GR 129961; (August, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 129961-62; August 25, 2003
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. VIRGILIO CAABAY, ESTEBAN CAABAY, VALENTINO “COOL” CAABAY and ISIDRO “BOYET” CAABAY, Appellants.
FACTS
The appellants, Virgilio Caabay and his sons Esteban, Valentino, and Isidro, along with another son Rodrigo (at large), were charged with the double murder of Paulino Urbano and his son Aliguer Urbano. The prosecution’s case, primarily through the eyewitness testimony of Adelina Urbano (Paulino’s wife), established that on June 27, 1994, a long-standing boundary dispute between the Urbano and Caabay families culminated in violence. Adelina testified that she witnessed the appellants, all armed with bolos, suddenly attack Paulino on their farmland. Her son Aliguer, who rushed to help, was chased, surrounded, and subsequently stabbed to death by the group. The victims’ bodies were found side by side the next day.
The defense presented alibi and denial, claiming the appellants were elsewhere during the incident. They alleged that the killings arose from a chance encounter and a struggle after Paulino allegedly attacked Virgilio first. The trial court rejected the defense and convicted the appellants of two counts of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, sentencing them to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the complex crime of double murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties and the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Adelina Urbano to be credible, natural, and consistent. Her positive identification of all appellants as the perpetrators, her clear account of how they collectively attacked the unarmed and elderly Paulino and then pursued and killed Aliguer, convincingly established conspiracy. The defense of alibi and denial could not prevail over this positive identification.
However, the Court held that the trial court erred in appreciating the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength to qualify the killings to murder. The Information alleged abuse of superior strength as the qualifying circumstance, but the Court ruled it was not sufficiently proven as the indubitable essence of the attack. Instead, the killings were properly qualified to murder by the presence of treachery (alevosia). The sudden and simultaneous attack on Paulino, who was resting and unable to defend himself, and the pursuit and encirclement of Aliguer, ensured the execution of the crimes without risk to the appellants. The Court sentenced each appellant to reclusion perpetua for each count of murder, and ordered them to pay civil indemnity and moral damages to the heirs of each victim.