G.R. No. L-26104; January 31, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CELSO ACABADO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of May 14, 1963, during a barrio fiesta in San Isidro, Sulat, Samar, Manuel Penis and Sunday Jabole were walking towards the seashore. Celso Acabado, coming from the opposite direction, suddenly stabbed Manuel Penis in the epigastric region with a knife and immediately fled. Sunday Jabole recognized Acabado as the attacker. Upon being stabbed, Manuel Penis declared to his attacker, “I know you. You are Celso Acabado.” Jabole took the wounded victim to the house of Barrio Lieutenant Francisco Plaza, where his dying declaration was taken. In that declaration and in a subsequent conversation with his mother, Eustaquia Sobremonte, the victim identified Celso Acabado as his assailant. Manuel Penis was taken to the hospital and died two days later from internal hemorrhage caused by the stab wound. The appellant, Celso Acabado, interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in a different barrio, some 9 kilometers away, attending a dance at the time of the incident.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appellant, Celso Acabado, was sufficiently identified as the perpetrator of the killing.
2. Whether the killing constituted homicide or murder.
3. Whether the defense of alibi should be sustained.

RULING

1. Yes, the appellant was positively identified. The Supreme Court found the evidence of identification sufficient. Appellant was positively identified by the eyewitness, Sunday Jabole, and by the victim himself, who declared at the time of the attack, “I know you. You are Celso Acabado.” The victim also identified the appellant in his dying declaration taken by ex-Mayor Zosimo Opimo and in his verbal declaration to his mother. The evidence showed that both the victim and the eyewitness knew the appellant prior to the incident.
2. The killing constituted Murder, qualified by treachery. The trial court erred in finding the crime to be homicide. Although the attack was from the front, it was sudden and executed in the dark, which rendered the victim unable to defend himself. This suddenness in the dark constituted treachery (alevosia), qualifying the killing as murder.
3. No, the defense of alibi should not be sustained. The defense of alibi is one of the weakest defenses and easily fabricated. The Court found the testimonies supporting the alibi unworthy of credence. Furthermore, even if credited, the defense was not convincing because the appellant could have traveled the 9-kilometer distance between the barrios by bicycle in half an hour or on foot in less than two hours. The positive identification of the appellant by the eyewitness and the victim rendered the alibi defense untenable.
The Court modified the appealed judgment. Since no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the murder, the penalty was reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties. The civil indemnity was increased from P6,000 to P12,000 to be paid to the heirs of Manuel Penis. Costs were imposed on the appellant.