THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CELESTINO BALILI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Balili

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Celestino Balili, a criminal prosecution for the complex crime of robbery with homicide, aggravated by multiple serious physical injuries, arising from a nighttime attack on the family of Pio Araza in their home in Gandara, Samar. Balili was charged together with Ricardo Cabarles and Felix Verzosa. The case matters to the reviewee for two reasons. First, it is an automatic review of a death sentence, so it shows the Supreme Court examining the whole record with the greatest care. Second, it is a compact lesson on the weight of trial court findings on credibility, on the positive identification of an accused by victims who knew him, and on how the aggravating circumstances of treachery, disregard of sex and condition, and dwelling are appreciated in a robbery with homicide.

Procedural History

Three men were charged in the Court of First Instance of Samar, Branch Five, sitting in Calbayog City, presided over by Judge Leon Rogar, Junior. Ricardo Cabarles pleaded guilty upon arraignment and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in a decision rendered on November 7, 1972, and he began serving that sentence from that date. Felix Verzosa was never apprehended. Celestino Balili pleaded not guilty and stood trial. The trial court convicted him and imposed the supreme penalty of death, and it also ordered him to pay his share of the costs, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Pio Araza, to pay exemplary and moral damages, and to restitute the unrecovered amount jointly and severally with his co-accused. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The Court, speaking through a per curiam opinion, affirmed the conviction in full, with costs against the appellant.

Facts

Margarita Salingsing, wife of Pio Araza, lived with her family in an isolated house on a farm in Barrio Himay, Gandara, Samar. Pio was bedridden with paralysis. In 1971, Ricardo Cabarles, Felix Verzosa, and Celestino Balili had gone to the house to treat Pio, so the family came to know Balili.

At about eight o'clock in the evening of September 4, 1972, Margarita and her children Perpetua, Alejo, and son-in-law Romeo Dublon were eating dinner in the kitchen, while Pio was eating in his bedroom. The kitchen was well lighted by a torch on the table and a lamp hanging above it, and there was a lamp in the bedroom. Three men suddenly entered the house. Cabarles clubbed Perpetua on the head; Balili did the same to Margarita; and Verzosa clubbed and then stabbed Alejo. Perpetua dropped under the table and saw Cabarles enter her father's room, after which Margarita heard her husband say that he had done no wrong but had been stabbed. Perpetua then saw her mother rush toward the room, followed by Balili, who hacked her at the back and caused her to fall, after which Balili proceeded toward Pio. Perpetua ran to fetch her brother Arturo, who lived about a kilometer away. When she returned the next morning, the wooden trunk kept in her father's room had been opened and carried to the yard, and the two thousand pesos kept in it could not be found. The family lost the money and a transistorized radio, which the police later recovered from Cabarles. Pio Araza died from two mortal wounds.

The following night, Patrolman Cresencio Voz, investigating a complaint of robbery, saw two men walking along the road. They turned out to be Cabarles and Balili. Balili was carrying a cloth bag of wet clothes and had a stainless steel dagger tucked at his waist, while Cabarles carried a buri bag containing the radio and some clothing. Voz took them into custody and brought them toward the municipal building, but as they neared it, Balili pushed open the right front door of the truck, causing Voz to fall, and ran away. He was apprehended the next day, September 6, 1972, in the house of his in-laws in Santa Margarita. For his part, Balili denied participation. He claimed that Cabarles and Verzosa forced him at gunpoint and knife-point to accompany them, that he ran away when he heard shouting in the house, and that he was later maltreated by Voz. He also claimed that a masked man, not he, was with Cabarles and Verzosa. Cabarles, whom he asked to testify for him, refused to do so.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court's findings of fact and its assessment of the credibility of witnesses should be disturbed on appeal.
• Whether or not Celestino Balili was sufficiently and positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as one of the perpetrators of the crime.
• Whether or not the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, being close relatives of the victims, should be rejected as biased and motivated by vengeance.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving greater weight to the evidence of the prosecution than to the defense version of the accused.
• Whether or not the qualifying and aggravating circumstances were properly appreciated so as to warrant the penalty of death.

Applicable Provisions

The information charges the complex crime of robbery with homicide, committed with intent of gain, with violence against and intimidation of persons, and with force upon things, in the dwelling of the victim. The decision does not quote the penal provisions in full, but it applies the settled rule that when robbery is attended by homicide, the homicide is punished as a component of the complex crime, and the aggravating circumstances attending the commission are considered in fixing the penalty. The Court expressly found the aggravating circumstances of treachery, of disregard of the sex and condition of the victims, and of dwelling, with no mitigating circumstance to offset them. The decision also invokes the settled rule on the weight of trial court findings, which it states as follows:

It is a fundamental rule that conclusions and findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case.

This rule governs the whole appeal, because nearly all of the sixteen assigned errors concern the evaluation of evidence and the credibility of witnesses.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the findings of the trial court deserve great weight and will not be disturbed absent strong and cogent reasons, since the trial court had the opportunity to examine the real evidence and to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. It noted that the sixteen assignments of error were mostly attacks on the evaluation of evidence and on credibility.

On the second issue, the Court held that Balili was positively identified. Both the kitchen and the bedroom were sufficiently lighted by three lamps, and the three witnesses, Margarita, Perpetua, and Alejo, all surnamed Araza, positively identified Balili. Alejo knew him because Balili had gone to the house in 1971 to treat Pio. Alejo was only stunned by the clubbing and recognized Balili before he lost consciousness upon being stabbed. Perpetua saw Balili club her mother and hack her at the back, and Margarita identified him as the one who clubbed her and later stabbed her at the back. The Court held that this overwhelming evidence must prevail over the mere negative denials of the accused, and it rejected as a concoction the claim that a masked man was the third perpetrator.

On the third issue, the Court held that the relationship of the witnesses to the victims did not destroy their credibility. It reasoned that while victims of a crime are naturally prejudiced against its perpetrators, it does not follow that such feelings would be directed at innocent persons, and it stated the governing principle in these words:

What is unnatural is for witnesses to impute knowingly a crime to a person not responsible for it.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the direct and positive testimonies of the three Araza witnesses were more credible than the uncorroborated testimony of Balili that he was brought to the scene by Cabarles and Verzosa and threatened with death. It noted that Balili admitted being in the vicinity of the crime and admitted that his companions robbed the victim and caused the death of Pio Araza, and that he was arrested together with Cabarles in possession of the stolen radio and other stolen articles.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of treachery, of disregard of the sex and condition of the victims, Margarita and Perpetua being members of the female sex and the deceased being a sick man who could not walk, and of dwelling, with no mitigating circumstance to offset them. It therefore affirmed the penalty of death.

Doctrine

First, findings of fact and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine the real evidence and to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. Second, positive identification by witnesses who knew the accused, made under sufficient lighting, prevails over the accused's mere denial. Third, the testimonies of interested witnesses, such as close relatives of the victims, are not necessarily biased and incredible; what is unnatural is for witnesses to impute knowingly a crime to a person not responsible for it. Fourth, in robbery with homicide, the aggravating circumstances of treachery, of disregard of the sex and condition of the victims, and of dwelling may be appreciated to raise the penalty to death when no mitigating circumstance offsets them.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting Celestino Balili of robbery with homicide and imposing the penalty of death, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that what is unnatural is for witnesses to impute knowingly a crime to a person not responsible for it, so the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the victims does not by itself destroy their credibility. Examiners use this case to test the great weight given to trial court findings on credibility, the sufficiency of positive identification under adequate lighting, and the appreciation of treachery, disregard of sex and condition, and dwelling in robbery with homicide.