EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 135957-58. September 17, 2002.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , appellee, vs . GUILLERMO SAMUS ,

appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Crisostomo B. Manolo for accused-appellant.

SYNOPSIS

The trial court found enough pieces of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Rejecting his alibi for being unreliable and
uncorroborated, it convicted him of homicide for the death of Dedicacion Balisi; and of
murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling, for the death of six-year old
John Ardee Balisi. Hence, this automatic review.
The Court affirmed the conviction of appellant with modification as to the penalty. The
Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be appreciated as the
same was not alleged in the Information. Thus, the imposable penalty for the homicide is
reclusion temporal in its medium period, and appellant is entitled to the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. For the same reason, reclusion perpetua is the correct
penalty that should be imposed on appellant for murder.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS OF TRIAL

COURT, RESPECTED; EXCEPTION; WHERE TESTIMONY IS INCREDIBLE. As a general
rule, the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of the witnesses is accorded great
respect, if not finality. In the present case, however, there are cogent reasons to disregard
its findings with respect to the arrest of appellant. The police officers' version of the arrest
is incredible. Not only are their allegations uncertain and inconsistent, they are also
contrary to human experience. We find it hard to believe that anyone would jump from the
roof of a two-story house to escape and, after landing on the ground without any broken
bones, make a complete turnaround and just meekly surrender without further ado. Even if
this story were true, jumping from a roof is not a crime that would justify the warrantless
arrest of appellant. "Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a
credible witness, but must be credible in itself such as [that which] the common
experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test
of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and
experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of
judicial cognizance." aSTAIH

2. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT, WHEN LAWFUL.

Under the Rules, peace officers may, without a warrant, arrest a person under any of these
circumstances: (a) when, in their presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit, an offense; (b) when an offense has just
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 been committed, and they have probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) when
the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another, or from a penal establishment where he or she is serving final
judgment or is temporarily confined while the case is pending.
3. ID.; EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS; REGULAR PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS NEGATED BY UNLAWFUL ARREST OF APPELLANT. None of these
circumstances allowing arrest without a warrant was present when members of the
Criminal Investigation Group (CIG) arrested appellant. He was not a prisoner. The killing of
Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi was not done in the presence of the arresting officers.
Since it took place on September 2, 1996, it could not have been considered as "having just
been committed." Evidently, they unlawfully arrested appellant on September 10, 1996.
When they did so, we cannot ascribe to them the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official functions, contrary to the court a quo's finding.
4. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; CONFESSION
INADMISSIBLE WHEN APPELLANT NOT INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
AND TO COUNSEL. After being illegally arrested, appellant was not informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel.
Hence, any admission elicited from him by the law enforcers during custodial investigation
are normally inadmissible in evidence. In their affidavits, the police officers readily
admitted that appellant was subjected to a preliminary interview. Yet, during their
examination in open court, they tried to skirt this issue by stating that it was only the media
that had questioned appellant, and that they were merely present during the interview. In
the absence of testimony from any of the media persons who allegedly interviewed
appellant, the uncertainties and vagueness about how they questioned and led him to his
confession lead us to believe that they themselves investigated appellant and elicited from
him uncounselled admissions. This fact is clearly shown by the Affidavits they executed on
September 11, 1997, as well as by their testimonies on cross-examination.
5. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ADMISSION; INADMISSIBILITY THEREOF WAIVED
WHEN THERE IS FAILURE TO MAKE TIMELY OBJECTION THERETO. Even if the
uncounselled admission per se may be inadmissible, under the present circumstances we
cannot rule it out because of appellant's failure to make timely objections. "Indeed, the
admission is inadmissible in evidence under Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the
Constitution, because it was given under custodial investigation and was made without the
assistance of counsel. However, the defense failed to object to its presentation during the
trial, with the result that the defense is deemed to have waived objection to its
admissibility." Having made no objection before the trial court, appellant cannot raise this
question for the first time on appeal. The evidence having been admitted without objection,
we are not inclined to reject it. HTcDEa

6. ID.; ID.; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; WHEN SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION.

