G.R. No. 173479 - People vs. Cabbab, Jr.

The case involves appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. along with his co-accused Segundino Calpito who were charged with double murder, attempted murder, and robbery.
The criminal incident occurred on or about April 22, 1988 in Sitio Kayawkaw, Barangay Kimmalasag, Municipality of San Isidro, Abra, Philippines.
The events took place during a gathering where the victims—Winner Agbulos, Eddie Quindasan, and others—had come together initially to attend a fiesta and later played a local card game called “pepito” (a variant of “Russian poker”).

While Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan were with a group enjoying a card game, appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. and Segundino Calpito allegedly ambushed the victims.
The assailants, motivated by the intent to rob Winner Agbulos of his winnings (purportedly amounting to P12,000.00 or a larger sum as later indicated), attacked with treachery, evident premeditation, and the use of a firearm.
As a result of the ambush, Winner Agbulos was killed on the spot while Eddie Quindasan succumbed to his wounds later; additionally, PO William Belmes was also involved as a witness given his proximity and testimony.

M/Sgt. Godofredo Tubadeza – a police investigator.
PO William Belmes – who witnessed the events and identified the accused from close range.
Vidal Agbulos – father of the victim Winner Agbulos who testified to the encounter.
Medical examiners and forensic experts (Dra. Leona Garcia-BeroAa and Dr. Godofreco Gasa) detailing the autopsy findings.

Appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. who testified on his whereabouts, claiming he was in Palao, Baddek, Bangued, Abra visiting friends until about 5:30 p.m.
Co-accused Segundino Calpito, who denied involvement and testified about his own alibi of going fishing.
George de Lara, a Forensic Chemist of the NBI, who provided an explanation regarding the negative results of a paraffin test performed on the appellant’s hands, citing factors that could cause such results despite discharging a firearm.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bangued, Abra initially found Juan Cabbab, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with double homicide and attempted murder, imposing reclusion perpetua and an indeterminate penalty for attempted murder.
The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC’s decision and convicted the appellant of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide by imposing reclusion perpetua, while affirming the attempted murder conviction.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review following the modifications and pursuant to the Court’s pronouncements on direct appeals from lower courts.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) adopted its earlier appellate brief without further supplementation.
The appellant later submitted a supplemental brief arguing:

That the defense of alibi was not properly considered by the CA.
That the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly contesting the reliability of eyewitness identification.
Reliance on the negative paraffin test result as evidence to counter the testimony linking him to the shooting incident.

The prosecution countered that testimonies from PO William Belmes and Vidal Agbulos were credible, having personally identified the appellant from a close proximity, thereby refuting the alibi claim.

Whether the identification made by PO William Belmes and Vidal Agbulos was done under conditions that precluded mistake given the time, proximity, and familiarity of the witnesses with the appellant.
Whether the witness testimonies, including detailed observations concerning the shooting and the sequence of events, were sufficient to hold the appellant liable.

Whether the appellant’s claim that he was in Palao, Baddek, Bangued, Abra at the time of the crime could create a reasonable doubt about his presence at the scene.
Whether the proximity (a 30-minute drive) between the alleged alibi location and the crime scene diminishes the strength of the alibi defense.

Whether the negative test findings for gunpowder residue on the appellant’s hands exonerate him or, alternatively, can be explained by other factors as testified by the forensic expert.
The weight to be given to forensic evidence in the presence of strong eyewitness identification.

Whether the separate conviction for attempted murder should stand independently or if it is absorbed within the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
How the principles of the special complex crimes dictate the inclusion or exclusion of separate charges when multiple acts occur in connection with a single criminal design.