G.R. No. 133981; September 13, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HILARION BERGONIO, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Hilarion Bergonio, Jr. and Romeo Boarao were charged with Murder for the hacking death of Hilario Berango on December 21, 1993, in Bacacay, Albay. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Noel de Mesa, testified that he was lying beside the sleeping victim inside a nipa hut when Bergonio suddenly entered and hacked Berango on the neck with a bolo. Noel fled and was chased by Bergonio and Boarao before reporting the incident. The autopsy confirmed the fatal hack wound. The defense consisted of alibi, with both accused claiming they were in Catanduanes for work from December 19, 1993, until June 1994, a claim corroborated by Boarao’s sister regarding their departure.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Bergonio of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, while acquitting Boarao due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy. Bergonio appealed, arguing that he was not positively identified, that his alibi should be credited, and that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and nighttime were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the eyewitness identification of the appellant is credible and sufficient for conviction; (2) whether the defense of alibi prevails over this positive identification; and (3) whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly established.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court upheld the credibility of eyewitness Noel de Mesa. Minor inconsistencies, such as his initial mention of the crime happening in November and his reference to the assailant by the alias “Jr. Barrameda,” do not destroy his core testimony. The affidavit’s preparation in English, which he did not understand, is inconsequential as affidavits are often ex parte and incomplete. Crucially, Noel positively identified Bergonio in open court as the perpetrator, which is the best form of identification. His testimony was straightforward and consistent on the material point of seeing Bergonio inflict the fatal hack.
Regarding alibi, the Court ruled it cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification by the eyewitness. For alibi to succeed, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Bergonio’s claim of being in Catanduanes failed this test, as the distance from Bacacay, Albay, to Catanduanes does not preclude the possibility of travel. His alibi, supported only by his co-accused and a relative, was inherently weak.
Finally, the Court affirmed the presence of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, directed at a sleeping and defenseless victim, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The victim was utterly incapable of any defense. Nighttime was correctly considered a generic aggravating circumstance but was absorbed by treachery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of civil indemnity were thus sustained.