Criminal Case

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 135957-58. September 17, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. GUILLERMO

SAMUS, appellant.

DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

While it is true that the confessions of appellant were made without benefit of
counsel, they are still admissible in evidence because of appellant‟s failure to make
timely objections before the trial court. If only the defense had proffered them on time,
the prosecution could have been warned of the need to present additional evidence to
support its case. To disregard a major portion of the prosecution‟s case at a late stage
during an appeal goes against the norms of fundamental fairness. Indeed, justice is
dispensed not only for the accused, but also for the prosecution. Be that as it may, and
even if we now affirm appellant‟s conviction for murder, we do not, however agree with
the trial court‟s imposition of the death sentence, because the proven aggravating
circumstance of dwelling was not alleged in the Information.

The Case

For automatic review by this Court is the Decision[1] dated October 8, 1998, issued
by the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, in Criminal Case Nos.
5015-96-C and 5016-96-C. The trial court found Guillermo Samus guilty beyond
reasonable of two counts of murder. The decretal portion of its Decision reads as
follows:

“WHEREFORE:

“A. With respect to Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C for the killing of Dedicacion
Balisi, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of, after appreciating the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor as minimum up to 20
years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum.

“The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Dedicacion Balisi the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) for her death and another
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as and for moral and actual damages and
cost of suit.

“B. With respect to Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C for the killing of John Ardee Balisi,
this Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Murder
and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of, after appreciating the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling, death.

“The accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of John Ardee Balisi the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) for his death and another
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as and for moral and actual damages and
cost of suit.”
[2]

Two separate Informations,[3] both filed on November 27, 1996,[4] charged appellant
as follows:

Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C

“That on or about 2:30 o‟clock in the afternoon of September 2, 1996 at San Ramon
de Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, with intent
to kill, treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously hold the neck, strangle and
thereafter bange[d] the head on the concrete pavement floor of one DEDICACION
BALISI Y SORIANO, a 61 years of age, woman, thereby inflicting upon her fractured
bones, serious and mortal wounds which directly caused her death, to the damage and
prejudice of the surviving heirs of the said Dedicacion Balisi y Soriano.

“That in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances of treachery,

evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength were in attendant and
ordinary aggravating circumstance committing a crime with disregard of respect due
the offended party by reason of her age and sex.

Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C

“That on or about 4:30 o‟clock in the afternoon of September 2, 1996 at San Ramon
de Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, with intent
to kill, treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously hold the neck, strangle and
thereafter bang[ed] the head on the concrete pavement floor of one JOHN ARDEE
BALISI Y SORIANO, a six year old boy, thereby inflicting upon him fractured bones,
serious and mortal wounds which directly caused his death, to the damage and
prejudice of the surviving heirs of the said John Ardee Balisi y Soriano.

“That in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances of treachery,

evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength were in
attendan[ce].”

When arraigned on May 28, 1997, appellant, assisted by his counsel de

oficio,[5] pleaded not guilty.[6] In due course, he was tried and found guilty.

The Facts
Version of the Prosecution

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the evidence for the
prosecution in this wise:[7]

“Appellant was a farmer, tilling and living in the land of Miguel Completo at
Barangay Niugan, Cabuyao, Laguna. The victims, sixty two (62) year old Dedicacion
Balisi and her grandson, six (6) year old John Ardee Balisi, were the neighbors of
appellant‟s father at San Ramon de Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna.

“At 4:20 P.M. on September 2, 1996, Senior Police (SP) Inspector Rizaldy H. Garcia
was at his office at the 4th PNP Criminal Investigation Group Regional Office at
Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba, Laguna when he received an order from his superior
to investigate the murder of the two victims. Their office had received a telephone
call from a local barangay official informing them of the victims‟ deaths.

“Arriving at the victims‟ residence at Block 8, Lot 6 at San Ramon, Brgy. Canlubang,
Calamba, Garcia and his team conducted an investigation, making a sketch of the
relative positions of the victims, lifting fingerprints from the crime scene and taking
pictures. Thereafter, an investigation report was prepared by Garcia and signed by his
superior, Colonel Pedro Tango. The investigators likewise found a pair of maong
pants, a white T-shirt, a handkerchief and dirty slippers in the bathroom and roof of
the house. A pair of earrings worn by Dedicacion Balisi was likewise reported
missing from her body by her daughter, Nora B. Llore[r]a.

