THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO BONGADILLO Y SHARON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DOMINGO BONGADILLO was charged with MURDER before the Regional
Trial Court (Branch XVII)^[1] of
Tabaco, Albay, for hacking to death his stepmother’s second husband, MAXIMINO
BUAL. The Information,^[2]
dated September 22, 1989, reads:

“That on or about the 1st day of June, 1989, at more or less
7:00 o’clock in the morning at Sitio Quinastillohan, Barangay Hacienda, San
Miguel, Municipality of Tabaco, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to
kill, treachery, taking advantage of superior strength and with evident
premeditation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack
and hack with a bolo MAXIMINO BUAL Y BARCELLANO, thereby inflicting upon the
latter multiple fatal wounds in the different parts of his body which caused
his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the latter’s heirs.

“ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Upon his arraignment on December 4, 1989, accused-appellant
pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial
ensued.

The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Bonifacio Bongat,
Dominga Bustamante, Asuncion Bustamante Bual, Dr. Audwin Azada, and Vicente
Burce, tried to establish these facts:

On May 31, 1989, BONIFACIO BONGAT, a barber and resident of San
Roque, Tabaco, Albay, visited his nephew, Ernesto Bongat, in Hacienda, San Miguel,
Tabaco, Albay.^[3]

At around seven o’clock in the morning of June 1, 1989, Bonifacio
headed for Salvacion, Malilipot, Albay, to attend the barrio’s feast day, held
every first Saturday of June. After
walking for three (3) minutes, he arrived at the beach. From a distance of approximately fifteen
meters, Bonifacio saw the accused, Domingo Bongadillo, hacking another man with
a bolo. However, Bonifacio failed to
recognize the victim who by then was sprawled on the ground.^[4]
After he had hacked the victim three (3) times, the accused fled. Bonifacio then boarded a paddled boat and
proceeded to Salvacion, Malilipot, Albay.^[5]

On June 4, 1989, the feast day celebration of Salvacion,
Bonifacio met Dionisio Bustamante and learned from him that the victim was Maximino
Bual, second husband of Asuncion. Upon
Dionisio’s request, Bonifacio went to the police station and gave his sworn
statement^[6]
in relation to the hacking incident.

DOMINGA BUSTAMANTE, sister of Asuncion, testified that at around
seven o’clock in the morning of June 1, 1989, she was in Quinastillohan,
Hacienda, San Miguel, Tabaco, Albay. Unaware of what transpired along the beach, Dominga proceeded to the
house of Maximino Bual to request the latter to help her clear the property of
Freddie Burce. She was stunned upon
seeing Maximino Bual in a pool of blood. She then looked for her sister, Asuncion, and found her husking corn in
a farm.

Apparently, prior to the hacking incident, or in the afternoon of
May 31, 1989, Domingo Bongadillo inquired from Dominga if she was aware of the
problem involving his live-in girlfriend, Lory Azurpado, and the victim,
Maximino Bual. Dominga denied any
knowledge about it. Unable to contain
his emotion, Domingo told her that Maximino was taking advantage of his girlfriend. Domingo vowed he would kill Maximino.^[7]

ASUNCION BUAL, stepmother of the accused and the widow of
Maximino, had no inkling about the incident. She was husking corn when her sister, Dominga Bustamante, informed her
of her husband’s tragic fate. Asuncion
rushed home and saw the lifeless body of her husband Maximino, more or less, four meters from their house.

Asuncion recalled that in the afternoon of May 31, 1989, Domingo,
who was standing some thirty meters from their house, angrily brandished his bolo
at Maximino Bual. Accused threatened: “Magrani
ka ta gagadanon taka!”^[8] (Come near and I will kill you). She, however, was not aware of the alleged
affair between her husband, Maximino, and her stepson’s girlfriend.

After the hacking incident, the barangay captain, Vicente Burce,
was summoned at the scene of the crime. He went to the residence of Domingo, some forty meters from the place of
incident. When he arrived, Domingo was
eating boiled camote with his bare hands. Domingo, at that time, was with a lady companion. Vicente did not pay attention to Domingo’s
hands, but he (Vicente) noticed that Domingo was wearing clean clothes. After informing Domingo that he was suspected
of killing Maximino, Vicente invited Domingo to the police station to avoid any
untoward incident.