Circumstantial evidence would be sufficient for conviction, if (a) there is more than one
circumstance, (b) the facts from which the inferences have been derived are proven, and
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such that it produces a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. These circumstances must be consistent with one another, and the only
rational hypothesis that can be drawn therefrom must be that the accused is guilty. They
must create a solid chain of events, coherent and intrinsically believable, that pinpoints the
accused to the exclusion of others as the perpetrator of the crime and thereby
sufficiently overcomes the presumption of innocence in his or her favor.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 7. CRIMINAL LAW; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; APPRECIATED WHEN
THE VICTIM IS A CHILD. Evidence prove that John was only six (6) years old at the time
of his death. As correctly ruled by the court a quo, "the killing of [the] child [was]
characterized by treachery because the weakness of the victim due to his tender age
resulted in the absence of any danger to the accused." Indeed "[i]t has time and time again
been held that the killing of minor children who, by reason of their tender years, could not
be expected to put up a defense is considered attended with treachery even if the manner
of attack was not shown." Indubitably, treachery qualified the killing of six-year-old John
Ardee Balisi as murder.
8. ID.; HOMICIDE; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. As for the death of Dedicacion Balisi,
none of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the Information was proven by the
prosecution. Hence, appellant can be convicted of homicide only.
9. ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; DWELLING; NOT APPRECIATED WHEN NOT
ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be
appreciated against appellant, simply because it was not alleged in the Information.
10. ID.; HOMICIDE; PROPER PENALTY. There being no aggravating circumstances,
the imposable penalty for the homicide of Dedicacion Balisi is reclusion temporal in its
medium period. In this case, appellant is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. EaIcAS

11. ID.; MURDER; PROPER PENALTY. For the same reason, reclusion perpetua not
death is the correct penalty that should be imposed on appellant for the murder of John
Ardee Balisi.

DECISION

PANGANIBAN , J : p

While it is true that the confessions of appellant were made without benefit of counsel,
they are still admissible in evidence because of appellant's failure to make timely
objections before the trial court. If only the defense had proffered them on time, the
prosecution could have been warned of the need to present additional evidence to support
its case. To disregard a major portion of the prosecution's case at a late stage during an
appeal goes against the norms of fundamental fairness. Indeed, justice is dispensed not
only for the accused, but also for the prosecution. Be that as it may, and even if we now
affirm appellant's conviction for murder, we do not, however agree with the trial court's
imposition of the death sentence, because the proven aggravating circumstance of
dwelling was not alleged in the Information. DIEcHa

The Case
For automatic review by this Court is the Decision 1 dated October 8, 1998, issued by the
Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, in Criminal Case Nos. 5015-96-C and
5016-96-C. The trial court found Guillermo Samus guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
counts of murder. The decretal portion of its Decision reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE:
"A. With respect to Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C for the killing of Dedicacion
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Balisi, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of, after appreciating the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling and after applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor as minimum
up to 20 years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum.

"The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Dedicacion Balisi the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) for her death and another
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as and for moral and actual damages
and cost of suit.
"B. With respect to Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C for the killing of John Ardee
Balisi, this Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime
of Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of, after appreciating the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, death.
"The accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of John Ardee Balisi the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) for his death and another
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as and for moral and actual damages
and cost of suit." 2

Two separate Informations, 3 both filed on November 27, 1996, 4 charged appellant as
follows: EcIDaA

Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C

"That on or about 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon of September 2, 1996 at San
Ramon de Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Municipality of Calamba, Province of
Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-
named, with intent to kill, treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage
of superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously hold
the neck, strangle and thereafter bange[d] the head on the concrete pavement
floor of one DEDICACION BALISI Y SORIANO, a 61 years of age, woman, thereby
inflicting upon her fractured bones, serious and mortal wounds which directly
caused her death, to the damage and prejudice of the surviving heirs of the said
Dedicacion Balisi y Soriano.

"That in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances of treachery,

evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength were in
attendant and ordinary aggravating circumstance committing a crime with
disregard of respect due the offended party by reason of her age and sex.
Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C
"That on or about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of September 2, 1996 at San
Ramon de Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Municipality of Calamba, Province of
Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-
named, with intent to kill, treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage
of superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously hold
the neck, strangle and thereafter bang[ed] the head on the concrete pavement
floor of one JOHN ARDEE BALISI Y SORIANO, a six year old boy, thereby inflicting
upon him fractured bones, serious and mortal wounds which directly caused his
death, to the damage and prejudice of the surviving heirs of the said John Ardee
Balisi y Soriano.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 "That in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances of treachery,
evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength were in
attendan[ce]."

