PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIAN MAGDAHONG AND BENJAMIN RIVERO, ACCUSED. JULIAN MAGDAHONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Julian Magdahong and Benjamin Rivero
were charged with the crime of double murder under two (2) separate informations for the deaths of Gloria C. Barde and Gilbert Camacho. 
The crime was said to have been committed as follows:

“That on or about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of September 17,
1983, at Moreno District, municipality of Daet,
province of Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually
helping each other, armed with bolo, with intent to kill, with treachery,
evident premeditation and with the use of superior strength, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab and hack one GLORIA C. BARDE,
thereby inflicting  upon the latter
mortal wounds on the vital 
parts of her body which caused her instantaneous death, to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of the
victim.  (Rollo,
p. 25)

For the death of Gilbert Camacho, the Information alleged:

“That on or about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of September 17, 1983, at Moreno District, municipality of Daet, province of Camarines Norte, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping
each other, armed with bolo, with intent
to kill, with treachery,
evident premeditation and with the use
of superior strength, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously stab and hack one GILBERT O. CAMACHO, thereby
inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on the vital parts of his body which
caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the
victim.” (Rollo, pp. 25-26)

Only the accused Julian Magdahong was
present during arraignment on March 7,
1985 as his co-accused Benjamin Rivero
was at large.  Magdahong
pleaded “not guilty” to both charges so that a consolidated trial of
the two (2) cases ensued, after which a decision was rendered thus:

“WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of double murder with the aggravating circumstance of superior strength not absorbed by the commission of the
crime and hereby sentences him in Criminal Case No. 4071 to serve for
the death of Gloria Barde the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; and for the death of Gilbert Camacho
in Criminal Case No. 4072, another penalty of Reclusion Perpetua,
with costs de oficio. 
The court likewise orders
the accused to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos for the death of Gloria Barde and another Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00)
Pesos for the death of Gilbert Camacho, and considering the agony
the parents of the victims have
undergone, the court finally orders the accused to pay the
parents of the victims the amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos
by way of moral, compensatory and exemplary damages.” (Rollo,
p. 34)

Due to dissatisfaction
with the trial court’s decision, accused-appellant Magdahong
appealed both cases to this Court.

The people’s version of the facts are as
follows:

“About 7:00 o’clock on the evening of September 17, 1983,
while Calixto Poling was walking along Moreno Street,
Daet, Camarines Norte, he
heard a child’s cry of ‘Itay ko,
Itay ko‘ inside the house
of Salvador Barde, which was located at Moreno Street.  Immediately
after hearing the child’s cry, he
saw appellant Julian Magdahong, together with Benjamin Rivero, leave the house of
Salvador Barde with a bloodied ‘sundang‘
(bolo) (p. 4 TSN, Nov. 27, 1986). 
Likewise, Evangeline Pacay, while waiting for a
tricycle ride, also heard the child’s cry and saw appellant leave the house of
Salvador Barde together with Benjamin Rivero (pp. 10-12, TSN, March 4, 1986)

“Upon seeing the two, Calixto Poling
inquired from appellant what was going on but, instead of getting an answer,
appellant threatened him with an attack, which made Calixto
run (pp. 6-10, Nov. 27, 1986).  After Calixto ran,
and as he looked back while running, appellant and Benjamin Rivero
left the area aboard a tricycle, which was parked in front of Salvador Barde’s residence (p. 10, Ibid).  Again, Evengeline Pacay witnessed these
happenings (p. 12, TSN, March 4, 1986).

“Meanwhile, Salvador Barde and his
wife reached home about 7:30 o’clock in the evening of that day after coming
from their store located at Felipe II,
Street 6, Daet, Camarines Norte
(pp. 5-6, TSN, March 27, 1987).  When he
was about to open the door, Salvador noticed that it was partially opened and
when he switched on the light, he saw his daughter Glorina
and adopted son Gilbert sprawl (sic) on
the floor, soaked in blood (pp. 7-10, Ibid).

