G.R. No. 138266 ; April 30, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PEDRO CABRERA, JR., alias “Onyong” and DANILO CABRERA, alias “Toti” (at large), accused, PEDRO CABRERA, JR., alias “Onyong,” appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case, primarily through eyewitness Shirley Aguilus, established that on November 22, 1992, she and her boyfriend, Leopoldo Alvarado, were walking home after visiting her father in Davao City. As they passed the house of the Cabrera family, appellant Pedro Cabrera, Jr., suddenly attacked from behind and stabbed Alvarado. Shirley testified that the victim retreated, whereupon appellant’s brother, Danilo Cabrera (at large), stabbed him again. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. Shirley reported the incident to the police, identifying the assailants as their neighbors, the Cabrera brothers, but delayed giving their full names out of fear, as they were known to be “hawod” (tough) in their area. She suggested the killing might have been a case of mistaken identity, with the victim being mistaken for a certain “Muki,” an enemy of the Cabreras.
The defense, anchored on denial and alibi, presented appellant who claimed he was in Manila working for his brother’s business on the date of the crime and did not know the victim or Shirley Aguilus. His brother, Ruben Cabrera, corroborated his employment but failed to present any employment records. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible and convicted appellant of murder qualified by treachery.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of murder based on the eyewitness testimony and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that the straightforward and consistent testimony of eyewitness Shirley Aguilus, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the weak defense of alibi. 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 be at the scene. Appellant failed to establish this impossibility, as Manila and Davao are connected by regular transportation, making his presence at the crime scene feasible. His alibi, uncorroborated by credible evidence like employment records, was inherently weak.
Regarding the qualifying circumstance, the Court agreed that treachery (alevosia) was present. The attack was sudden and from behind, giving the unarmed victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The mode of execution, employing a bladed weapon in a swift and unexpected assault, deliberately ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the assailant. The Court modified the damages awarded, ordering appellant to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the victim’s heirs.