When arraigned on May 28, 1997, appellant, assisted by his counsel de oficio, 5 pleaded
not guilty. 6 In due course, he was tried and found guilty. ECcTaS

The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the evidence for the prosecution in
this wise: 7
"Appellant was a farmer, tilling and living in the land of Miguel Completo at
Barangay Niugan, Cabuyao, Laguna. The victims, sixty two (62) year old
Dedicacion Balisi and her grandson, six (6) year old John Ardee Balisi, were the
neighbors of appellant's father at San Ramon de Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang,
Calamba, Laguna.

"At 4:20 P.M. on September 2, 1996, Senior Police (SP) Inspector Rizaldy H.
Garcia was at his office at the 4th PNP Criminal Investigation Group Regional
Office at Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba, Laguna when he received an order from
his superior to investigate the murder of the two victims. Their office had received
a telephone call from a local barangay official informing them of the victims'
deaths.
"Arriving at the victims' residence at Block 8, Lot 6 at San Ramon, Brgy.
Canlubang, Calamba, Garcia and his team conducted an investigation, making a
sketch of the relative positions of the victims, lifting fingerprints from the crime
scene and taking pictures. Thereafter, an investigation report was prepared by
Garcia and signed by his superior, Colonel Pedro Tango. The investigators
likewise found a pair of maong pants, a white T-shirt, a handkerchief and dirty
slippers in the bathroom and roof of the house. A pair of earrings worn by
Dedicacion Balisi was likewise reported missing from her body by her daughter,
Nora B. Llore[r]a.
"The victims' bodies were brought to the Funeraria Seerez de Mesa in Calamba
where Senior Inspector Joselito A. Rodrigo, a medico-legal officer of the PNP
Crime Laboratory, performed an autopsy. His findings showed that John
sustained three (3) contusions, one of which lacerated his liver, caused by a blunt
instrument, while Dedicacion suffered four (4) contusions, also caused by a blunt
instrument.

"On that same day, September 2, 1996, Ponciano Pontanos, Jr., then a resident of
Barangay Niugan, Cabuyao and an acquaintance of appellant, happened to meet
appellant at Sammy Pacheca's house in the same barangay where appellant
asked Ponciano to accompany him to Ponciano's wife to pawn a pair of earrings.
Ponciano's wife was mad at first but upon Ponciano's prodding, gave appellant
P300.00 with no interest. The earrings were placed in a jewelry box; thereafter,
appellant received another P250.00.

"At 6:00 P.M. on September 10, 1996, Major Jose Pante of the Criminal
Investigation Group received information that appellant was the principal suspect
in the killing of the two (2) victims and that he was sighted inside the residence of
spouses Rolly and Josie Vallejo at Barangay Macabling, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. He
then formed and led a team composed of SPO3 Galivo, Intelligence Commission
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Officer Casis and SPO3 Mario Bitos. Arriving at the site at past 7:00 P.M., the
team, accompanied by local barangay authorities, asked permission from the
Vallejo spouses to enter the house, which was granted. Shortly thereafter, they
heard loud footsteps on the roof. Rushing outside, they saw appellant crawling on
the roof. They ordered him to stop, but he suddenly jumped from the roof and
landed hard on the ground, sustaining an injury on his ankle and bruises on his
left and right forearm. At that point, the police team closed in on appellant who,
while trembling and shaking, admitted the killings upon a query from Rolly
Vallejo. HSEIAT

"Appellant was brought to the Camp Vicente Lim PNP Investigation Office where
he was informed of his constitutional rights by SPO3 Alex Malabanan. In the
morning of September 11, 1996, appellant, assisted by Atty. Arturo Juliano, gave
his statement admitting the killings. SPO3 Malabanan also took the statements
of tricycle driver Rafael Baliso, the victims' relatives Salvacion and Mona Balisi
and witness Mary Arguelles, who saw appellant enter the house of Dedicacion
Balisi.
"On the same day, September 11, 1996, PNP Fingerprint Examiner Reigel Allan
Sorra took fingerprint samples from appellant. His prints exactly matched with a
set of prints found at the crime scene on September 2, 1998. Later that day, SPO3
Mario Bitos was able to recover the pawned earrings from Ponciano who turned
them over to SPO3 Malabanan. (Citations omitted)

