PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BONIFACIO PIGON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Bonifacio Pigon,
also known as “Boy” Pigon, having been found
guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment
by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate, is before
us on appeal.

Appellant Bonifacio Pigon
was charged with robbery with homicide
in an Information^[1]
dated 14 January 1985,
which read as follows:

“That on December 29, 1983, in Galutan,
Cataingan, Masbate,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, did
then and there wilfully, feloniously, and unlawfully
stab to death one Leonito Samson by using a sharp deadly weapon locally known as “FLAMINGO” and with
intent to gain, did then and there take the money of the deceased from his
pocket and carry it away, together with the shoes, pants and T-shirt of said
deceased to the damage and prejudice of the latter to an estimated amount of
ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P1,500.00), Philippine Currency.

Contrary
to law.”

On arraignment on 18 February 1985, appellant, assisted by counsel,
pleaded not guilty.

On 22 July 1985,
after trial, the trial court rendered its decision finding Bonifacio
Pigon guilty of the crime of robbery with
homicide.  The dispositive
part of this decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, viewed
from all the foregoing, we find
the accused Bonifacio Pigon
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and there being no
mitigating or aggravating circumstance present, said accused is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, to
indemnify the heirs of Leonito Samson in the sum of
P30,000.00, and to pay the costs.

In the service of the sentence, the accused is granted a full
period deduction for the preventive imprisonment he might have undergone.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

From the above decision, Pigon
interposed the present appeal alleging that the trial court erred in:

(1)  convicting
him despite the “unreliable” testimony given by the prosecution’s
star witness Jaime Deogrades; and

(2)  convicting
him of the crime of robbery with homicide although his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.^[3]

The evidence for the prosecution consisted primarily and most
importantly of the testimony of Jaime Deogrades who
claimed to have personally witnessed the commission of the crime.

Jaime Deogrades, then 14 years old,
testified that on 28 December 1983,
he was at his home in Salvacion, Municipality
of Pio V. Corpuz,
Masbate, engaged in casual
conversation with his cousins, Bonifacio
“Boy” Pigon and Leonito
Samson.  In the course of their
conversation, Pigon asked Samson whether the latter
would be willing to exchange his (Samson’s) pair of shoes and a little cash for a goat.  Samson readily agreed to the proposed barter
transaction.  Pigon
then invited Deogrades and Samson to come along with
him to Pigon’s house in Catigao-tigawan,
Cataingan Masbate to secure
the goat he would turn over to Samson. 
The next day, 29 December 1983,
at 3 o’clock in the morning, the
three left for Catigao-tigawan on foot as Pigon refused to avail of any means of transportation.  The three thus walked on a narrow footpath in
single file, Samson in the lead, followed by Pigon,
while Deogrades brought up the rear.  When the three reached Barangay
Galutan, Cataingan, Pigon suddenly grabbed Samson’s right shoulder from behind
and as Samson turned to his right towards the rear, Pigon
pulled out a fan knife locally known as a “flamingo” and stabbed
Samson in the right breast.  Samson fell
to the ground.  Pigon
promptly stripped Samson of his shirt, belt and trousers, and wallet and pulled
out paper bills from such
wallet.  Pigon
fled with the Deogrades, warning the latter not ever
to discuss the incident with anyone otherwise something would happen to
him.  Deogrades
was detained at Pigon’s house for a few days and was able to leave only after Pigon
had been arrested by the police on 7
January, 1984.  Jaime Deogrades then immediately reported what he had seen to his grandmother at Dimasalang,
who in turn wrote to the victim’s mother (who was an aunt
of Deogrades) about Leonito
Samson’s tragic fate.  Samson’s mother,
after confirming the killing with Deogrades, filed
the necessary complaint against Pigon.^[4]

The prosecution also presented Dr. Primitivo
Monterde, Rural Health Officer of Catigao-tigawan,
who had conducted the autopsy on the body of the victim, Leonito
Samson.  Dr. Monterde
testified that the immediate cause of the victim’s death was “hemorrhage
secondary to stab wounds;” that the injury sustained by Samson must have
been caused by a sharp, pointed object which could have penetrated his heart;
and that, judging from the location
of the injury, the victim and the assailant were possibly “facing each
other”^[5]
at the moment of the stabbing.

The defense offered a different version of the facts.  The appellant’s principal plea was that of alibi.

The defense presented
Pedro Yanson, a farmer and resident San
Rafael, Cataingan Masbate, who declared that sometime on 28 December 1983,
he was at the poblacion of Cataingan,
Masbate, and dropped by Bonifacio Pigon’s house to invite
him to a birthday party to be
given by Yanson’s daughter.  Yanson asked Pigon to come along with him to San
Rafael that afternoon to help him carry the things he
had bought in preparation for the party. 
Pigon, according to Yanson,
went with the latter to San Rafael,
arriving there at about 3:00 p.m.  At the Yansons’
home, Pigon spent the rest of the afternoon assisting
to household in preparing for tomorrow’s birthday party.  The following day, until 12 o’clock noon,
Pigon helped the Yansons in
slaughtering a hog and preparing the food for the party.  Yanson testified
that from 3:00 p.m. of 28 December 1983 and until 12:00 noon
of the following day, he could not recall having seen Pigon
leave the house and that Pigon left the Yanson house at 3:00 p.m.
of 29 December 1983, for Catigao-tigawan. 
According to Yanson, San
Rafael was about 15 kilometers away from Catigao-tigawan and accessible only by foot.^[6]

