Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

110 Phil 102:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11325. November 29, 1960.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, v. BOTO BALONTO, ET AL., Defendants. BOTO BALONTO defendant and Appellant.

Eugenio M. Millado for Appellant.

Asst. Solicitor General Ramon L. Avanceña and Solicitor Rafael Cañiza for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; EVIDENCE; EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF CO-ACCUSED; CONTENTS SUBSTANTIALLY CORROBORATED BY FACTS ESTABLISHED BY OTHER EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBLE AGAINST APPELLANT. — Appellant’s contention that the sworn statement of Montos (Exhibit C) should not have been admitted against him because it was in the nature of hearsay evidence in view of the fact that the interpreter who translated its contents to affiant was not presented as witness is without merits, 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 its contents are substantially corroborated by other facts establish by independent evidence.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; THREATS AND INTIMIDATIONS NOT PROVEN. — Balonto’s contention that his sworn statement is not admissible in evidence because he was virtually forced and intimidated into signing it, is likewise without merits, because the prosecution evidence clearly shows that Balonto made and signed the statement voluntarily and freely. In fact, said 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. Besides, the chief of police testified not only that no threats were employed but that no promise of immunity was given to induce Balonto to sign the statement.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


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 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 Jesus Olarte and one named Sany were returning to San José, 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 Sañudo 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; 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 having 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 reclusión temporal in its maximum period to death, and there is being in this case no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance to consider, the medium period thereof should be imposed, to wit reclusión 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 v. 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, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutiérrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301