G.R. No. L-16234; April 26, 1961
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANITO FETALVERO and FILADELFO CACHOLA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of February 1, 1955, in Barrio Capangpangan, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, the victim Ernesto Alquetra, accompanied by his ten-year-old nephew Enrique, went to a vacant lot to defecate. While walking, Ernesto abruptly swerved. Enrique then saw appellant Marianito Fetalvero, wearing a hat and black jacket, draw a gun and fire successive shots at Ernesto from a distance. As the wounded Ernesto tried to flee, he was met by appellant Filadelfo Cachola, Fetalvero’s brother-in-law, who also fired at him, causing his death. Cachola, while fleeing, also shot at but missed Romeo Alquetra, who had come down from their house. Young Enrique witnessed the event from behind a tree and immediately reported the assailants’ identities.
The appellants raised separate defenses. Fetalvero claimed self-defense, alleging that Ernesto was the aggressor who first drew and fired a gun at him. Cachola interposed an alibi, asserting he was at home cooking during the incident. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including the child Enrique, his uncle Romeo, and Filomena Alquetra, who positively identified both appellants as the perpetrators.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants of murder, rejecting their defenses of self-defense and alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of self-defense proffered by Fetalvero was untenable. It relied solely on his uncorroborated testimony and was contradicted by the evidence. No gun was found on or near the victim, undermining the claim that Ernesto was the armed aggressor. The Court found it illogical that Ernesto would bring his young nephew along if he planned an ambush. Fetalvero’s own conduct, including previous offers to plead guilty to homicide, further weakened his claim.
Cachola’s alibi was likewise rejected. It was unsupported by credible evidence and could not prevail over the positive and consistent identification by multiple eyewitnesses. The Court noted that the witnesses’ credibility was not impaired by their relationship to the victim, as it is not presumed that relatives would falsely accuse innocent persons. The trial court’s assessment of witness demeanor was accorded great weight. The proximity of Cachola’s residence to the crime scene also made his presence and participation entirely possible. The killing was characterized by treachery, as the attack was sudden and deliberate, ensuring the victim had no chance to defend himself. The Court thus upheld the penalties imposed by the trial court.