G.R. No. L-33304 July 31, 1974
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTOR ABLETES and JULIO PAMERO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

At twilight on September 30, 1969, in Giporlos, Eastern Samar, Rufo Cote and Alice Depalco were riding a bicycle when they were confronted by appellants Victor Abletes and Julio Pamero. Pamero seized the bicycle’s handlebar, causing it to tilt, while Abletes, armed with a bolo, stabbed Cote. The attack was witnessed by Alice Depalco and Zosimo Nabelgas. Cote died two hours later from the chest wound. The motive was a personal grudge stemming from a prior inconclusive duel between Abletes and Cote twelve days earlier.
A complaint for murder was filed. Abletes surrendered and pleaded self-defense, claiming Cote, allegedly drunk, had attacked him first. Pamero presented an alibi, asserting he was making copra six kilometers away at the time. The trial court convicted both of murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment and ordering indemnity. They appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the rejection of their defenses.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants of murder, rejecting Abletes’ claim of self-defense and Pamero’s alibi, and in appreciating the qualifying and mitigating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The plea of self-defense by Abletes was correctly rejected. For self-defense to succeed, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Abletes’ version—that an intoxicated Cote chased him and others after a bicycle accident—was deemed highly incredible and defied common sense, failing to establish unlawful aggression on Cote’s part. The clear and positive testimonies of eyewitnesses, who identified Abletes as the assailant acting out of revenge from a prior fight, prevailed.
Pamero’s alibi was likewise correctly dismissed. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot stand against positive identification by credible witnesses, such as Alice Depalco and Zosimo Nabelgas, who knew him well. His presence and participation in holding the bicycle to facilitate the stabbing were established beyond reasonable doubt. The killing was qualified by treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden, employing means that ensured the execution without risk to the assailants, as Cote was restrained by Pamero and unable to defend himself.
Regarding penalties, the Court corrected the trial court’s erroneous designation of “cadena perpetua” to the correct term “reclusion perpetua.” The qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be offset by the generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was properly appreciated for Abletes. For Pamero, the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction was upheld. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and with these mitigating circumstances, the penalty was reduced. Each appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity was affirmed.