G.R. Nos. 93932-33; June 5, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIVENCIO SABELLANO and WESLY SABELLANO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Vivencio and Wesly Sabellano were charged with Frustrated Homicide (Criminal Case No. 65155) for stabbing Benito Abrogar on February 6, 1985, and with Murder (Criminal Case No. 67688) for killing the same victim on March 9, 1986. The cases were jointly tried. The prosecution’s version, primarily from the testimony of the victim’s wife Walderita, detailed that the initial incident arose from a game between Wesly and another individual, escalating into a fight where Wesly stabbed a different person. When the victim, Benito, emerged holding a bolo, he was attacked by Vivencio, Wesly, and their companions. Vivencio stabbed Benito in the back during this assault.
For the murder charge, witnesses testified that on March 9, 1986, the Sabellanos, including Wesly and Vivencio, together with another companion, attacked Benito Abrogar. They surrounded him, with one holding his hands from behind while Wesly stabbed him repeatedly in the chest, leading to his death. The defense for both appellants was alibi, claiming they were elsewhere during the incidents.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the weakness of the defense of alibi, and (2) the existence of conspiracy and the presence of treachery qualifying the killing to murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. It upheld the conviction, giving full credence to the positive identification by prosecution witnesses who were present at the scene and related the events in a clear and straightforward manner. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected, as it was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive testimony of credible witnesses. The Court emphasized that alibi becomes less plausible when established mainly by the accused and immediate relatives.
On the charge of Murder, the Court found conspiracy among the attackers. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct agreement but can be inferred from the acts of the accused showing a community of criminal purpose. The simultaneous and coordinated attack demonstrated this common design. Furthermore, the killing was qualified by treachery. The mode of attack—surrounding the unarmed victim, holding him from behind to render him defenseless, and then delivering fatal stab wounds—was executed in a manner that ensured the accomplishment of the killing without risk to the assailants. This swift and methodical attack constituted alevosia. The Court modified the civil indemnity, increasing it to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in line with prevailing jurisprudence.