“The victims‟ bodies were brought to the Funeraria Señerez de Mesa in Calamba
where Senior Inspector Joselito A. Rodrigo, a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory, performed an autopsy. His findings showed that John sustained three (3)
contusions, one of which lacerated his liver, caused by a blunt instrument, while
Dedicacion suffered four (4) contusions, also caused by a blunt instrument.

“On that same day, September 2, 1996, Ponciano Pontanos, Jr., then a resident of
Barangay Niugan, Cabuyao and an acquaintance of appellant, happened to meet
appellant at Sammy Pacheca‟s house in the same barangay where appellant asked
Ponciano to accompany him to Ponciano‟s wife to pawn a pair of
earrings. Ponciano‟s wife was mad at first but upon Ponciano‟s prodding, gave
appellant P300.00 with no interest. The earrings were placed in a jewelry box;
thereafter, appellant received another P250.00.

“At 6:00 P.M. on September 10, 1996, Major Jose Pante of the Criminal Investigation
Group received information that appellant was the principal suspect in the killing of
the two (2) victims and that he was sighted inside the residence of spouses Rolly and
Josie Vallejo at Barangay Macabling, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. He then formed and led a
team composed of SPO3 Galivo, Intelligence Commission Officer Casis and SPO3
Mario Bitos. Arriving at the site at past 7:00 P.M., the team, accompanied by local
barangay authorities, asked permission from the Vallejo spouses to enter the house,
which was granted. Shortly thereafter, they heard loud footsteps on the roof. Rushing
outside, they saw appellant crawling on the roof. They ordered him to stop, but he
suddenly jumped from the roof and landed hard on the ground, sustaining an injury on
his ankle and bruises on his left and right forearm. At that point, the police team
closed in on appellant who, while trembling and shaking, admitted the killings upon a
query from Rolly Vallejo.

“Appellant was brought to the Camp Vicente Lim PNP Investigation Office where he
was informed of his constitutional rights by SPO3 Alex Malabanan. In the morning
of September 11, 1996, appellant, assisted by Atty. Arturo Juliano, gave his statement
admitting the killings. SPO3 Malabanan also took the statements of tricycle driver
Rafael Baliso, the victims‟ relatives Salvacion and Mona Balisi and witness Mary
Arguelles, who saw appellant enter the house of Dedicacion Balisi.

“On the same day, September 11, 1996, PNP Fingerprint Examiner Reigel Allan Sorra
took fingerprint samples from appellant. His prints exactly matched with a set of
prints found at the crime scene on September 2, 1998. Later that day, SPO3 Mario
Bitos was able to recover the pawned earrings from Ponciano who turned them over to
SPO3 Malabanan. (Citations omitted)

Version of the Defense

 Alleging denial and alibi as defenses, appellant presents his version of the incident
as follows:[8]

“Mrs. Fe Vallejo testified that she knew Guillermo Samus. At about 6:00 p.m. of
September 10, 1996, Guillermo Samus was in their house. It was then that CIS
operatives together with their Brgy. Captain entered their house, arrested and
handcuffed Guillermo Samus. It was not true that accused Guillermo Samus hid
himself on the roof of her house. When the accused was arrested by the CIS men,
together with the barangay officials, the other persons present were the witness and
her 3 children. The police were not armed with a warrant of arrest or search warrant.

“Accused Guillermo Samus denied the accusations against him. He testified that he
was a farmer, working on the land of one Miguel Completo at Brgy. Niugan,
Cabuyao. From 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. of September 2, 1996, he was harvesting palay
with Eligio Completo; that he never left the farm. He took his lunch at the hut of
Miguel Completo; that he arrived home at 6:00 in the afternoon, took his dinner then
went to sleep.

“He further testified that on September 10, 1996, he was at the house of his friend,
Rolly Vallejo at Brgy. Macabling, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, when a group of CIS operatives
arrived and arrested him inside the same house. It was not true that he jumped from
the roof of the house. The CIS people did not have any warrant for his arrest. His
kumpadre Rolly Vallejo was not present at that time. He was brought to Camp
Vicente Lim where he was tortured until he lost his consciousness. On the same
night, he was brought to a hospital, was given medicine, then brought back to the cell
where he was handcuffed at the door of the cell. The CIS got hold of the medical
certificate. He was forced by the CIS to admit the killing of the victims and the sale
of jewelry by means of torture and threat.

