G.R. Nos. L-62030-31 October 4, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NESTOR CABANIT, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nestor Cabanit was charged with two counts of Murder for the shooting deaths of Norberto Gazmen and Eliseo Gazmen on December 31, 1978, in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Elisa Gazmen and Rosalia Dauz, who testified that between 11:00 PM and midnight, they saw Cabanit, from a distance of ten meters, shoot Norberto Gazmen. As Eliseo Gazmen embraced the fallen Norberto, Cabanit also shot Eliseo. The witnesses reported the incident a few days later, explaining their initial delay due to shock and fear. Medical evidence confirmed both victims died from cerebral hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds.
The defense interposed an alibi, claiming Cabanit was in Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur, approximately forty kilometers away, at the time of the killings. He, his father, and another witness testified they were at the house of Ex-Mayor Benjamin Sanidad to retrieve a package and money from a relative and stayed there overnight due to lack of transportation. The trial court convicted Cabanit of two counts of Murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count and ordering indemnity. Cabanit appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the rejection of his alibi.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused by giving credence to the prosecution’s eyewitness accounts over the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the trial court’s factual findings and rejection of the alibi. The Court emphasized the established doctrine that alibi is inherently a weak defense, especially when, as here, it is corroborated only by the accused’s immediate relatives and is easily fabricated. It cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible eyewitnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely. The Court found the testimonies of Elisa Gazmen and Rosalia Dauz clear and convincing, as they witnessed the event from a proximate distance and provided a coherent narrative of the sequential shootings.
The Court also ruled that the alleged delay in reporting the crime was adequately explained by the witnesses’ initial shock, grief, and fear of reprisal, and such a brief delay does not impair their credibility. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded the highest respect, as it had the direct opportunity to observe their demeanor. The Court modified the civil liability by increasing the indemnity to P30,000.00 for each victim but affirmed the penalties in all other respects. The decision underscores the principle that positive identification trumps an unsubstantiated alibi.