G.R. No. 136143; November 15, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGAPITO CABOTE a.k.a. “PITO”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Florentino Avenido, the accused’s brother-in-law. Avenido testified that on the evening of November 12, 1995, Agapito Cabote confided his intent to kill Ramil Tero, a romantic rival for the affections of Jessa Ramos. Cabote then armed himself with a scythe. Later that night, Avenido saw Cabote meet Tero, put an arm around his shoulder, and walk with him. Upon reaching a secluded area, Cabote suddenly hacked Tero on the neck, causing his death. Avenido, though a friend of the victim, did not intervene out of fear. Cabote later appeared at Avenido’s house, bloodstained, and confirmed the killing. Avenido, an escaped detainee at the time, initially remained silent but later executed an affidavit upon his rearrest.
The accused, Agapito Cabote, presented a diametrically opposed version. He denied the killing and claimed it was Avenido who appeared at his house that night, bloodied and holding a scythe, confessing to having murdered Tero. Cabote refused him entry. His wife, Elena, corroborated this story, testifying that Avenido admitted to the crime out of jealousy over Jessa Ramos and threatened them to keep silent.

ISSUE

The core issue is one of credibility: whether the trial court correctly gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of Florentino Avenido, over the denial and alibi of the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and respect on appeal. The Court found no ill motive for Avenido to falsely testify against his own brother-in-law. His detailed narration of events, including the accused’s prior threat and the manner of the attack, was deemed credible and consistent.
The defense of denial and alibi was rejected as inherently weak. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. Cabote failed to establish this impossibility. Moreover, his defense was uncorroborated and could not overcome the positive identification by an eyewitness. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the unarmed victim of any chance to defend himself. The Court modified the damages, awarding civil indemnity and moral damages to the victim’s heirs.