People v. Acabado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 14, 1963, around 9:00 PM, during a barrio fiesta, Manuel Penis and Sunday Jabole were walking when Celso Acabado suddenly stabbed Manuel Penis on the epigastric region and fled. Sunday Jabole recognized Acabado as the attacker. Manuel Penis identified Acabado as his assailant and later made a dying declaration to the same effect. He also informed his mother, Eustaquia Sobremonte, that Acabado was the attacker. Manuel Penis died on May 16, 1963, from internal hemorrhage due to the stab wound. Procedural History: The trial court found the killing to be homicide. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, finding the offense to be murder and recommending a sentence of reclusion perpetua. The Petition: The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the attacker and that the trial court erred in not sustaining his defense of alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing was homicide or murder. Whether the evidence was sufficient to identify the appellant as the assailant. Whether the defense of alibi should have been sustained.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the appealed judgment, sentencing the appellant Celso Acabado to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay P12,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of Manuel Penis.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the killing was homicide or murder: The Court ruled that the killing was murder, not homicide. The trial court erred in finding that the attack from the front negated treachery. The Court clarified that treachery exists when the attack is sudden and in the dark, even if it is from the front. This suddenness and darkness deprived the victim of the opportunity to defend himself, thus qualifying the offense as murder. The nature of the wound, described as penetrating the stomach, further indicated the gravity of the assault. On the sufficiency of evidence to identify the appellant: The Court found the evidence sufficient to identify the appellant. The eyewitness, Sunday Jabole, positively identified Celso Acabado as the attacker. Furthermore, the victim, Manuel Penis, identified Acabado at the time of the attack, stating, "I know you. You are Celso Acabado." This identification was corroborated by the victim's dying declaration and his verbal statement to his mother on the same evening. The Court noted that both Jabole and the victim knew Acabado, who resided in a nearby barrio. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the defense of alibi untenable. The appellant claimed to be in a barrio 9 kilometers away attending a dance. The Court characterized alibi as one of the weakest defenses, easily fabricated. It found the testimonies supporting the alibi unworthy of credence. Moreover, even if the alibi were given credence, it would not be a good defense because the distance was not insurmountable, and the appellant could have easily traveled to the scene of the crime. The positive identification by the eyewitness and the victim rendered the alibi ineffective.
Main Doctrine
Treachery may be present even if the attack is from the front, provided it is sudden and in the dark, qualifying the offense to murder. Positive identification by an eyewitness and the victim, coupled with the victim's dying declaration, is sufficient to overcome the defense of alibi.