“He also testified that he was forced to execute a document admitting the killing. He
was forced to sign said document. He did not know Atty. Juliano and did not talk to
him. The victims were the neighbors of his father in the province. He had been in the
house of Dedicacion Balisi. He was known to Dedicacion Balisi and her household;
and, that the last time he visited the house of Dedicacion Balisi was on August 30,
1996. He was given food by Dedicacion and he later washed dishes, swept the floor,
and put dirt in the trash can. He left at 12:00 p.m. that same date and returned to his
house in Brgy. Niugan.

“On cross-examination, he testified that from Brgy. Niugan to San Ramon de

Canlubang it took less than 15 minutes to travel, and he also mentioned that the media
interviewed him 2 days after his arrest. He and his relatives in Laguna did not have
the capacity to hire/secure the services of a lawyer.

“The defense also presented Exhibit „B‟ (and submarkings), the transcript of
stenographic notes of the testimony of Atty. Juliano, given before the Municipal Trial
Court of Calamba, Laguna on December 1, 1997 in connection with [C]riminal [C]ase
[N]o. 26099, also against Guillermo Samus for theft (of the earrings). The
prosecution admitted the existence of said exhibit and the presentation of the witness
who was supposed the identify the same was dispensed with.” (Citations omitted)

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court found enough pieces of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt
of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Rejecting his alibi for being unreliable and
uncorroborated, it convicted him of homicide for the death of Dedicacion Balisi; and of
murder, with dwelling as aggravating circumstance, for the death of John Ardee Balisi.
Hence, this automatic review.[9]

Assignment of Errors

In his Brief, appellant faults the court a quo with the following alleged errors:[10]
“I

“The lower court gravely erred in giving credence to the testimonies of police officers
to the effect that the accused tried to escape when he was arrested and that he readily
admitted responsibility for the crimes.
“II

“The lower court gravely erred in admitting and considering evidence that were
obtained in violation of the accused‟s constitutional rights.
“III

“The lower court gravely erred in holding that there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence to warrant the conviction of the accused.
“IV

“The lower court gravely erred when it ruled that the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength attended the killing of John Ardee Balisi.”

The Court’s Ruling

The appeal is partly meritorious.

