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 eyewitness testimony, even when provided by a minor. The Court found no reversible error in the lower court’s decision, underscoring that the clear and consistent testimony of a five-year-old witness, coupled with the accused’s flight, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While affirming the conviction, the Court adjusted the civil liabilities, clarifying the standards for awarding damages, particularly concerning loss of earning capacity.

From Land Dispute to Double Homicide: Can a Child’s Testimony Seal a Murder Conviction?

The case stemmed from a tragic incident on May 20, 1990, in San Ildefonso, Bulacan, where Vicente and Victor Trinidad were shot dead. At the heart of the dispute was a land ownership conflict between the victims and Alfredo Cabande over Lot 1990 of the Buenavista Estate. The prosecution presented Christopher Trinidad, the five-year-old son of Victor and grandson of Vicente, as a key eyewitness. Christopher testified that he saw Cabande block their jeep and shoot his father and grandfather. The defense attempted to cast doubt on Christopher’s credibility, citing his young age at the time of the incident. However, the trial court found his testimony credible, leading to Cabande’s conviction, which was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Central to the Supreme Court’s affirmation was the evaluation of Christopher Trinidad’s eyewitness account. The Court reiterated the principle that trial courts’ findings on witness credibility are given great weight. This deference is based on the trial court’s unique position to observe the demeanor of witnesses firsthand. The Court highlighted the clarity, straightforwardness, and guilelessness of Christopher’s testimony, noting that he positively identified Cabande despite rigorous cross-examination. The Supreme Court found no indication of mendacity in his account. The Court emphasized that the defense failed to provide any compelling reason to reject Christopher’s testimony.

Adding weight to the conviction was Cabande’s flight after the incident. The Court noted that Cabande evaded arrest for three years, despite knowing he was charged with the crime. This act of evasion was interpreted as an indication of guilt. Flight, as a form of circumstantial evidence, can strengthen the prosecution’s case, particularly when coupled with positive identification by an eyewitness. The court has consistently held that flight suggests a consciousness of guilt and an attempt to evade justice. In People v. Salvame, the Supreme Court held:

“Flight is indicative of guilt.”

Cabande’s defense centered on alibi, claiming he was in Baguio City for a lumber business appointment at the time of the murders. However, the trial court deemed his alibi “unworthy of belief and full of inconsistencies.” The court questioned the suddenness of his trip, the implausibility of conducting business on a Sunday, and the inaccuracies in his and his witness’s recollections. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification. For alibi to be credible, it must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, demonstrating that the accused was at another place for such a period that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission.

A key point of contention was the presence of qualifying circumstances, specifically treachery, which elevated the crime to murder. Cabande argued that the victims were not unarmed and had opportunities to defend themselves. However, the Court rejected this argument, defining treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that ensures its commission without risk to the offender from the defense the offended party might make. As defined under Article 14 par. 16 of the Revised Penal Code:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The Court found that Cabande, together with an accomplice, blocked the victims’ jeep and shot them at close range, leaving them defenseless. The attack’s suddenness and the victims’ inability to retaliate demonstrated treachery. The Court clarified that the prior feud between Cabande and the victims did not negate treachery, as the attack was unexpected and swift. Even a prior threat does not preclude treachery, as the decisive factor is the unexpected nature of the assault.

While affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court modified the award of damages, aligning it with prevailing jurisprudence. The Court affirmed the indemnity ex delicto (indemnity arising from the crime) of P50,000 for each victim, totaling P100,000, and the actual damages of P100,000 for wake and burial expenses for each victim. Moral damages were reduced to P50,000 for each victim, totaling P100,000. However, the Court disallowed exemplary damages, as no aggravating circumstances were proven.

The Court also adjusted the award for loss of earning capacity, 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)”

For Victor, the Court calculated lost earnings at P2,733,333.33, considering his age (39), annual income (P150,000), and estimated living expenses (P50,000). For Vicente, the Court determined lost earnings at P100,000, based on his age (74), annual income (P50,000), and estimated living expenses (P25,000). The Court emphasized that the indemnity for loss of earning capacity is based on the income at the time of death and the victim’s probable life expectancy.

This case reinforces the importance of credible eyewitness testimony, even from young witnesses, in criminal proceedings. It also underscores the significance of flight as circumstantial evidence of guilt and clarifies the standards for awarding damages in murder cases, particularly concerning loss of earning capacity. By carefully evaluating the evidence and applying established legal principles, the Supreme Court upheld justice for the victims while ensuring the civil liabilities were appropriately determined.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the testimony of a five-year-old eyewitness was sufficient to convict the accused of murder and what damages were appropriately awarded. The Court considered the credibility of the witness and the presence of qualifying circumstances.
What is the significance of Christopher Trinidad’s testimony?	Christopher Trinidad’s testimony was crucial as he was an eyewitness to the murders. The Supreme Court found his testimony to be straightforward, clear, and guileless, supporting the conviction of Alfredo Cabande.
Why was Alfredo Cabande’s alibi rejected?	Cabande’s alibi was rejected because it was deemed inconsistent and unbelievable by the trial court. The Supreme Court agreed, noting the implausibility of his business trip and the inaccuracies in his testimony.
What is treachery and how did it apply in this case?	Treachery is the employment of means ensuring the execution of a crime without risk to the offender. It applied in this case because Cabande unexpectedly blocked the victims’ jeep and shot them at close range, leaving them defenseless.
How did the Supreme Court calculate the damages for loss of earning capacity?	The Supreme 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), deducting reasonable living expenses from the victim’s income.
What is indemnity ex delicto?	Indemnity ex delicto is a form of compensation awarded to the victims of a crime. It is awarded without the need for further proof other than the commission of the crime itself.
Why were exemplary damages not awarded in this case?	Exemplary damages were not awarded because the Court found no aggravating circumstances present in the commission of the crime. Exemplary damages are only granted when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.
What role did Cabande’s flight play in the decision?	Cabande’s flight from the authorities for three years was considered an indication of guilt. The Court cited that flight suggests a consciousness of guilt and an attempt to evade justice.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Cabande highlights the enduring principles of Philippine criminal law, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses and the assessment of damages. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough investigation and judicious application of legal standards in ensuring 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