Balanay v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner PO1 Eduardo P. Balanay was charged with murder for the killing of detention prisoner Diomercio Antabo on June 12, 1991, in Leon B. Postigo, Zamboanga del Norte. The Information alleged that Balanay, armed with his issued firearm, with intent to kill, and by means of treachery and evident premeditation, shot Antabo, causing his instantaneous death. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner faults the Sandiganbayan for holding that the victim was shot in front, that he was guilty of homicide, and for alleged suppression of evidence. He contends that the prosecution's evidence was weak and that he should not have been required to present his evidence, as his act was in the lawful discharge of his official duty.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding the petitioner guilty of homicide. Whether the petitioner acted in the lawful discharge of his official duty when he shot the detention prisoner. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the motion for new trial.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner Eduardo P. Balanay guilty of homicide is affirmed. The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan decision is upheld, imposing an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordering the petitioner to indemnify the heirs of Diomercio Antabo in the amount of P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the petitioner for homicide: The Court found no reversible error in the Sandiganbayan's decision. The prosecution's lone witness, Dr. Benlot, testified that the gunshot entry wound was on the right eyebrow and the exit wound was at the back of the head behind the left ear. This trajectory, coupled with the doctor's opinion that the assailant was in front of the deceased, contradicted the petitioner's claim that the victim was shot while attempting to escape. The defense witnesses, Dagayluan and Eyas, were found to be biased due to their close relationship with the petitioner as fellow police officers, and their testimonies were corroborated by the petitioner himself regarding the distance and circumstances of the shooting. Furthermore, the petitioner's own testimony revealed a judicial admission where he stated that his purpose in firing the third shot was "to kill him," thereby establishing the intent to kill, a crucial element for homicide. On the claim of lawful discharge of official duty: The Court reiterated that when an accused admits the killing but invokes a justifying circumstance like fulfillment of duty, the burden of proof shifts to him. Petitioner failed to prove that his act of shooting the detention prisoner was a necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of his duty. The victim was not committing any offense at the time he was shot; he was merely attempting to defecate outside the building. The Court cited People v. De la Cruz, stating that performance of duties does not include murder, and thus, the Sandiganbayan correctly rejected the petitioner's plea of justification. The commendation from the Sangguniang Bayan did not absolve him, especially in light of his judicial admission to kill. On the denial of the motion for new trial: The Sandiganbayan correctly denied the motion for new trial. The motion was defective for not being supported by the affidavits of the proposed witnesses as required by the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the pictures submitted were not newly discovered evidence, as the petitioner himself testified that his witnesses had cameras at the scene. The court also noted that the condition of the victim's shirt in the pictures was inconsistent with the claim of fast running, thus militating against the petitioner's case. The court could not ascertain if the new evidence would change the judgment, as required by law.
Main Doctrine
A public officer invoking the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty must prove that the injury or offense committed was the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of such duty. Failure to prove these requisites negates the justification, and the act may be punished as homicide if the elements thereof are present.