G.R. Nos. L-57184-85 November 14, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUGENIA ABANO, ELISEO CABAÑA alias LUCIO CABAÑA and PABLO CABAÑA alias TEOFILO CABAÑA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves the killings of Agripino Abano and his common-law wife, Bienvenida Cumad, on February 7, 1980, in Balamban, Cebu. Accused-appellants are Eugenia Abano, the legal wife of Agripino from whom he had been separated for three years, and Eliseo and Pablo Cabana, father and son who worked as quack doctors. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of the crime, Concordia Abano, the daughter-in-law of Eugenia and Agripino, was coerced by the Cabañas to lure Agripino from his hut by falsely claiming his son was ill. When Agripino descended, he was attacked and killed. Bienvenida, who went to investigate, was also killed. Concordia positively identified the Cabañas as the perpetrators. Eugenia’s involvement was shown by her having supper with the Cabañas earlier that evening and her immediate actions after the crime, where she urgently requested her son to transport the Cabañas away from the area, offering payment for their fare.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of all three accused for the crimes of parricide (for Eugenia) and murder (for all) was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but commuted the death penalties to reclusion perpetua due to lack of the necessary votes for execution. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the credible and consistent testimony of eyewitness Concordia Abano, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Concordia’s account of being forced to participate under threat and her positive identification of the Cabañas as the assailants was deemed credible and unshaken by cross-examination. For Eugenia Abano, her actions constituted circumstantial evidence of conspiracy. Her presence with the Cabañas before the crime, her knowledge of their need for immediate flight afterward, and her provision of funds for their escape demonstrated a community of criminal design. The Court ruled that these circumstances, taken together, led to no other logical conclusion than her participation in the conspiracy to kill her husband. The defenses of alibi and denial proffered by the Cabañas and Eugenia were rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially in the face of positive identification. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were duly proven, justifying the convictions for murder and parricide. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000 for each victim.