TITLE AND CITATION

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roger Acabo, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 229823, Feb. 27, 2019.

J. Del Castillo wrote the opinion of the Court.

NATURE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals that affirmed the judgment of the Regional
Trial Court finding Roger Acabo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

FACTS

Roger Acabo and his brother Pael were charged with murder qualified by treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength for the killing of Alberto Paltingca.

ROGER was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Pael remained at large.

Witness Josephine Enrera testified:

At around 6:00 a.m. on September 19, 2014, while she and Alberto were on their way to Sitio Tala-tala,
Roger and Pael ambushed them. Roger shot Alberto on the legs with a handgun causing the victim to fall
backwards. Pael tried to shoot her, but the gun did not fire. She was able to run and hide. Roger ran after
Alberto and shot him on the left armpits. Alberto fell, rolled downhill, and died.

Roger denied that he killed Alberto and insisted on the alibi that at 8:00 a.m. on September 19, 2014 he
reported for work in a construction project in Tunga-tunga, Dauin, Negros Oriental. Five other defense
witnesses testified that Roger reported for work on September 19, but no one saw him report for work at
8:00 a.m.

The RTC found Roger guilty of murder on Josephine's positive identification of the Roger as the person
who killed Alberto. It concluded that treachery and abuse of superior strength aggravated the killing
based on the nature, condition, and location of the two gunshot wounds.

It disregarded Roger's alibi because the defense failed to prove that it was impossible for ROGER to be at
the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed.

On appeal, the CA agreed with the RTC. It gave full credence to Josephine's categorical testimony that
Roger killed Alberto.

ROGER appealed to the Supreme Court insisting that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

ROGER argued that Josephine was not a credible witness; her story that she ran towards the accused to
hide but the accused did not pursue her was contrary to human experience; and he was at work in another
place when the crime was perpetrated.
He insisted that there was no treachery because Alberto had a bolo and was not defenseless.

ISSUES

a. Was Josephine's testimony credible and sufficient to prove Roger's guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

b. Was Roger's alibi tenable?

c. Was there treachery?

DISPOSITION AND HOLDINGS

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the CA finding the Roger guilty of
murder qualified by treachery.

It held:

a. Josephine was a credible witness and her testimony was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

b. Accused's alibi was self-serving and unreliable.

c. The killing of Alberto was attended with treachery, which qualified the crime to murder.

REASONING

a. As a rule, the trial court's findings are accorded respect because it has the first-hand opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses when they testify.

There was no reason to disturb the assessment of the RTC that Josephine was a credible witness and that
her testimony was sufficient to establish the guilt of the Roger beyond reasonable doubt.

Josephine's behavior or that of the accused during the incident did not necessarily make Josephine's
testimony incredible or destroy her credibility. There is no standard form of human behavior response
when a person is confronted with a startling experience.

b. For the defense of alibi to prosper, not only must Roger prove that he was at some other place at the
time of the commission of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place
where the crime was committed. This was not met. The distance between Sitio Tala-tala and the
construction site in Tunga-tunga could be traversed in 15 to 20 minutes. There was enough time for Roger
to return to the construction site by 8:00 a.m.

Moreover, the other witnesses did not corroborate Roger's claim that he reported for work at 8:00 a.m.
Positive identification is stronger than an uncorroborated alibi.
c. There is treachery when the offender commits a crime against the person, employing means, methods,
and forms in the execution thereof which tend to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended party might make.
Alberto had no opportunity to defend himself when the accused ambushed and shot him. The fact that
Alberto had a bolo was of no consequence. The attack was executed in a manner that victim was unable
to defend himself or retaliate.

NOTES

a. All the elements of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code were proven.

A person was killed;

the accused killed that person; the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery; and
the killing was not parricide or infanticide.

b. Waylaid means ambushed or waited for and attacked.

c. Would the decision be different if the construction site were four or five hours away from Sitio Tala-tala
?

No. Positive identification is stronger than an uncorroborated alibi.

d. What was the motive?

No idea. Proof of motive is not required in criminal prosecution. It is however helpful in criminal
investigations.