People v. Balisoro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 25, 1993, at around 11:20 p.m., during a benefit dance in Norala, South Cotabato, Glenn Catalan was shot at the back of the head with a handgun. Freddie Balisoro was accused of shooting Catalan, with his co-accused Jorgie Dionzon allegedly acting as a guard. The information charged both with murder, alleging conspiracy, confederation, and treachery. Procedural History: Both accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses William Solomon and Rex Jordan, who testified to seeing Balisoro approach the victim with a gun and, after hearing a gunshot, saw Balisoro still pointing the gun at the victim. Vicente Catalan, Jr., the victim's father, testified on the victim's death and expenses incurred. Balisoro interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at home. The trial court convicted Freddie Balisoro of murder, with treachery as a qualifying circumstance, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs. Jorgie Dionzon was acquitted for insufficient evidence. The Petition: Freddie Balisoro appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the court erred in not acquitting him and in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua when the death penalty was not enforced at the time. He contended that his alibi was corroborated and that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were not credible.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, considering the suspension of the death penalty at the time of the commission of the offense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Freddie Balisoro for murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 for the victim's death and P15,000.00 for actual damages. The award for actual damages was reduced from P31,000.00 to P15,000.00 for lack of sufficient proof for the balance.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for murder: The Court held that the positive identification of Freddie Balisoro by prosecution witnesses William Solomon and Rex Jordan was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Although they did not witness the exact moment of the shooting, their testimonies established what transpired immediately before and after the gunshot. Solomon saw Balisoro approach the victim from behind with a gun, and immediately after the gunshot, saw Balisoro still holding the gun pointed at the fallen victim. Rex Jordan corroborated this, seeing Balisoro still pointing a gun at the victim after the gunshot. The Court found no ill motive for the witnesses to falsely accuse Balisoro. The visibility of the crime scene, illuminated by a fluorescent light, and the proximity of the witnesses to the victim and the accused further bolstered their testimonies. The Court also considered the circumstantial evidence, including Balisoro's immediate flight from the scene after the shooting, as further proof of his culpability. The defense of alibi was deemed unmeritorious because Balisoro's house was only 3 kilometers away, making his physical presence at the crime scene not impossible, and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. On the penalty of reclusion perpetua: The Court rejected Balisoro's contention that he should only be meted out the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that Article III, Section 19(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua, does not change the periods of the penalty prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, except for the exclusion of the death penalty. The range of the medium and minimum penalties remains unchanged. Therefore, in the absence of generic aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the applicable sentence is the medium period of the penalty prescribed by Article 248, which is reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses, even if they did not see the actual firing of the gun, coupled with circumstantial evidence such as fleeing the scene, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder, especially when the attack was characterized by treachery. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.