“Salvador and his
wife rushed to their children but found them already dead.  The police officers of Daet,
Camarines Norte and the Philippine Constabulary
conducted separate investigations on the case. 
But one year elapsed without any complaint filed or any suspect
pinpointed.  This prompted Salvador Barde to write then Col. Hermogenes
Peralta, Chief of the PC-Criminal Investigation Service (CIS), seeking assistance to speed up the solution
of the crimes and to hail the culprit or culprits to the bar of justice (pp.
27-28, TSN, April 8, 1987;
pp. 12-13, TSN, March 24, 1987).

“Salvador Barde, upon advice of Col.
Peralta, went to Camp Ibalon in Legaspi City
where he was introduced to Sgt. Clemente Gonzales, a
PC-CIS agent assigned to the case (p. 14, Ibid.; pp. 13-14, TSN, August 28,
1985).  Acting on the information given
by Salvador, Sgt. Gonzales
interrogated Evengeline Pacay,
Calixto Poling and Rolando Barde
at Camp Ibalon, Legaspi City.  On the basis of the testimonies given by
them, Salvador Barde filed a formal complaint against
appellant Julian Magdahong and Benjamin Rivero before the Municipal Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte which
conducted the preliminary investigation (pp. 16-17, TSN, August 28, 1985; pp.
18-20, TSN, Nov. 20, 1985). 
Consequently, a warrant of arrest was issued and appellant Julian Magdahong was arrested on January 23, 1985 at the Benguet
Mining Corporation in Paracale, Camarines
Norte (pp. 25-26, TSN, Nov. 20, 1985).  (Brief for the Appellee,
pp. 3-6)

The defense of Magdahong is alibi.  He claims to have been at a bienvenida party held in a house about three kilometers
away when the crime was committed.  He
also asserts that the testimonies of the witnesses were fabricated.

Accused-appellant assigns the following errors:

I

“THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
DESPITE THE GROSS INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE AND UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONIES OF
THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION.

II

“THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDIT TO THE
TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES CALIXTO POLING AND EVANGELINE PACAY WHOSE TESTIMONIES
WERE OBTAINED UNDER SCANDALOUS AND DOUBTFUL CIRCUMSTANCES.” (p. 5, Brief for the Accused-Appellant)

The sole issue to be
resolved in this case is whether or not
the accused is guilty of the crime charged on the basis of the testimonies
given and the evidence presented.

After a careful
evaluation of the records of the case, we
find no reversible error in the factual findings and conclusions of the trial
court.

It is clear from the
testimonies of the witnesses that they
saw the accused-appellants with bloodied bolos in their hands leave the victims’
house on that fateful day of September
17, 1983.  Despite accused Magdahong’s
insistence that he could not have been at the scene of the crime because he was
then at a party in Romeo Abanes‘ house, the evidence remains strong that it is not impossible for him to have committed the crime considering that the house of Rolando Caro was only three kilometers away from
Salvador Barde’s house and is accessible by vehicle
in less than five minutes.  Moreover, the accused himself said that he left the party which was
given for Rolando Caro earlier than 7:00 p.m. (p. 10 TSN,
August 25, 1987).  Thus, taking the
circumstances of time and place, it was not impossible for the accused to be at
the scene of the crime.  The defense of
alibi should be established by clear and convincing evidence.  The requirement of time and place must be
strictly met.  Appellant must
convincingly prove that he was at
some other place for such period of time
as to preclude or render impossible his presence at the place where the
crime was committed at the time of its commission (People vs. Rizalidnay, August 15, 1988, G.R. No. 48269).

Apart from bringing up the defense of alibi, the appellant
struggles to discredit the primary prosecution witnesses, Calixto
Poling and Evangeline Pacay.  He specifically questions the failure of the
witnesses to testify soon after the commission of the crime.  It has been held in People vs. Coronado,
(145 SCRA 250 [1986]) that the failure of a witness to report at once to the
police authorities the crime they had witnessed should not be taken against
them.  It is not uncommon for a witness
to show some reluctance about getting involved in a criminal case.  The natural reluctance of most people to get
involved in a criminal case is of judicial notice.  As a matter of fact, Magdahong
ran after Calixto Poling with the bolo when Calixto asked about the bloody incident.  It was Magdahong’s
companion who dissuaded him so they could leave the place.  Furthermore, there should be no doubt as to the credibility of their testimonies considering that these
witnesses were subjected to intense and rigid cross-examination during the trial. 
The records also show that there was some dilly-dallying by the
police investigators until complaints were filed with higher authorities.  There is therefore no reason for us to depart from the well-established
rule that the findings of fact
of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses should be accorded the highest respect because it has the advantage of observing the
demeanor of the witnesses and can discern if such witnesses are telling the
truth (People v. Ornoza, 151 SCRA 495 [1987]).

