, and succeeded in separating the combatants.
Thereafter, the Sante brothers left the place running towards the public
market. Arsenio shouted to appellants to wait for them (he and Desiderio), as
they would surely return to the place. Ernesto then conducted his sister
Celedonia to a bus bound for Jaro, after which, he went back to the Serantes
gasoline station. Before reaching the said station, however, he saw the Sante
brothers coming, each armed with a butcher’s knife. Arsenio was shouting thus,
“Where are you (referring to appellants) now, this is money already”, (which
means the time of appellants to die had come). Seeing Jesus Reyes and Cesar
Arcana near a “stop” sign on the street and thinking that they were appellants,
Arsenio chased them. While doing so, he saw Ernesto, and immediately pursued the
latter. When Arsenio was about to overtake him, Ernesto shouted, “Nong Bien
(referring to his brother Bienvenido), help,” and turned about, with upraised
hands. Instead of pitying Ernesto, Arsenio thrust his butcher’s knife at him.
Luckily, Ernesto was able to evade the thrust, and the knife merely pierced
Ernesto’s shirt under his left armpit. Instantly, Ernesto embraced Arsenio at
the same time Dressing the latter’s hand which held the knife as a result of
which both of them fell on the lower elevation of the street. Ernesto then
rolled on his stomach, with the intention of running away, but Arsenio placed
himself on Ernesto’s back and raised his knife in the act of stabbing Ernesto
saying, “Now this is your end.” Seeing his brother Ernesto in this situation,
Bienvenido rushed to the scene and stabbed Arsenio on the right ear. When
Arsenio was about to fall to the ground, Bienvenido stabbed him again on the
back. Ernesto then grabbed the knife and he and Bienvenido ran towards the
plaza, intending to surrender to the police. However, noticing some people on
the way and thinking they were the relatives of the Sante brothers, they went to
the house of Severino Acot which was then unoccupied. Shortly thereafter, the
police arrived, headed by Captain Hormillosa. Appellants surrendered to him,
including the bolo (Exh. B) used in the killing of Arsenio Sante.
The appeal presents no issues of law, but merely involves the credibility of
the various witnesses. In this connection, the rule is well-settled that where
the issue is one of the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not
generally disturb the findings of the court a quo, considering: that it is in a
better position, to decide the question, -having seen and heard the .witnesses
themselves and observed their: deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial, unless it is shown that it has overlooked certain (facts of substance-and
value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. (People
vs. Binsol, WW Phil., 713; 53 Off. Gaz. [10] 3045.)[1]
After a careful and thorough examination of the evidence < on record, we’
agree’ with, the trial court that appellants’ version of the incident is
inherently improbable and; consequently not worthy of credence; and that
appellants did, in fact commit the crime as charged.
Appellants declared that after fighting the Sante brothers on the night in
question, the tatter’ immediately returned to the scene of the fight looking for
appellants; that before’ Arsenio Sante reached the “place, he saw Jesus Reyes
and Cesar Arcana on the ,way and, mistaking them for appellants, chased them. It
is difficult to believe that Arsenio was mistaken as to the identity of
appellants, considering that a few minutes before that, Arsenio had fought with
them. Besides, the incident took’place within the immediate vicinity of 2
gasoline stations and Chinese store which, ordinarily, are well-lighted during
the early part of the evening and, therefore, makes identification of appellants
easy.
Appellant Ernesto Berganio stated that when he saw Arsenio. Sante pursuing
Reyes and Arcana, he immediately ran away and hid, but upon turning his head, he
saw Arsenio Sante pursuing him. It is unbelievable that Arsenio was still able
to overtake Ernesto, considering that the latter must have been already quite a
distance from him, after chasing Reyes and Arcana.
Appellants testified that when the Sante brothers returned ta the scene’ of
the fight, they saw Desiderio Sante following closely his brother Arsenio
Considering the proximity of Desiderio to Arsenio, the allegation of Bienvenido
that he intercepted Desiderio and managed to drive him away by brandishing his
bolo in front of Desiderio, is inherently improbable. For how could Bienvenido
have done so, without Arsenio’s knowing it, when the latter was allegedly only a
few feet from his brother Desiderio? Furthermore, there seems to be no reason
why Bienvenido would still intercept’ Degjderio when his brother Ernesto was
already safe, as Arsenio was allegedly, pursuing Reyes and Arcana. Finally, as
found by the trial court, Desiderio’s knife appeared to be much bigger and more
deadly than that of Bienvenido. It is, therefore, unlikely thai the former would
be scared of the latter and flee upon seeing him (Bienvenido) brandishing his
bolo at him. It is also significant, in this connection, that Reyes and Arcana
were .not presented by the defense during the trial, to substantiate appellants’
claim that they (Reyes and Arcana.) were, in fact, chased by, Arsenio Sante.
