In People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Cabande, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Alfredo Cabande for two counts of murder, emphasizing the reliability of a child eyewitness’s testimony. The Court underscored that while the arguments in an appellant’s brief should directly address errors made by the trial court, it has the discretion to review the entire case in the interest of justice. Despite weaknesses in the defense’s arguments, the Court meticulously examined the records, affirming the initial conviction while adjusting the civil liabilities to align with current legal standards.

When a Child’s Voice Breaks Through: The Trinidad Double Murder Case

The case revolves around the tragic deaths of Vicente and Victor Trinidad, who were fatally shot on May 20, 1990. The key witness was Victor’s son, Christopher Trinidad, who was only five years old at the time of the incident. Christopher’s testimony was pivotal in identifying Alfredo Cabande as the perpetrator. The prosecution argued that the murders stemmed from a land dispute between the Trinidads and Cabande over Lot 1990 of the Buenavista Estate. Cabande, dissatisfied with the Department of Agrarian Reform’s decision that favored the Trinidads, allegedly threatened violence if they continued to fence the property. On the day of the murders, Cabande, along with another individual, blocked the Trinidads’ vehicle and opened fire, killing both Vicente and Victor.

During the trial, Christopher, despite his young age at the time of the incident, provided a detailed and consistent account of the events. He testified that he saw Cabande shoot his father and grandfather. The trial court found Christopher’s testimony credible, noting that it was straightforward, clear, and guileless. The defense, on the other hand, presented an alibi, claiming that Cabande was in Baguio City on the day of the murders for a business appointment. However, the trial court found Cabande’s alibi to be inconsistent and unreliable. The court also considered Cabande’s flight from justice for three years after the incident as an indication of guilt. Ultimately, the trial court convicted Cabande of two counts of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to two terms of reclusion perpetua.

Cabande appealed the decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and treachery. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing the credibility of Christopher’s testimony and the presence of treachery in the commission of the crime. The Court reiterated the principle that trial courts’ findings on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect, unless there is a clear showing of overlooked or misapplied facts. In this case, the Court found no reason to overturn the trial court’s assessment of Christopher’s testimony. Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that flight from justice is an indication of guilt, further supporting the conclusion that Cabande was indeed the perpetrator. The Supreme Court also addressed Cabande’s alibi, finding it to be weak and unconvincing. The Court noted inconsistencies in Cabande’s account and highlighted the fact that the company he claimed to have visited in Baguio City had already been dissolved at the time of the alleged meeting.

The Court then delved into the qualifying circumstances, particularly treachery. Treachery, under Philippine law, exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that ensure its commission without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. In this case, the Court found that Cabande’s sudden attack on the Trinidads, who were unarmed and defenseless, constituted treachery. The Court rejected Cabande’s argument that the victims had opportunities to defend themselves, emphasizing the suddenness of the attack and the victims’ inability to retaliate or flee. Even the existing feud between the parties did not negate the presence of treachery. The decisive factor was the sudden nature of the assault, which prevented the victims from defending themselves.

The Supreme Court, while affirming the conviction, modified the civil liabilities imposed on Cabande. The Court upheld the indemnity ex delicto of P50,000 for each victim, the actual damages of P100,000 for each victim, and the moral damages of P50,000 for each victim. However, it disallowed the award of exemplary damages, as no aggravating circumstances were proven. The Court also adjusted the amount of lost income for both victims, applying the formula: 2/3 x (80 – age of the victim at the time of death) x (reasonable portion of the annual net income which would have been received as support by the heirs). Using this formula, the Court computed the lost income for Victor to be P2,733,333.33 and for Vicente to be P100,000.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores several important legal principles. First, it emphasizes the importance of according great weight and respect to the trial court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses, especially when such findings are based on the direct observation of the witnesses’ demeanor. Second, it reiterates that flight from justice is an indication of guilt. Third, it clarifies the elements of treachery as a qualifying circumstance for murder. Finally, it provides guidance on the computation of civil liabilities in cases of wrongful death, particularly with respect to the award of lost income. This approach contrasts with simply accepting the trial court’s assessment without a thorough review, illustrating the appellate court’s duty to ensure justice is served.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove Alfredo Cabande’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the murders of Vicente and Victor Trinidad, and whether the crime was qualified by treachery.
Why was Christopher Trinidad’s testimony so important?	Christopher, the five-year-old son of victim Victor, was an eyewitness to the crime. His testimony was crucial because he positively identified Alfredo Cabande as the shooter, and the court found his narration to be straightforward and credible.
What did the defense argue in this case?	The defense presented an alibi, claiming that Alfredo Cabande was in Baguio City on the day of the murders. They also argued that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and treachery.
How did the Court define treachery in this case?	The Court defined treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that ensure its commission without risk to the offender from any defense the victim might make.
What is indemnity ex delicto?	Indemnity ex delicto is a form of compensation awarded in criminal cases to the heirs of the victim as a direct consequence of the crime. In this case, the Court awarded P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto for each victim.
How did the Court calculate the lost income for the victims?	The Court used the formula: 2/3 x (80 – age of the victim at the time of death) x (reasonable portion of the annual net income which would have been received as support by the heirs) to calculate the lost income.
Why were exemplary damages not awarded in this case?	Exemplary damages are awarded only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Since no aggravating circumstances were proven in this case, the Court disallowed the award of exemplary damages.
What was the significance of Cabande’s flight from justice?	The Court considered Cabande’s flight from justice for three years after the incident as an indication of guilt, which further supported the conclusion that he was the perpetrator.

In conclusion, the People vs. Cabande case illustrates the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice, even in cases hinging on the testimony of a child witness. By carefully weighing the evidence and applying relevant legal principles, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction while adjusting the civil liabilities. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and the consequences of evading justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines, vs. Alfredo Cabande, G.R. No. 132747, February 08, 2000