G.R. No. 91849 - People of the Philippines vs. Diorico Bugho

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 91849 September 30, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DIORICO BUGHO,accused-appellant.

SARMIENTO,J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, 8th Judicial Region, Branch 15, Government Center, Palo, Leyte1promulgated on December 1989, finding the accused guilty of the came of Murder. The dispositive portion o the decision reads:

The material facts, as affirmed under oath by the victim's grandson, an eye-witness to the crime, was summarized by the courta quo:

This declaration was corroborated by Marciana Raquel, 57, who testified that she saw the victim, Demetrio Alcober, being chased by the accused, Diojico Bugho, alias Dodong. She attested that on March 27, 1989, at around 6:00 o'clock in the evening, while gathering firewood near the house of the victim, she saw the accused holding a bolo with his right hand and two (2) plastic gallon containers with his left, and chasing the victim who was already wounded.4

Remedios Lobrigo, 33, a resident of Barangay Tabo-anon (also referred to as Taboanan), averred that the accused, whose wife is the sister of her husband, was in her house drinking tuba, which he brought with him in two (2) plastic gallon containers, from 10:00 o'clock in the morning of March 27, 1989 until late that afternoon. The accused was said to have gone home that same afternoon, drunk, taking with him the said containers which were already empty.5

Dr. Dionesio Conde, Municipal Health Officer of Buraen Leyte, affirmed that he conducted an autopsy examination o the body of the victim, and found the cause of the death of th victim to be "profuse hemorrhage due to multiple (nine) stab and incise wounds (specification, ours)," four (4) of which are fatal.6

To these charges, the accused-appellant gave a flat denial saying he was working in his farm at Barangay San Diego which is some three (3) kilometers away from Barangay Tabo anon.7He worked with two (2) others until 4:30 in the afternoon, after which they drank tuba until around 8:00 o'clock.8

The defense also presented one Cesario Lopez, 55, a farmer and furniture maker, to corroborate the testimony of the accused that at the time of the alleged incident, the accused was in his farm in San Diego and never left the place.9

We give credence to the prosecution's account of the incident.

Accordingly, we affirm the accused-appellant's conviction.

The defense of the accused-appellant primarily hinges on alibi, one of the weakest defenses that may be invoked. Alibi, as we have repeatedly held, must yield to and can not prevail over the positive Identification made by the prosecution's witnesses.10There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the victim's grandson, Florentino Tobias, who positively Identified Diorico Bugho, a frequent visitor of theirs11as the assailant; it appearing that the incident happened at around 6:00 o'clock when the afternoon shade was just turning to dusk; and the witness was just about six (6) meters away from the victim when the latter was first hacked.12

Furthermore, as we have consistently declared, for an alibi to be considered favorably, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have gone to the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.13

No physical impossibility exists where the distance between the scene of the crime and the place where the accused allegedly was at that time could be negotiated by jeep or tricycle in fifteen to twenty minutes,14or where the places involved are only seven (7) to eight (8) kilometers apart and could be traversed by walking in one-and-a-half hours.15The instant case is not an exception; the place the accused claimed he was drinking tuba at the time of the commission of the crime — his farm at San Diego-being only three (3) kilometers away from thelocus criminis.16

All told, the accused-appellant's defense of alibi must fail, not only because of its inherent weakness but also because of its easy fabrication.

The testimony of Cesirio Lopez. the defense's corroborating witness. is also doubtful. This is evident from his own declaration, to wit:

The defense crumbles even more when nowhere in the records has it been shown that the victim's family had an axe to grind against the accused-appellant to have forced them t concoct a story. The accused-appellant himself has not suggested any. Thus:

The defense even attempts to discredit Florentino Tobias b alleging that he is a perjured witness.ℒαwρhi৷This allegation, to say th least, is a mere conclusion which remains unsubstantiated an finds no support in the records of the case. The irrefutable fact is that Florentino Tobias was an eye-witness to the crime an he has positively Identified the accused as the assailant of hi grandfather.

In view of the foregoing, we hold that the courta quocorrectly found the accused-appellant, Diorico Bugho alias Dodong, guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, a sudden attack having bee made on the deceased who was in no position to defend himself. The generic aggravating circumstance of disrespect due th offended party on account of his age was correctly appreciated the victim being seventy-three (73) years old at the time he was hacked to death, and his assailant, twenty-seven (27). However the penalty should be designated as"reclusion perpetua"an not "life imprisonment,"19as imposed by the trial court. The indemnity adjudged is also increased from Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) consonant with prevailing jurisprudence.20The award of actual damages representing burial expenses in the sum of Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Three Pesos and Eighty Centavos (P8,793.80) is sustained.

WHEREFORE,the appealed decision is herebyAFFIRMEDwith theMODIFICATIONSabove indicated.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Footnotes