The victim was examined by Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Audwin
C. Adaza. It was revealed that the
victim sustained fourteen (14) hack wounds and died due to
“Hypovolemic/Neurogenic Shock secondary to Multiple Hacked Wounds with
Cervical Transaction.”^[9]

The evidence for the defense consisted mainly of the testimony of
accused-appellant Domingo Bongadillo.

Accused-appellant admitted that, on May 28, 1989, his girlfriend,
Lory, and his “Papay Imo” (Maximino), told him of Maximino’s
intention to take Lory with him to Cabasan. Domingo claimed he was not jealous of Maximino, albeit Lory had been his
live-in partner for four (4) months. Neither was he offended by Maximino’s proposition which, he averred, was
told to him in jest. Domingo averred
that before he and Lory lived together, they had agreed that each of them could
freely enter into other relationships.

A day before the incident, or at around eleven o’clock in the
morning of May 31, 1989, Domingo allegedly gathered gravel and rocks. He loaded the rocks he collected in a
vehicle. As he was loading a rock, he
slipped. The rocks fell. His hands were pinned and injured in the
process.

He complained that he was feverish due to his swollen hands. At the time the barangay captain, Vicente
Burce, came to his house and brought him to the Tabaco police station, he had a
fever. With both of his hands injured,
accused-appellant claimed it was not possible for him to hack the victim to
death.

Two (2) witnesses, P/Cpl. Reynaldo Borromeo and Patrolman Eduardo
Boridor, Municipal Warden and Jail Guard, respectively, affirmed that accused
was holding his left hand with his right hand when the latter was brought in to
the police station. Later, accused was
brought to the Rural Health Unit where he was given antibiotics for his injured
hands.

After trial, DOMINGO BONGADILLO was found guilty of MURDER with
the qualifying/aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of
superior strength. He was meted the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the
victim, Maximino Bual y Barcellano, the sum of thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00).^[10]

Feeling aggrieved, Domingo Bongadillo appealed. He raises these errors:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT,
CONTRADICTORY, AND IMPROBABLE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES DOMINGA
BUSTAMANTE, BONIFACIO BONGAT AND ASUNCION BUAL.

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT TO THE ACCUSED’
DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL, IT BEING IMPROBABLE FOR HIM TO COMMIT THE CRIME
CHARGED BECAUSE HIS HANDS WERE BADLY INJURED BY REASON OF AN ACCIDENT THAT
BEFELL HIM THE DAY BEFORE THE CRIME INCIDENT.

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED GUILTY OF MURDER
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”

We affirm the judgment of conviction.

Eyewitness Bonifacio Bongat positively identified
accused-appellant as the assailant. He
testified:

“FISCAL BOCALBOS:

“Q: Mr. Bongat, do you recall where
you were on the morning of June 1, 1989 at about 7:00 in the morning?

WITNESS:

“A: I was at the Hacienda.

“Q: In what particular place at the
Hacienda were you?

“Q: I was at (sic) house of Ernesto
Bongat, my nephew.

“x x x x x x x x x.

“Q: What time did you stay at the
house of your nephew?

“A: I was there until 7:00 a.m.
when I went to the beach.

“Q: To what direction were you
going then?

“A: I was proceeding to Salvation,
Malilipot, Albay to attend the barrio fiesta.

“Q: Do you recall if there was an
accident while you were at said time and place?

“A: Yes, sir, there was.

“Q: Will you tell the Honorable
Court what was that unusual incident about?

“A: Upon reaching the beach I saw
somebody being hacked.

“Q:
Do you know the man being hacked?

“A:
I do not know him.

“Q: How about the one that was
hacking the victim, do you know him?

“A: Yes, sir, I know him.

“Q: Who was that man?

“A: Domingo, sir.

“x x x x x x x x x.

Q: Let us go to the point where this Domingo
was hacking a man. How
many times did you see Domingo hack the man?

“A:
I was not able to count. I just saw him
that man.

“Q: At least, can you tell us was
it once, twice or thrice?

“A: I can only estimate 3 times
after which I left.

“Q: What was the position of the man
when he was being hacked by
Domingo?

“A:
He was already lying flat on the ground.

“x x x x x x x x x.

“Q: Up to this time you did not
know who was that man who was
hacked?

“A:
I came to know him later.

“Q:
Who was that man?