First Issue:
Arrest of Appellant

As a general rule, the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of the witnesses
is accorded great respect, if not finality. In the present case, however, there are cogent
reasons to disregard its findings with respect to the arrest of appellant on September
10, 1996.
The police officers‟ version of the arrest is incredible. Not only are their allegations
uncertain and inconsistent, they are also contrary to human experience. We find it hard
to believe that anyone would jump from the roof of a two-story house to escape and,
after landing on the ground without any broken bones, make a complete turnaround and
just meekly surrender without further ado. Even if this story were true, jumping from a
roof is not a crime that would justify the warrantless arrest of appellant.
It is undisputed that when the CIS team went to the Vallejo residence on the
evening of September 10, 1996, it had no warrant of arrest against appellant. Yet,
they arrested him. Under the Rules,[11] peace officers may, without a warrant, arrest a
person under any of these circumstances: (a) when, in their presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit, an offense;
(b) when an offense has just been committed, and they have probable cause to believe,
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another, or from a penal establishment
where he or she is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while the case is
pending.
None of these circumstances was present when members of the Criminal
Investigation Group (CIG) arrested appellant. He was not a prisoner. The killing of
Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi was not done in the presence of the arresting
officers. Since it took place on September 2, 1996, it could not have been
considered as “having just been committed.” Evidently, they unlawfully arrested
appellant on September 10, 1996. When they did so, we cannot ascribe to them
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, contrary to
the court a quo’s finding.
Considering that the arrest of appellant was unlawful, the apprehending officers‟
uncertainty and reluctance in admitting it becomes understandable. In their Joint
Affidavit executed on September 11, 1996, they alleged that he had voluntarily
surrendered to them. On the other hand, he had allegedly been merely invited by Chief
Inspector Jose Pante, according to SPO3 Alex Malabanan. It was only upon being
pressed that the police officers admitted that they had indeed made the arrest. [12]
We now proceed to the alleged confession. In their Joint-Affidavit, the arresting
officers said that after appellant had initially jumped from a two-story house to escape,
they closed in on him and he voluntarily surrendered. At the same place where he did
so, they conducted a preliminary interview, during which he readily admitted killing
Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi.
But during their testimonies, the police officers denied questioning appellant after
arresting him. Instead, they claimed that it was Rolly Vallejo who had conducted the
preliminary interview in their presence as follows: “Pare totoo ba ang sinasabi nila
tungkol sa iyo na ikaw ay pinaghihinalaan nilang pumatay sa mag-lola sa
Canlubang[?]”; to this question appellant allegedly answered, “[T]otoo nga pare, ako
nga.” No further questions were allegedly asked by the law enforcement
officers. Instead, they immediately brought appellant to Camp Vicente Lim for further
investigation.
SPO3 Mario Bitos, on the other hand, stated in his Affidavit, also dated September
11, 1996, that during the conduct of the preliminary interview, appellant admitted “that
the victim‟s pair of earrings made of gold was taken by him after the incident and x x x
sold to Mr. Jhun Pontanos y Matriano, a resident of Bgy. Niugan, Cabuyao, Laguna, for
the amount of five hundred (P500) pesos.”
During his testimony, however, Bitos denied that they had conducted any
investigation.[13] Instead, he claimed that upon their arrival at Camp San Vicente Lim, an
interview was conducted by the media in the presence of Major Pante, SPO3 Bitos and
SPO3 Malabanan (the investigator).[14] From this interview, the team was able to cull
from appellant that he was responsible for the killings, and that he had stolen the
earrings of Dedicacion Balisi and sold them to Pontanos for P500. This information was
allegedly verified by Bitos upon the order of Major Pante.
Thus, the apprehending officers contend that the constitutional rights of appellant
were not violated, since they were not the ones who had investigated and elicited
evidentiary matters from him.
We are not persuaded. The events narrated by the law enforcers in court are too
good to be true. Their Sworn Statements given a day after the arrest contradict their
testimonies and raise doubts on their credibility.
We find the claims of appellant more believable, supported as they are by Fe
Vallejo who testified that he had been arrested inside her house, and that Rolly Vallejo
was not around then.
“Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness, but must be credible in itself -- such as [that which] the common
experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We
have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our
knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these
belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance.”[15]
 Second Issue:
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Appellant claims that his alleged confession to the media while in police custody
cannot be admitted in evidence. He further contends that the pair of earrings, the
turnover receipt, as well as the testimonies of Pontaños and Bitos, relative thereto
should be excluded for being “fruits of the poisonous tree.”
We clarify. After being illegally arrested, appellant was not informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel. Hence, any admission elicited from him by the law enforcers during custodial
investigation are normally inadmissible in evidence.
In their affidavits, the police officers readily admitted that appellant was subjected to
a preliminary interview. Yet, during their examination in open court, they tried to skirt
this issue by stating that it was only the media that had questioned appellant, and that
they were merely present during the interview.
However, an examination of the testimonies of the three law enforcers show the
folly of their crude attempts to camouflage inadmissible evidence. SPO4 Arturo Casis
testified as follows:
“FISCAL:
Q: And after that what did you do with the accused Guillermo Samus?
WITNESS:
A: He went with us voluntarily in Camp.
Q: Camp what?
A: Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna.
Q: After arriving at Camp Vicente Lim what happened there?
A: We turned over him to our investigator CIS.
Q: To whom in particular?
A: SPO3 Alex Malabanan, sir.
Q: What was the purpose for your turning over the accused to Alex Malabanan?
A: To ask him question and to investigate him.
Q: Before that when you arrived at the camp, did you see many people at the camp?
A: I noticed some reporters were there.
Q: Where were the reporters at that time?
A: In our office.
Q: Do you know the reason why these reporters were there at that time?
A They used to hang out at our office because they have a press office holding in our
office.
Q: Did you notice these press people when you brought Guillermo Samus to the camp?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did they do when you arrived?
A: They keep on asking who is this fellow we have arrested.
Q: Did anyone answer them?
A: It‟s up for the investigator and Maj. Pante.”[16]
xxx xxx xxx
“Q: And the apprehending team did not ask question regarding the alleged involvement of
Guillermo Samus to the kiling?
A: At the office, sir.”[17]
On the other hand, SPO3 Bitos declared:
 “Q And you said that in your earlier testimony that Guillermo Samus was immediately
brought to Camp Vicente Lim which is your headquarters after his arrest on September
10, 1996, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you said that the purpose of bringing Guillermo Samus to your headquarters on that
day after his arrest was for further investigation, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q The member of the CID once Guillermo Samus was there in your custody at Camp
Vicente Lim he was immediately investigated right then and there in the headquarters, is
that correct?
A He was interviewed by the media people upon the arrival of said suspect. We were not
able to conduct the investigation because of the media people who was also asking
question from him, sir.
Q Who authorized the media people to propound questions to Guillermo Samus when he
was at your headquarters in the night of September 10, 1996?
A I think nobody has given the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation with
Guillermo Samus that is why we were bother our investigation because these media
people were conducting immediate interview with that suspect, sir.”[18]
xxx xxx xxx
For his part, SPO3 Malabanan gave the following testimony during his cross-
examination:
“Q By the way, what time did Guillermo Samus finish giving the statement to the media
people on the night of September 10, 1996?
A I cannot recall the exact time as to when he finished but I think it is past 8:00 o‟clock, sir.
Q If you know the reason, can you tell us why Guillermo Samus had to be presented to the
media first before you as an investigator assigned to the case actually take his
statement?
May I request, your Honor that the statement of the witness transpired in the vernacular
be quoted („sila na po and nag-interview‟).
A Because when we arrived at that time the press people were already there and we can
no longer prevent from asking or conducting an investigation or interview because the
case is already on public knowledge.
ATTY. MANALO:
Q So, after 8:00 p.m. when Guillermo Samus had already finished giving his statement to
the media, do you know where Guillermo Samus was brought?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you tell us where?
A Yes, sir. After that Guillermo Samus was brought to our office and Maj. Pante talked to
him, sir.
Q And do you know where Guillermo Samus spent the night?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you tell us where?
A In our stockade, sir.”[19]
The above testimonies do not tie up. Casis categorically stated that appellant had
been turned over to SPO3 Malabanan. Appellant noticed reporters in their office, but he
did not answer their questions. SPO3 Bitos alleged that the interview by the media
could not have been prevented, because it was an “ambush” interview. Meanwhile,
SPO3 Malabanan claimed that when he arrived at the camp, there were already
reporters questioning appellant. Malabanan further narrated that after 8:00 p.m.,
appellant was brought to the office where Major Pante talked to him.
 In the absence of testimony from any of the media persons who allegedly
interviewed appellant, the uncertainties and vagueness about how they questioned and
led him to his confession lead us to believe that they themselves investigated appellant
and elicited from him uncounselled admissions. This fact is clearly shown by the
Affidavits they executed on September 11, 1997, as well as by their testimonies on
cross-examination.
Nonetheless, even if the uncounselled admission per se may be inadmissible,
under the present circumstances we cannot rule it out because of appellant’s
failure to make timely objections. “Indeed, the admission is inadmissible in
evidence under Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution, because it was
given under custodial investigation and was made without the assistance of
counsel. However, the defense failed to object to its presentation during the trial,
with the result that the defense is deemed to have waived objection to its
admissibility.”[20]
Can the testimony of Pontaños and the picture of a pair of earrings together with the
turnover receipt, which appellant identified during his testimony, be considered
inadmissible as the fruit of the poisonous tree and hence be disregarded at this stage of
appeal?
Upon examination of the records, we find that during the entire examination in court
of Prosecution Witness Pontaños, appellant did not question or object to the
admissibility of the former‟s testimony. Worse, the latter‟s counsel even freely cross-
examined the witness without any reservations. Having made no objection before the
trial court, appellant cannot raise this question for the first time on appeal.[21] The
evidence having been admitted without objection, we are not inclined to reject it.
If only appellant had made a timely objection to the admissibility of the said
testimony, the prosecution could have been warned of the need to present
additional evidence to support its case. To disregard unceremoniously a major
portion of its case at this late stage when it can no longer present additional evidence as
substitute for that which is now claimed to be inadmissible goes against fundamental
fairness.