Version of the Defense

Alleging denial and alibi as defenses, appellant presents his version of the incident as
follows: 8
"Mrs. Fe Vallejo testified that she knew Guillermo Samus. At about 6:00 p.m. of
September 10, 1996, Guillermo Samus was in their house. It was then that CIS
operatives together with their Brgy. Captain entered their house, arrested and
handcuffed Guillermo Samus. It was not true that accused Guillermo Samus hid
himself on the roof of her house. When the accused was arrested by the CIS men,
together with the barangay officials, the other persons present were the witness
and her 3 children. The police were not armed with a warrant of arrest or search
warrant.
"Accused Guillermo Samus denied the accusations against him. He testified that
he was a farmer, working on the land of one Miguel Completo at Brgy. Niugan,
Cabuyao. From 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. of September 2, 1996, he was harvesting
palay with Eligio Completo; that he never left the farm. He took his lunch at the
hut of Miguel Completo; that he arrived home at 6:00 in the afternoon, took his
dinner then went to sleep.

"He further testified that on September 10, 1996, he was at the house of his friend,
Rolly Vallejo at Brgy. Macabling, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, when a group of CIS
operatives arrived and arrested him inside the same house. It was not true that he
jumped from the roof of the house. The CIS people did not have any warrant for
his arrest. His kumpadre Rolly Vallejo was not present at that time. He was
brought to Camp Vicente Lim where he was tortured until he lost his
consciousness. On the same night, he was brought to a hospital, was given
medicine, then brought back to the cell where he was handcuffed at the door of
the cell. The CIS got hold of the medical certificate. He was forced by the CIS to
admit the killing of the victims and the sale of jewelry by means of torture and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 threat.

"He also testified that he was forced to execute a document admitting the killing.
He was forced to sign said document. He did not know Atty. Juliano and did not
talk to him. The victims were the neighbors of his father in the province. He had
been in the house of Dedicacion Balisi. He was known to Dedicacion Balisi and
her household; and, that the last time he visited the house of Dedicacion Balisi
was on August 30, 1996. He was given food by Dedicacion and he later washed
dishes, swept the floor, and put dirt in the trash can. He left at 12:00 p.m. that
same date and returned to his house in Brgy. Niugan.
"On cross-examination, he testified that from Brgy. Niugan to San Ramon de
Canlubang it took less than 15 minutes to travel, and he also mentioned that the
media interviewed him 2 days after his arrest. He and his relatives in Laguna did
not have the capacity to hire/secure the services of a lawyer.

"The defense also presented Exhibit 'B' (and submarkings), the transcript of
stenographic notes of the testimony of Atty. Juliano, given before the Municipal
Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna on December 1, 1997 in connection with
[C]riminal [C]ase [N]o. 26099, also against Guillermo Samus for theft (of the
earrings). The prosecution admitted the existence of said exhibit and the
presentation of the witness who was supposed to identify the same was
dispensed with." (Citations omitted)

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court found enough pieces of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Rejecting his alibi for being unreliable and
uncorroborated, it convicted him of homicide for the death of Dedicacion Balisi; and of
murder, with dwelling as aggravating circumstance, for the death of John Ardee Balisi.
Hence, this automatic review. 9
Assignment of Errors
In his Brief, appellant faults the court a quo with the following alleged errors: 1 0
"I
"The lower court gravely erred in giving credence to the testimonies of police
officers to the effect that the accused tried to escape when he was arrested and
that he readily admitted responsibility for the crimes.
"II

"The lower court gravely erred in admitting and considering evidence that were
obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional rights.

"III
"The lower court gravely erred in holding that there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence to warrant the conviction of the accused.

"IV
"The lower court gravely erred when it ruled that the qualifying circumstance of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 abuse of superior strength attended the killing of John Ardee Balisi."

