THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. BOTO BALONTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. BOTO BALONTO DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Boto Balonto, Antonio Lumbos, Montos Moso and Turing Moso were charged with
murder in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato. Upon arraignment Turing Moso
pleaded guilty and was correspondingly sentenced. After trial on a plea of not
guilty Lumbos was acquitted, while Montos Moso was found guilty, by direct
participation, , and Balonto, by induction, of the offense charged.

Balonto and Montos Moso appealed but the latter, on December 22, 1958,
withdrew his appeal.

At noon on July 31, 1951, Emilio Suazo, Tony Mondares, Jesus Olarte and one
named Sany were returning to San Jose, Buayan, Cotabato, in a jeep driven by
Olarte, after spending the morning at Siguil looking for shrimps. At barrio
Lobo, of the same municipality, Olarte stopped the jeep so that Mondares, who
was seated beside him, could get off to remove a log placed across the road. At
that juncture, shots were fired from the left side of the jeep, hitting Olarte
on the breast. Suazo and Sany jumped out of the jeep and together with Mondares
started running towards barrio Siguil. Upon reaching said place they told one
Pedro Sanudo what had happened, so the latter, together with the three and other
persons, went to Lobo where they found the dead body of Olarte in the jeep.

Soon after the incident, as a result of information furnished by Benito
Flansal and Sanaon Onggi to the effect that Balonto, Lumbos, Montos and Turing
Moso were most probably the killers because they hated the deceased, the Chief
of Police of Buayan, D. Torcuator, investigated them A few days later Balonto
made the sworn statement Exhibit A, taken down in English and translated to him
in Tagalog by the chief of police and sworn to before Justice of the Peace
Yapchiongco. Among other things, he stated therein that his stepson Turing Moso
was the one who shot Olarte j that he had quarreled with Olarte several times
because the latter not only had grabbed his land but also had taken to his house
the wife of his (affiant’s) son; that prior to the incident he talked with
Turing Moso of the plan to kill Olarte, their agreement being that Montos and
Turing Moso would leave that night for Siguil to kill Olarte, affiant having
given his carbine to them; that in the afternoon of July 31, 1951 he was
informed by Montos that Olarte had already been killed.

Turing Moso also made the written statement Exhibit B taken down in English
by the chief of police and translated in Tagalog by Judge Yapchiongco before
Turing Moso swore to it and signed it. In said statement Turing Moso admitted
haying shot and killed Olarte by order of Antonio Lumbos and Boto Balonto.

Montos Moso also made a sworn statement (Exhibit C) under the same
circumstances. Before he swore to it and signed it, it was translated to him in
the bilaan dialect by one Pinis Bagotao. He also states therein that he and
Turing were ordered by Lumbos and Balonto to kill Olarte.

The first contention of appellant Balonto is that his sworn statement Exhibit
A is not admissible in evidence because he was virtually forced and intimidated
into signing it. This contention is without merits. The prosecution evidence
clearly shows that Balonto made and signed the statement voluntarily and freely.
When, he appeared before the justice of the peace for that purpose he said
nothing about the threats and intimidations now claimed. In fact, the
prosecution evidence shows that the justice of the peace first inquired from him
if he was aware of the contents of the statement, to which he gave an
affirmative answer. The chief of police likewise testified not only that no
threats were employed but that no promise of immunity was given to induce
Balonto to sign the statement.

The second contention of appellant is that the trial court also erred in
admitting against him the sworn statement of Montos Moso (Exhibit C), in spite
of the fact that the same was hearsay because the interpreter alleged to have
translated its contents to him was not presented as a witness.

This point is also without merit. While it might have been better if the
prosecution had placed Bagotao, the interpreter, on the witness stand, that was
not necessary to make the statement admissible, the testimony of the chief of
police being sufficient to prove the fact that the same was translated to the
affiant before the latter signed it in the presence of Justice of the Peace
Yapchiongco. Moreover, it appears that the contents of the statements already
mentioned are substantially corroborated by other facts established by
independent evidence, such as the existence of the big log across the highway;
the finding of two carbines used in the killing precisely in the place indicated
by Montos-on a hilltop 200 meters from the house of Balonto; the fact that the
circumstances under which the ambush was committed, as described by the
prosecution witnesses, tally with those described by the, affiants in their
statements.

Appellant also claims that he should be acquitted on the strength of the
testimony of Turing Moso that he alone was responsible for the crime. The trial
court chose not to believe such testimony because Turing testified for appellant
after he had pleaded guilty, so he had nothing to lose by admitting all the
blame, while by doing so he could save appellant, his stepfather, as well as his
brother. His bias, or interest is, therefore obvious. Consequently, we find no
reason to disagree with the lower court in this respect.

The penalty for the offense, committed is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death, and there being in this case no aggravating nor
mitigating circumstance to consider, the medium period thereof should be
imposed, to wit reclusion perpetua. The penalty imposed by the trial
court is modified accordingly. Similarly, the indemnity of P4,000,00 to be paid
by Boto Balonto should be raised to P6,000.00. (People vs. Banlos, G.R.
No. L-3413, Dec. 29, 1955).

Modified as above indicated, the decision appealed from is affirmed in all
other respects, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ.,
concur.

Decision affirmed with modification.