The accused Bonifacio Pigon testified that on 28 December 1983, at around 1:00
p.m., he was in his house in Catigao-tigawan,
Cataingan, Masbate. 
Pedro Yanson called on him there to invite him
to Yanson’s daughter’s birthday party scheduled for
the following day.  Pigon
accepted the invitation and went with Yanson to San
Rafael that same afternoon.  Upon arrival in Yanson’s
house in San Rafael at about 3:00 p.m., Pigon
promptly proceeded to assist the household in preparing for the festivities of
the next day and that he spent the night in Yanson’s
house.  The next day, 29 December 1983, Pigon once more involved himself in the household chores,
such as slaughtering a pig, preparing and cooking a variety of dishes, until 12:00 noon.  He further testified that he did not leave
the Yansons‘ house until 3 o’clock in the afternoon of 29 December 1983 when he had to return to Catigao-tigawan.  Pigon also declared that one coming from Catigao-tigawan and proceeding to San
Rafael, had to pass along the “Crossing”,
approximately 5 kilometers away from San Rafael,
where no mechanical means of transporation was
available.^[7]

The appellant assails the credibility of the prosecution’s
principal witness, Jaime Deogrades.  The defense argues, firstly, that Jaime must
have been motivated by revenge in identifying the appellant Bonifacio
Pigon, Jaime’s first cousin, as author of the robbery
and killing here involved.  Appellant Pigon related an alleged incident which had occurred when
Jaime Deogrades was staying in Pigon’s
house.  Jaime took Bonifacio’s
bolo and scythe without the latter’s permission.  In the resulting confrontation, Bonifacio Pigon said, he had out
of anger slapped Jaime in the face.  We
find this argument unpersuasive.  It will
be noted that Bonifacio Pigon
and Jaime Deogrades are first cousins; Jaime’s mother
is the sister of Bonifacio’s father.  Considering this close relationship by blood,
the Court finds it difficult to believe that Jaime would deliberately and
falsely accuse his first cousin of crimes as grievous as homicide and robbery,
for which the law imposes life imprisonment, simply to get even with Bonifacio for the slapping that Bonifacio
had supposedly administered to him some three (3) years before the trial.  Moreover, appellant Pigon
himself had testified that on the day prior to the killing and robbery, he was
at Jaime’s house chatting casually and to all appearances amiably with Jaime,
and that Jaime had willingly gone with Bonifacio and Leonito Samson to Catigao-tigawan
the next day.  There was, in other words,
no indication that Jaime had all the time been harboring a deep and deadly
resentment against Bonifacio.

The defense also seeks to make capital out of Jaime’s failure to
react instantly by manifesting concern for and trying to help the victim, Leonito Samson, as he lay on the ground bleeding and being
despoiled of his personal belongings. 
The argument, once more, is not persuasive.  If Jaime Deogrades
was passive right then and there as Bonifacio Pigon was relieving the fatally wounded Samson of his
shirt, belt and trousers and money, such passivity is easily ascribed to shock
that must have resulted from the sudden, deadly, turn of events from an amiable
conversation among cousins the day before in Salvacion,
Pio V. Corpuz, to the
unprovoked murderous assault right before his eyes the following day.  Jaime, a young boy barely into his teens, was
either in a state of shock then and there or must have been frightened almost
out of his wits that appellant Bonifacio would also
turn his homicidal attentions upon him.

Appellant Pigon also contends that
Jaime’s sworn statement on the whole incident should not have been given any
consideration as it had not been prepared by Jaime personally.  It may be readily conceded that Jaime, who
was unable to read or write, could not have prepared his own
affidavit.  Jaime, however, had placed
his thumbmark on the affidavit which is equivalent to
his signature thereon, and an acknowledgment that the statements there set
forth were his own or at least faithfully reflected statements made by
him.  It may be stressed that Jaime’s
narration of events during the trial did not vary in any substantial sense from
the statements in his affidavit.

The defense sought to minimize the effect of Jaime’s testimony as
an eye-witness, by denigrating his testimony as having been coached or rehearsed
and scripted allegedly by the mother of the victim.  The defense claimed that Jaime was in effect
a paid witness, that is, that Jaime had testified against Bonifacio
Pigon because the victim’s mother had paid Jaime to
do so.  This contention was denied by
Jaime who readily conceded that the mother of the victim had given him transportation
money for going to and from the court during the trial.^[8]
The Court finds it difficult, once more, to believe that Jaime Deogrades had undertaken
to testify falsely against Bonifacio Pigon simply because the victim’s mother had given him
money for transportation expenses during the trial.  The Solicitor General also pointed out^[9]
that there was nothing to show that the victim’s mother harbored any ill will
against Bonifacio Pigon
strong enough to lead her to buy false testimony tying him up with the killing
of her son.

