THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CELSO ACABADO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Acabado

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Celso Acabado for the killing of Manuel Penis, a stabbing that took place at night during a barrio fiesta. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto. First, it shows how the Supreme Court treats the qualifying circumstance of treachery when the attack comes from the front but is sudden and made in the dark. Second, it is a compact lesson on the weight of alibi against positive identification, and on the victim's identification of his attacker made at the moment of the stabbing, in a dying declaration, and in a statement to his mother.

Procedural History

The case was tried in the lower court, which convicted the appellant but characterized the killing as homicide rather than murder. The case went up on appeal to the Court of Appeals. That court, however, found that the appellant committed not homicide but murder, and that he should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Because of that finding, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court instead of deciding it itself. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case and rendered the judgment we study here.

Facts

At about nine o'clock in the evening of May 14, 1963, during the barrio fiesta of San Isidro, Sulat, Samar, Manuel Penis and Sunday Jabole were walking side by side toward the seashore. Celso Acabado, coming from the opposite direction, suddenly stabbed Manuel Penis with a knife in the epigastric region and immediately ran away toward the house of Imboy Lobederio. Sunday Jabole recognized Celso 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 by ex-Mayor Zosimo Opimo. In that dying declaration the wounded victim identified his assailant as Celso Acabado. When Eustaquia Sobremonte learned that her son Manuel had been wounded, she went to the house of the barrio lieutenant where he lay gravely wounded. In their conversation, Manuel told his mother that it was Celso Acabado who stabbed him and asked her to take the necessary action against him.

The wounded man was then taken to the Borongan Emergency Hospital, where he died on May 16 due to internal hemorrhage resulting from the knife wound. The death certificate described a stab wound one and one-half inches long in the left hypochondriac region, directed inwards and medially penetrating, perforating the greater curvature of the stomach. On the witness stand the attending physician attributed the death to internal hemorrhage.

Issues

• Whether or not the evidence is sufficient to identify the appellant as the one who stabbed the victim.
• Whether or not the lower court erred in not sustaining the appellant's defense of alibi.
• Whether or not the killing is qualified as murder by treachery, given that the attack came from in front but was sudden and made in the dark.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the amount of civil indemnity are proper.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it applies the law on murder, treachery, alibi, and civil indemnity as settled doctrine. The rule on treachery that the Court applies is stated in its own reasoning, and it bears directly on the qualification of the killing:

There was treachery because although the attack was from in front, it was sudden and in the dark.

This is the pivot of the case: the suddenness and the darkness, not the direction of the attack, supply the treachery that raises the killing from homicide to murder.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the evidence sufficiently identifies the appellant. He was positively identified by the eyewitness Sunday Jabole and by the victim himself, who declared at the time of the night attack, "I know you. You are Celso Acabado." He was also identified by the victim in his dying declaration taken by ex-Mayor Zosimo Opimo, and in his verbal declaration to his mother, Eustaquia Sobremonte, that same evening. The evidence showed that Manuel Penis and Sunday Jabole knew Celso Acabado, who was a resident of the nearby barrio of Nato before the stabbing.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the defense of alibi. According to the appellant and his witnesses, on the night of the incident he was in the barrio of Nato, some nine kilometers away from San Isidro, attending a dance. The Court held the contention untenable, calling alibi one of the weakest defenses and easily fabricated. It examined the testimonies supporting the alibi and found them unworthy of credence. Even if the alibi were given credence, it would not constitute a good defense, because the appellant could easily have taken time to go to San Isidro in half an hour by bicycle or in less than two hours on foot, and because of the positive identification of the appellant by Sunday Jabole and by the victim himself.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in finding the killing to be homicide on the ground that the night attack was from in front. There was treachery because, although the attack was from in front, it was sudden and in the dark. The killing should therefore be qualified as murder.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the murder, the appellant should be given the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity of six thousand pesos should be raised to twelve thousand pesos.

Doctrine

Treachery may qualify a killing as murder even when the attack comes from the front, where it is sudden and made in the dark, because the victim is given no chance to defend himself. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses and is easily fabricated; it cannot prevail against positive identification by an eyewitness and by the victim himself, especially where the distance between the claimed whereabouts and the scene could be covered in a short time. A victim's identification of his attacker at the moment of the stabbing, in a dying declaration, and in a statement to a relative on the same evening, are all competent and convincing evidence of identity. Where no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attends the murder, the penalty is reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity to the heirs.

Disposition

The appealed judgment was modified: Celso Acabado was sentenced to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, and ordered to pay the heirs of Manuel Penis twelve thousand pesos as civil indemnity, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that treachery exists where the attack, though from the front, is sudden and in the dark, and that alibi is the weakest of defenses against positive identification. Examiners use this case to test the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the weight of alibi against eyewitness and victim identification.