In respect of appellant Ernesto Bergamo’s, claim that Arsenio Sante waa about
to stab him with a butcher’s knife, but was prevented from so doing by his
brother Bienvenido Berganio, who rushed to his aid and stabbed Arsenio on the
right ear and on the back, we concur with the finding of the trial court that
the claim is not worthy of credence. It is hard to believe that having allegedly
intercepted Desiderio Sante in the middle of the street, Bienvenido Berganio was
still able to catch up with Arsenio Sante in the act of stabbing his brother
Ernesto Berganio.
It is also significant that although Arsenio Sante received 2 mortal wounds,
appellants came out unscathed after the bloody incident. Furthermore, if it were
really true, as appellants claim, that in wounding Arsenio Sante, Bienvenido
Berganio did it only in defense of his brother Ernesto who was about to be
stabbed by Arsenio, it would not have been necessary for him to wound the latter
twice, considering that the first stab wound inflicted at Arsenio’s back had
already disabled him from doing any further harm on both of them.
The killing of the victim was clearly established bv the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses Desidero Sante, Beatriz Villareal, and Honorato Nacor, who
were all present at the scene of the crime and who testified in a clear,
positive, straightforward, and credible manner. They were able to prove to the
satisfaction of the trial court, that Arsenio Sante was stabbed behind his back
by appellant Bienvenido Berganio, while being held tightly and securely by
appellant Ernesto Berganio; and that the latter thereafter stabbed him on the
right ear. In this connection, the City Health Officer of Iloilo City testified
that either of the wounds were necessarily fatal.
That the aforementioned witnesses for the State are related to the victim, is
not sufficient reason for discrediting their testimonies which were given in
court truthfully, in the observation of the trial judge. As pointed out by the
Solicitor General, to which we fully agree, it is not likely that said witnesses
would perjure themselves and violate their oath to tell the truth, by imputing
to appellants the commission of so grave a crime of which they were charged and
convicted, if they were in fact innocent.
There can be no doubt that appellants had conspired to commit the crime. The
form and manner in which the attack was accomplished, clearly indicates unity of
action and purpose. (People vs. Tiam, et al., G.R. No. L-36, prom.
August 29, 1946.[2] There was treachery
qualifying the killing to murder, inasmuch as the victim was stabbed behind his
back, suddenly and unexpectedly, by appellant Bienvenido Berganio, while said
victim was being held tightly and securely by appellant Ernesto Berganio,
thereby insuring the commission of the offense without risk to appellants from
the defense which the offended party might make. (People vs. Bugagao,
et al., G. R. No. L-11328, prom. March 30, 1959; People vs. Dacanay,
supra; and People vs. Ulita, et al., supra.)
Appellants’ flight from the scene of the crime after its commission, indicates
their guilty minds. (People vs. Kamad, 100 Phil., 419).[3]
Wherefore, we find the decision appealed from to be in conformity with the
evidence and the law on the matter, and hereby affirm the same, with costs
against the appellants. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
[1] See also-People vs.
Villaroys, et al., 101 Phil., 1061; People vs. Alfiler, 104 Phil. 410;
and People vs. Laolao, et al., G.R. Nos. L-12978-80, prom. October 31,
1959.
[2] See also People vs. Moises, et
al., G.R. No. L-10876, prom. September 23, 1958; People vs. Dacanay,
G.E. No. 1,-11568, prom. Maroh 30, 1959; People vs. Alfiler, supra; and
People vs. Ulita, et al., 108 Phil., 730.
[3] See also People vs.
Gucor, 86 Phil., 167; 47 Off. Gaz., 6121; People vs. Manalo, et al.,
(46 Phil., 572; and People vs. Wilson, et al., 52 Phil. 907.