It is also contended by the defense that because no motive had
been shown by the prosecution on the part of the appellant Pigon
for the killing of Samson, the judgment of conviction must fail.  This contention runs counter to our case law
to the effect that proof of motive is unnecessary for conviction where the doer
of the crime has been positively identified, and that proof of motive may
become necessary only where no eye-witnesses to the crime had been presented
and where suspicion falls upon a number of persons.^[10]

On the issue of the credibility of Jaime Deogrades
as an eye–witness, the trial
court gave full credence to the testimony of Jaime Deogrades
having been obviously impressed by his
demeanor in court while testifying.  The
trial court said:

After scrutinizing the evidence on record, nothing has impressed
this Court so much than the testimony of Jaime Deogrades,
a minor 14 years of age, and a
first cousin of the accused, who personally witnessed the actual stabbing of
the victim Leonito Samson by the accused Bonifacio Pigon.  His version of the incident remained unshakened despite the clever attempts of the defense,
to destroy his story.  His testimony
appears credible as it was given in clear, spontaneous, natural, and straight
forward manner.  His gesture, inflection
of voice and demeanor on the witness stand, specially when he was made to
demonstrate in open court, how the crime was committed, further strengthened
the credibility of his testimony.^[11]

It is
quite sufficient to recall the firmly held doctrine that the
“findings of fact of the trial judge must be accorded great weight by an
appellate tribunal.”^[12]
For, in the words of the Court in People vs. Taduyo,

“the latter can only read in cold
print the testimony of the witness which commonly is translated from the local dialect
into English.  In the process of converting into written form the statements of living
human beings, not only fine nuances but a world of meaning apparent to the judge
present, watching and listening, may escape the reader of the written,
translated words.”^[13]

We turn to appellant’s defense of alibi.  Appellant Pigon
insists he was somewhere else at the time the killing and robbery were committed.  His story was corroborated by the testimony of his friend Pedro Yanson, who had, as
pointed out earlier, testified that the appellant had been in his (Yanson’s) house
from 2:00 p.m. of 28 December 1983 until 12:00 noon of 29 December 1983
and could not recall seeing Bonifacio Pigon leave his (Yanson’s)
house until 3:00 p.m. of 29 December
1983.  The trial court rejected this
defense, correctly in our view.  As a
practical matter, it would not have been possible for Yanson to have kept a close and constant watch on the
movements of appellant Pigon during the entire period from the afternoon of 28 December, through the night and until the afternoon of the next day, 29 December 1983, since the whole Yanson household was busy preparing for the party and since
the guests, after they had arrived, must have been moving about.  There were, according to Yanson,
on 29 December 1983 about
twenty (20) guests attending the birthday party at the Yansons‘
house.  Moreover, as pointed out by the
trial judge, the distance from Barangay San Rafael
where the Yanson’s house was situated to Barangay Galutan where the crime
was committed, was “not very far” — “in as much as both barangays, San Rafael and Galutan,
are located within the same municipality of Cataingan,”
and it appeared that Barangay Galutan
was accessible from Barangay San Rafael, and vice
versa, by motorized vehicles.  The trial
court was pointing out, in other words, that there was no impossibility for the
accused-appellant to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.  For alibi to succeed, it must, of course, be
shown not only that the accused was at some other place but that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the situs
of the crime at the time of its commission.^[14]
In any case, alibi is not permitted to prevail against positive identification
of the accused as the doer of the crime.^[15]
The identification of Pigon as Samson’s killer, and a
robber as well, by Jaime Deogrades, was beyond cavil.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant
Bonifacio Pigon guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua and to pay an indemnity of P30,000.00 to Leonito Samson’s heirs
as well as costs, is hereby AFFIRMED.  No
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Gutierrez,
Jr., Bidin, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[1] Rollo, p. 11.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 11-13.

^[3]
Brief for Appellant, p. 6; Rollo, p. 25.

^[4] Rollo, pp. 1-12.

^[5] TSN, 18 October 1985, pp. 12-18.

^[6] TSN, 23 April 1986, pp. 2-12.

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] TSN, August 20, 1985, p. 8.

^[9] Rollo, pp. 58-59.

^[10] People vs. Melga,
157 SCRA 718 (1988), citing People vs. Anquillano, 149 SCRA 422 (1987); People vs. Ramiro,
147 SCRA 102 (1987); and People vs. Manalo,
135 SCRA 84 (1985).

^[11] Rollo, pp. 12-13; underscoring
supplied.

^[12] People vs. Taduyo, 154 SCRA 349 (1987); Amarante
Heirs vs. Court of Appeals, 155 SCRA 46 (1987); and People vs. Kintuan, 156 SCRA 195 (1987).

^[13] 154 SCRA at 359 (1987).

^[14] People vs. Aniñon, 158 SCRA 701
(1988); People vs. Awsan, 158 SCRA 701 (1987);
and People vs. Marasigan, 56 SCRA 32 (1974).

^[15] People vs. Datahan, 157 SCRA 215
(1988); and People vs. Awsan, supra.