“A:
He was that certain Maximino. “

(TSN, March 16, 1990, pp. 3-7)

Accused-appellant urges that Bonifacio
was 100 meters from the scene of the crime. Considering said distance, not to mention that the eyewitness was, more
or less, sixty-nine years old when he witnessed the hacking incident, he
contends that the eyewitness is not worthy of belief. We are not persuaded.

Bonifacio explicitly
stated that he was fifteen meters from the incident. He testified:

“Q: How far were you from the
alleged incident that you saw?

“A: More or less, fifteen (15)
meters.

“Q: What was the position of the
victim and the assailant as far as you were concerned?

“A: They were fronting me.

“Q: Who was facing you?

“A: The assailant, sir.

“Q: And when you arrived at the
seashore was that the time he started hacking?

“A: I do not know if it was the
start when I reached the shore. But
that was the scene I saw.”

(TSN, March 16, 1990, pp. 24-25)

Bonifacio never claimed he was 100 meters
from the hacking incident. The distance
of 100 meters alluded to by Bonifacio had reference to the distance between the
hacking incident, which was along the
beach, and the house of Maximino Bual. Thus, on cross-examination, Bonifacio said:

ATTY. CANDOLEA:

“Q: And where did you see the
incident?

“A: At the seashore on my right.

“Q:
Are you very sure the incident happened
on the seashore?

“A:
Yes, sir, along the beach.

“Q:
Was it far from the house of Maximino Bual?

“A:
The distance is, I think, one hundred meters.

“Q:
You mean the distance of the incident which you saw and the house of Maximino
Bual is 100 meters?

“A:
Yes, sir.”

(TSN, March 16, 1990, pp. 18-19).

To be sure, Bonifacio recognized Domingo Bongadillo as the
assailant. He knew the assailant even
prior to the hacking incident. As borne
by the records, the eyewitness, despite his age, had satisfactorily
demonstrated before the trial judge, that he could clearly see from a distance
of twenty meters. He testified:

“ATTY. CANDOLEA:

“Q: We can see whether he can
recognize the accused at a distance of 20 meters. It is of common knowledge that the eyesight of a person
deteriorates as he reaches the age of 70.

“FISCAL BOCALBOS:

“Q:
It is already for the Court to appreciate. (At this juncture, the defense counsel saw a lineman fixing a light on
an electric post and requested the witness to identify the color of the man’s
pants and also if he has a wristwatch or not for which the witness clearly
identified at a distance of, more or less, twenty (20) meters from the courtroom
that the lineman was wearing blue pants and wristwatch. And that cleared the doubt that the witness
who is 70 years of age has a deteriorating eyesight).

(TSN, March 16, 1990, pp. 30-31).

Accused-appellant tried to destroy the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses, citing inconsistencies on their testimonies apropos the
place where the victim was hacked, as testified to by Bonifacio, and the place
where the victim was later found by witnesses Asuncion Bual and Dominga
Bustamante.

The cited inconsistencies in the answers of the prosecution
witnesses, specifically, as to the location of the victim, as seen by the
eyewitness Bonifacio, on the one hand, and the place where the victim was found
by Dominga and Asuncion Bual, on the other hand, do not destroy the witnesses’
credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of
a rehearsed testimony.^[11] What tilts the balance against the
accused-appellant is the fact that Bonifacio had seen him in the act of hacking
the victim to death. It is settled that
findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses deserve
great respect since it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor as they
testify on the witness stand, and therefore, it could discern if such witnesses
were telling the truth or not.^[12]

We note, further, that the hacking incident occurred at around
seven o’clock in the morning. It is a
rule that: “Where conditions of
visibility are favorable, and the witness does not appear to be biased, his
assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should be normally
accepted.”^[13]

Accused-appellant assails the failure of Bonifacio to immediately
inform the police authorities, or at the very least, Asuncion Bual, of the
hacking incident. He contends that the
indifference displayed by said witness was contrary to human nature. We disagree.

