People v. Bermoy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 27, 1975, at around 6:00 PM, the deceased Humberto Hamo stopped at a store in Barrio San Roque, Bohol. While Hamo was buying fish from a vendor, the accused-appellant Procopio O. Bermoy approached him from behind and hacked him with a bolo. Despite being surprised by the first blow, Hamo attempted to flee but was continuously struck by Bermoy, even after falling to the ground. Hamo sustained multiple incised wounds, which resulted in his death. Procedural History: The accused-appellant was charged with murder and unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon. The Court of First Instance of Bohol convicted him on both counts, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for murder and ten (10) years imprisonment for unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on appeal. The Petition: The accused-appellant assigned three errors, primarily questioning his positive identification as the assailant, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and the conviction for unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon under Presidential Decree No. 9.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant's identity as the assailant was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the defense of alibi is tenable against positive identification. Whether there was a motive for the appellant to commit the offense, and whether his flight and attempts to evade arrest are indicative of guilt. Whether the appellant could be convicted for violation of Presidential Decree No. 9 without proof that the bolo was used in furtherance of subversion or rebellion, and the determination of the crime committed and the appropriate penalty.
Ruling
The judgment of conviction for murder was affirmed in toto. The judgment of conviction for unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon was set aside and reversed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of identity and alibi: The Court held that the appellant was positively identified as the assailant by at least two credible witnesses, Alonso Galas (the fish vendor) and Guillermo Cuyno (a fish buyer). The Court found that Galas's identification was based on his personal knowledge, despite the appellant's attempt to discredit it by highlighting a portion of his testimony where he admitted the Chief of Police had named the accused. The Court emphasized that Galas's testimony was corroborated by Cuyno, who also witnessed the assault and heard the appellant's warning. The Court further noted that the scene was illuminated by two petromax lamps, making identification possible. The defense of alibi was deemed untenable against such positive identification, especially since the appellant was only a few kilometers away from the crime scene and his alibi was not strongly corroborated. The Court also considered the appellant's failure to present his parents and brother to support his alibi, and the testimony of the Chief of Police that the appellant did not go home that night, contradicting his claim of sleeping at home. On the issue of motive, flight, and attempts to evade arrest: The Court found a possible motive for the appellant to commit the offense, citing the testimony of a defense witness that the appellant had threatened to finish Humberto Hamo. Another witness testified that the appellant harbored a grudge against the victim because Hamo had once ordered him off the bus he was driving before reaching his destination. The Court considered the appellant's attempt to flee the scene of the crime by contracting for a boat to Leyte and his hiding in a bamboo thicket as indicative of guilt, showing an unmistakable sense of guilt traceable to the slaying of the victim. On the issue of conviction under PD 9, crime committed, and penalty: The Court found the contention regarding PD 9 meritorious, agreeing with the appellant and the Solicitor General. The Court reiterated its ruling in previous cases that for a conviction under Presidential Decree No. 1081 (which PD 9 is related to), it must be proven that the weapon was used in the furtherance of subversion, rebellion, or other public disorders. Since there was no evidence presented to establish this essential element, the conviction for this offense was set aside. The Court concluded that the crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery, which absorbed nocturnity. Evident premeditation was not proven beyond doubt. In the absence of any modifying circumstance, the penalty was imposed in its medium period, which is life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua).
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi cannot prosper against positive identification by credible witnesses. Furthermore, flight and attempts to evade arrest are indicative of guilt. Conviction for unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon under PD 9 requires proof that the weapon was used in furtherance of subversion, rebellion, or other public disorders.