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is partly meritorious.
First Issue:
Arrest of Appellant
As a general rule, the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of the witnesses is
accorded great respect, if not finality. In the present case, however, there are cogent
reasons to disregard its findings with respect to the arrest of appellant on September 10,
1996.
The police officers' version of the arrest is incredible. Not only are their allegations
uncertain and inconsistent, they are also contrary to human experience. We find it hard to
believe that anyone would jump from the roof of a two-story house to escape and, after
landing on the ground without any broken bones, make a complete turnaround and just
meekly surrender without further ado. Even if this story were true, jumping from a roof is
not a crime that would justify the warrantless arrest of appellant.
It is undisputed that when the CIS team went to the Vallejo residence on the evening of
September 10, 1996, it had no warrant of arrest against appellant. Yet, they arrested him.
Under the Rules, 1 1 peace officers may, without a warrant, arrest a person under any of
these circumstances: (a) when, in their presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit, an offense; (b) when an offense has
just been committed, and they have probable cause to believe, based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another, or from a penal establishment where he or she is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined while the case is pending.
None of these circumstances was present when members of the Criminal Investigation
Group (CIG) arrested appellant. He was not a prisoner. The killing of Dedicacion and John
Ardee Balisi was not done in the presence of the arresting officers. Since it took place on
September 2, 1996, it could not have been considered as "having just been committed."
Evidently, they unlawfully arrested appellant on September 10, 1996. When they did so, we
cannot ascribe to them the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions, contrary to the court a quo's finding.
Considering that the arrest of appellant was unlawful, the apprehending officers'
uncertainty and reluctance in admitting it becomes understandable. In their Joint Affidavit
executed on September 11, 1996, they alleged that he had voluntarily surrendered to them.
On the other hand, he had allegedly been merely invited by Chief Inspector Jose Pante,
according to SPO3 Alex Malabanan. It was only upon being pressed that the police officers
admitted that they had indeed made the arrest. 1 2
We now proceed to the alleged confession. In their Joint-Affidavit, the arresting officers
said that after appellant had initially jumped from a two-story house to escape, they closed
in on him and he voluntarily surrendered. At the same place where he did so, they
conducted a preliminary interview, during which he readily admitted killing Dedicacion and
John Ardee Balisi.
But during their testimonies, the police officers denied questioning appellant after
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 arresting him. Instead, they claimed that it was Rolly Vallejo who had conducted the
preliminary interview in their presence as follows: "Pare totoo ba ang sinasabi nila tungkol
sa iyo na ikaw ay pinaghihinalaan nilang pumatay sa mag-lola sa Canlubang[?]"; to this
question appellant allegedly answered, "[T]otoo nga pare, ako nga." No further questions
were allegedly asked by the law enforcement officers. Instead, they immediately brought
appellant to Camp Vicente Lim for further investigation. HaAISC

SPO3 Mario Bitos, on the other hand, stated in his Affidavit, also dated September 11,
1996, that during the conduct of the preliminary interview, appellant admitted "that the
victim's pair of earrings made of gold was taken by him after the incident and . . . sold to
Mr. Jhun Pontanos y Matriano, a resident of Bgy. Niugan, Cabuyao, Laguna, for the amount
of five hundred (P500) pesos."
During his testimony, however, Bitos denied that they had conducted any investigation. 1 3
Instead, he claimed that upon their arrival at Camp San Vicente Lim, an interview was
conducted by the media in the presence of Major Pante, SPO3 Bitos and SPO3 Malabanan
(the investigator). 1 4 From this interview, the team was able to cull from appellant that he
was responsible for the killings, and that he had stolen the earrings of Dedicacion Balisi
and sold them to Pontanos for P500. This information was allegedly verified by Bitos upon
the order of Major Pante.
Thus, the apprehending officers contend that the constitutional rights of appellant were
not violated, since they were not the ones who had investigated and elicited evidentiary
matters from him.
We are not persuaded. The events narrated by the law enforcers in court are too good to
be true. Their Sworn Statements given a day after the arrest contradict their testimonies
and raise doubts on their credibility.
We find the claims of appellant more believable, supported as they are by Fe Vallejo who
testified that he had been arrested inside her house, and that Rolly Vallejo was not around
then.
"Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but
must be credible in itself such as [that which] the common experience of mankind can
approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human
testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever
is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance." 1 5
Second Issue:
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Appellant claims that his alleged confession to the media while in police custody cannot
be admitted in evidence. He further contends that the pair of earrings, the turnover receipt,
as well as the testimonies of Pontaos and Bitos, relative thereto should be excluded for
being "fruits of the poisonous tree."
We clarify. After being illegally arrested, appellant was not informed of his constitutional
rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. Hence, any
admission elicited from him by the law enforcers during custodial investigation are
normally inadmissible in evidence.
In their affidavits, the police officers readily admitted that appellant was subjected to a
preliminary interview. Yet, during their examination in open court, they tried to skirt this
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 issue by stating that it was only the media that had questioned appellant, and that they
were merely present during the interview.
However, an examination of the testimonies of the three law enforcers show the folly of
their crude attempts to camouflage inadmissible evidence. SPO4 Arturo Casis testified as
follows:
"FISCAL:
Q: And after that what did you do with the accused Guillermo Samus?
WITNESS:
A: He went with us voluntarily in Camp.
Q: Camp what?