The initial reluctance of a witness to volunteer information
about a criminal case is common and has been recognized as not affecting the
credibility of a witness^[14]

The accused-appellant anchors his defense on denial and
alibi. The defense of alibi cannot
prevail over the positive identification of the accused by an eyewitness who
had no improper motive to falsely testify.^[15] In
the case at bench, there was no
evidence indicating that Bonifacio Bongat was moved by improper motive to
falsely testify against Domingo. His
testimony should, therefore, be given full faith and credence.^[16]

We have examined the evidence of accused-appellant. He claims he was not slighted by the illicit
affair between his girlfriend and the victim. We find it preposterous that, after he had learned of the said affair,
accused-appellant would just take it lightly, particularly, in this case, since
the victim was the second husband of Domingo’s stepmother. Quite obviously, accused-appellant is trying
to convince this Court that he had no motive to kill the victim. The effort is futile for motive is essential
only when there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant, but not when the
accused had been positively identified.^[17]

Accused-appellant’s uncorroborated allegation, that his hands
were badly injured prior to the hacking incident, was unsubstantiated. Other than his say so, there was no medical
record or evidence presented to prove that, assuming he did injure his hands,
the injury was so severe that it would be impossible for him to hack the victim
to death. His story is of doubtful
veracity and cannot overcome the positive declaration of the eyewitness pointing
to him as the killer.

The trial court found that the killing was attended by two (2)
aggravating circumstances, viz:
evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength.

Before evident premeditation can be appreciated against the
accused, these requisites must first be established: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his
determination; and (3) the sufficient lapse of time between the determination
to commit the crime and the execution thereof, to allow the offender to reflect
upon the consequences of his act.^[18]

We agree that the killing of Maximino Bual was attended by
evident premeditation as shown by these circumstances:

On May 28, 1989, accused-appellant was personally notified by
Maximino Bual of his intention to take with him the former’s live-in girlfriend
to Cabasan. Three (3) days later,
accused-appellant asked Dominga Bustamante about the illicit affair between his
girlfriend and Maximino. He revealed he
would not stop until he had killed Maximino. His anger still unspent, accused-appellant went to the residence of
Maximino. On May 31, 1989, Domingo
brandished his bolo and warned Maximino that he would kill him. Finally, on June 1, 1989, accused-appellant
was seen hacking Maximino with his bolo.

We agree with the trial court ruling that the killing was
attended by abuse of superior strength. “The circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age,
size and strength of the parties. It is
considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor
which is selected or taken advantage of (by) him in the commission of the
crime.”^[19]
As found by the trial court, accused?appellant was a young, robust and healthy thirty-three (33) year-old
man, whereas, the victim was a sixty-three (63) year-old man. The wide age gap between the victim and the
assailant who was armed with a bolo supports the finding of the trial court
that there was an abuse of superior strength in the commission of the offense.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the trial court
decision, finding DOMINGO BONGADILLO y SHARON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
MURDER, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. In line with the prevailing jurisprudence,
the civil indemnity is increased from thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) to
fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).^[20]
Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
Presided by Judge Milagros J.B. Marcaida.

^[2]
See Original Records, p. 19.

^[3]
His nephew’s house was situated some 200 meters from the beach where paddled
boats await those who wish to leave
the island of San Miguel.

^[4]
TSN, March 16, 1990, pp. 18, 24-25.

^[5]
See Exhibit “A”; Original records, p. 3.

^[6]
Marked as Exhibit “A.”

^[7]
TSN, February 5, 1990, pp. 14-15.

^[8]
TSN, February 5, 1990, pp. 6-8.

^[9]
Exhibit “C”; Original records, p. 5.

^[10]
Decision, dated November 27 1990; Original Records, p. 82.

^[11]
People vs. Mauyao, G.R. No. 84525, April 6, 1992, 207 SCRA 732, 738.

^[12]
People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 102409-10, December 21, 1992, 216 SCRA
754, 759-770.

^[13]
People vs. Jacolo, G.R. No. 94470, December 16, 1992, 216 SCRA 631.

^[14]
People vs. Hubido, G.R. No. 101741, March 23, 1993, 220 SCRA 389.

^[15]
People vs. Pomentel, G.R. No. 87781, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA
375.

^[16]
People vs. Navaja, G.R. No. 104044, March 30, 1993, 220 SCRA 624; People
vs. Dagdagan, G.R. No. 100332, March 22, 1993, 220 SCRA 308 citing
People vs. Patog, 144 SCRA 429
(1991).

^[17]
People vs. Amondina, G.R. No. 75295, March 17,
1993, 220 SCRA 6.

^[18]
People vs. Castor, G.R. No. 93664, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 410.

^[19]
People vs. Jimenez, Jr., G.R. No. 84276, February 13, 1992, 206 SCRA
214.

^[20]
People vs. Jumamoy, G.R. No. 101584, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 333.