Third Issue:
Circumstantial Evidence

No one saw who killed Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi. However, to prove
appellant‟s culpability for their deaths, the prosecution presented the following
circumstantial evidence:
1. Finger and palm prints matching appellant‟s own were found near bloodstains at
the scene of the crime.
2. Dedicacion Balisi owned a pair of earrings that she wore every day. Those earrings
were missing from her dead body. Appellant pawned those same earrings to
Ponciano Pontaños’ wife on the afternoon of September 2, 1996.
3. Appellant admitted killing Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi, whose dead bodies
were found inside their residence on the afternoon of September 2, 1996.
Circumstantial evidence would be sufficient for conviction, if
(a) there is more than one circumstance,
(b) the facts from which the inferences have been derived are proven, and
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such that it produces a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
These circumstances must be consistent with one other, and the only rational
hypothesis that can be drawn therefrom must be that the accused is guilty. They must
create a solid chain of events, coherent and intrinsically believable, that pinpoints
the accused -- to the exclusion of others -- as the perpetrator of the crime and
thereby sufficiently overcomes the presumption of innocence in his or her
favor.[22]
 In the present case, it is indisputable that someone entered the house
of Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi, and that someone killed them and left the house
with Dedicacion‟s earrings.
The left palm and right thumb prints of appellant near the bloodstains found on the
kitchen tiles, together with other blood-smudged fingerprints, lead to no other
reasonable conclusion except that he was in the house in the afternoon when the victim
died. Considering that the former had bloodstained hands, it can reasonably be
deduced that his hands were responsible for producing the flow of blood (shown in the
pictures marked as Exhibits “E” to “7”) from the heads of Dedicacion and John Ardee
Balisi.
The act of appellant -- pawning the earrings of Dedicacion Balisi on the same
afternoon of her death -- is consistent with, and further supports the conclusion that he
was at the crime scene around the time of her killing.
The absence of any indication of the presence of any person other than appellant at
the locus criminis around the time of the victims‟ deaths further bolsters the hypothesis
that he, to the exclusion of all others, was the one who killed them.
The pieces of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution are consistent
with one other, and the only rational hypothesis that can be drawn therefrom is that
appellant is guilty of killing Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi.
The prosecution evidence, taken together with the extrajudicial admissions of
appellant, passes the test of moral certainty and establishes beyond reasonable doubt
that he was the person who killed the victims.
Alibi
Appellant‟s uncorroborated alibi -- that he was at the farm in Cabuyao, Laguna --
was correctly debunked by the court a quo. We have nothing to add to the trial court‟s
short and straightforward discussion of the matter, which we reproduce hereunder:

“For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish not only that he was somewhere else
when the crime was committed but that it was also physically impossible for him to
have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (People v. Torrifiel,
326, Phil. 388). By the accused‟s own admission, the distance between his alleged
whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offense and the scene of the crime
was a fifteen minute drive. To the mind of this court, the accused‟s presence at the
scene of the crime is not impossible.” [23]

Fourth Issue:
Crime and Punishment

The testimony of Salvacion Balisi, as well as the Birth Certificate of John Ardee
Balisi (Exhibit II),[24] prove that John was only six (6) years old at the time of his
death. As correctly ruled by the court a quo, “the killing of [the] child [was] characterized
by treachery because the weakness of the victim due to his tender age resulted in the
absence of any danger to the accused.”[25] Indeed “[i]t has time and time again been held
that the killing of minor children who, by reason of their tender years, could not be
expected to put up a defense is considered attended with treachery even if the manner
of attack was not shown.”[26] Indubitably, treachery qualified the killing of six-year-old
John Ardee Balisi as murder.
As for the death of Dedicacion Balisi, however, none of the qualifying circumstances
alleged in the Information was proven by the prosecution. Hence, appellant can be
convicted of homicide only.
In either of the two cases, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be
appreciated against appellant, simply because it was not alleged in the Information. [27]
There being no aggravating circumstances, the imposable penalty for the
homicide[28] of Dedicacion Balisi is reclusion temporal in its medium period. In this case,
appellant is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. For the same
reason, reclusion perpetua -- not death -- is the correct penalty that should be imposed
on appellant for the murder[29] of John Ardee Balisi.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna
(Branch 36) is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS : in Criminal
Case No. 5015-96-C, the maximum of the penalty is reduced to 17 years and four
months of reclusion temporal medium; in Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C, the penalty is
reduced to reclusion perpetua. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-
Morales, andCallejo Sr., JJ., concur.