A: Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna.

Q: After arriving at Camp Vicente Lim what happened there?
A: We turned over him to our investigator CIS.
Q: To whom in particular?
A: SPO3 Alex Malabanan, sir.

Q: What was the purpose for your turning over the accused to Alex
Malabanan?

A: To ask him question and to investigate him.

Q: Before that when you arrived at the camp, did you see many people at the
camp?
A: I noticed some reporters were there.
Q: Where were the reporters at that time?
A: In our office.
Q: Do you know the reason why these reporters were there at that time?

A They used to hang out at our office because they have a press office
holding in our office.

Q: Did you notice these press people when you brought Guillermo Samus to
the camp?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did they do when you arrived?
A: They keep on asking who is this fellow we have arrested.
Q: Did anyone answer them?
A: It's up for the investigator and Maj. Pante." 1 6

xxx xxx xxx

"Q: And the apprehending team did not ask question regarding the alleged
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 involvement of Guillermo Samus to the killing?
A: At the office, sir." 1 7

On the other hand, SPO3 Bitos declared:

"Q And you said that in your earlier testimony that Guillermo Samus was
immediately brought to Camp Vicente Lim which is your headquarters after
his arrest on September 10, 1996, is that correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q And you said that the purpose of bringing Guillermo Samus to your
headquarters on that day after his arrest was for further investigation, is
that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q The member of the CID once Guillermo Samus was there in your custody at
Camp Vicente Lim he was immediately investigated right then and there in
the headquarters, is that correct?
A He was interviewed by the media people upon the arrival of said suspect.
We were not able to conduct the investigation because of the media people
who was also asking question from him, sir.
Q Who authorized the media people to propound questions to Guillermo
Samus when he was at your headquarters in the night of September 10,
1996?

A I think nobody has given the authority to conduct a preliminary

investigation with Guillermo Samus that is why we were bother our
investigation because these media people were conducting immediate
interview with that suspect, sir." 1 8

xxx xxx xxx

For his part, SPO3 Malabanan gave the following testimony during his cross-examination:
"Q By the way, what time did Guillermo Samus finish giving the statement to
the media people on the night of September 10, 1996?

A I cannot recall the exact time as to when he finished but I think it is past
8:00 o'clock, sir.
Q If you know the reason, can you tell us why Guillermo Samus had to be
presented to the media first before you as an investigator assigned to the
case actually take his statement?

May I request, your Honor that the statement of the witness transpired in the
vernacular be quoted ('sila na po and nag-interview').
A Because when we arrived at that time the press people were already there
and we can no longer prevent from asking or conducting an investigation
or interview because the case is already on public knowledge.

ATTY. MANALO:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Q So, after 8:00 p.m. when Guillermo Samus had already finished giving his
statement to the media, do you know where Guillermo Samus was
brought?

WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.

Q Can you tell us where?

A Yes, sir. After that Guillermo Samus was brought to our office and Maj.
Pante talked to him, sir.

Q And do you know where Guillermo Samus spent the night?

A Yes, sir.

Q Can you tell us where?