More importantly,
the discussions on the credibility of witnesses should
not detract from or lead to a disregard of other evidences.  There were several
prosecution evidence which could establish the guilt of the accused.  For one, the Asst. City Fiscal testified that the accused swore to him his confession.  However, the appellant correctly contends
that his confession is inadmissible since it was signed without the presence of a counsel and that he was mauled and tortured into
signing.  We agree with the accused that
the confession is inadmissible considering the constitutional requirement that
the same should be made only in the presence of a counsel.  But there is no basis for his claims of
mauling and torture.  The confession is
rejected by the courts on the sole ground that it was taken in violation of the
appellant’s right to counsel.

The post mortem examination by Dr. Buena Alegre
on the victims corroborates the testimony of the witnesses that they saw the
accused-appellant come out of the house holding the bloodied bolo.

The case is further tilted against the accused on the basis of
testimony that Magdahong made death threats against
Salvador Barde because he was driven away from his
long time employment as family driver and charged with theft while he in turn
brought cases before labor agencies against Barde.

It appears that Magdahong was Salvador Barde’s driver and that the former stole the latter’s jack
from the jeepney. 
This is confirmed by the admission of Magdahong
that he stole the jack (Exh. T). He even executed a
promissory note that he will pay the value of the jack.  Magdahong, however,
did not pay.  Instead, he left his
employer and filed a case against him for recovery of wages and separation
pay.  The case was dismissed and this
angered Magdahong. 
It was when he was talking to Rolando Barde
that he made the threat to kill Salvador Barde and
members of his family.  From these, it is
evident that Magdahong had a motive to kill the
fourteen-year old daughter and the
eight-year old adopted son of his former employer.

The appellant’s insinuation that there could have been somebody
else who killed the victims is unbelievable.

He was seen running out of the house by persons who met him at the gate.  He had a bloodied bolo while a voice inside
was crying “Itay, Itay.”

The circumstances under which the letters introduced by the defense were written are highly
doubtful.  One is an unsigned and undated
letter allegedly from victim Glorina Barde to a certain Noel and another is an undated letter
allegedly from Noel.  The letters are
supposed to show that Glorina was an “easy”
girl.  Two anonymous and undated letters
indicating the whereabouts of the alleged real killer as hiding in the swamps of
Mambalite Daet were likewise presented in evidence.  Two letters dated September 17, 1983 – one of them a bloodstained
unfinished letter to “Lillian” allegedly written when she was hacked
to death and another unsigned letter to “Etchie”
were introduced to bolster one aspect of their defense that Glorina
was taking drugs and that this was related to her being boloed
to death.  The letters attributed to Glorina are unsigned. 
No effort to ascertain their authorship by scientific means was taken.  Most of
Glorina’s letters were supposedly written on the
same day that she was killed, and most were undated.  The production of these letters is likewise suspicious.  These were
brought to court without the order from P/Cpt.
A. Mirasol’s superior.  Mirasol’s explanation as to how he got the letters are doubtful as well.  And most important, the probative value
of the letters in establishing the appellant’s efforts
to pass criminal liability to
unknown persons is nil.

There is enough evidence that the accused was at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.  The
testimonies of the witnesses likewise corroborated
each other and the documentary evidence. 
There is sufficient evidence to convict the accused.

When it comes to the
appreciation of testimony and the making of factual finding, the trial
court’s determinations count heavily. 
The trial judge who heard key prosecution
witnesses and presided over the entire presentation by the defense of its evidence gave credence to the evidence
of the prosecution.  The judge declared the defense as practically
“worthless” when weighed against that of the prosecution.  The appellant
has failed to create even reasonable doubt so as to reverse or modify
the questioned judgment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the trial court is
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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