A In our stockade, sir." 1 9

The above testimonies do not tie up. Casis categorically stated that appellant
had been turned over to SPO3 Malabanan. Appellant noticed reporters in their of ce,
but he did not answer their questions. SPO3 Bitos alleged that the interview by the
media could not have been prevented, because it was an "ambush" interview.
Meanwhile, SPO3 Malabanan claimed that when he arrived at the camp, there were
already reporters questioning appellant. Malabanan further narrated that after 8:00
p.m., appellant was brought to the office where Major Pante talked to him.
In the absence of testimony from any of the media persons who allegedly interviewed
appellant, the uncertainties and vagueness about how they questioned and led him to his
confession lead us to believe that they themselves investigated appellant and elicited from
him uncounselled admissions. This fact is clearly shown by the Affidavits they executed on
September 11, 1997, as well as by their testimonies on cross-examination.
Nonetheless, even if the uncounselled admission per se may be inadmissible, under the
present circumstances we cannot rule it out because of appellant's failure to make timely
objections. "Indeed, the admission is inadmissible in evidence under Article III, Section
12(1) and (3) of the Constitution, because it was given under custodial investigation and
was made without the assistance of counsel. However, the defense failed to object to its
presentation during the trial, with the result that the defense is deemed to have waived
objection to its admissibility." 2 0
Can the testimony of Pontaos and the picture of a pair of earrings together with the
turnover receipt, which appellant identified during his testimony, be considered
inadmissible as the fruit of the poisonous tree and hence be disregarded at this stage of
appeal? CIaASH

Upon examination of the records, we find that during the entire examination in court of
Prosecution Witness Pontaos, appellant did not question or object to the admissibility of
the former's testimony. Worse, the latter's counsel even freely cross-examined the witness
without any reservations. Having made no objection before the trial court, appellant cannot
raise this question for the first time on appeal. 2 1 The evidence having been admitted
without objection, we are not inclined to reject it.
If only appellant had made a timely objection to the admissibility of the said testimony, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 prosecution could have been warned of the need to present additional evidence to support
its case. To disregard unceremoniously a major portion of its case at this late stage when
it can no longer present additional evidence as substitute for that which is now claimed to
be inadmissible goes against fundamental fairness.
Third Issue:
Circumstantial Evidence
No one saw who killed Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi. However, to prove appellant's
culpability for their deaths, the prosecution presented the following circumstantial
evidence:
1. Finger and palm prints matching appellant's own were found near
bloodstains at the scene of the crime.
2. Dedicacion Balisi owned a pair of earrings that she wore every day.
Those earrings were missing from her dead body. Appellant pawned
those same earrings to Ponciano Pontaos' wife on the afternoon of
September 2, 1996.
3. Appellant admitted killing Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi, whose
dead bodies were found inside their residence on the afternoon of
September 2, 1996.
Circumstantial evidence would be sufficient for conviction, if (a) there is more than one
circumstance, (b) the facts from which the inferences have been derived are proven, and
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such that it produces a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. These circumstances must be consistent with one other, and the only
rational hypothesis that can be drawn therefrom must be that the accused is guilty. They
must create a solid chain of events, coherent and intrinsically believable, that pinpoints the
accused to the exclusion of others as the perpetrator of the crime and thereby
sufficiently overcomes the presumption of innocence in his or her favor. 2 2
In the present case, it is indisputable that someone entered the house of Dedicacion and
John Ardee Balisi, and that someone killed them and left the house with Dedicacion's
earrings. STaIHc

The left palm and right thumb prints of appellant near the bloodstains found on the kitchen
tiles, together with other blood-smudged fingerprints, lead to no other reasonable
conclusion except that he was in the house in the afternoon when the victim died.
Considering that the former had bloodstained hands, it can reasonably be deduced that his
hands were responsible for producing the flow of blood (shown in the pictures marked as
Exhibits "E" to "7") from the heads of Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi.
The act of appellant pawning the earrings of Dedicacion Balisi on the same afternoon of
her death is consistent with, and further supports the conclusion that he was at the
crime scene around the time of her killing.
The absence of any indication of the presence of any person other than appellant at the
locus criminis around the time of the victims' deaths further bolsters the hypothesis that
he, to the exclusion of all others, was the one who killed them.
The pieces of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution are consistent with
one other, and the only rational hypothesis that can be drawn therefrom is that appellant is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 guilty of killing Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi.
The prosecution evidence, taken together with the extrajudicial admissions of appellant,
passes the test of moral certainty and establishes beyond reasonable doubt that he was
the person who killed the victims.
Alibi
Appellant's uncorroborated alibi that he was at the farm in Cabuyao, Laguna was
correctly debunked by the court a quo. We have nothing to add to the trial court's short and
straightforward discussion of the matter, which we reproduce hereunder:
"For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish not only that he was somewhere
else when the crime was committed but that it was also physically impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (People
v. Torrifiel, 326, Phil. 388). By the accused's own admission, the distance between
his alleged whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offense and the
scene of the crime was a fifteen minute drive. To the mind of this court, the
accused's presence at the scene of the crime is not impossible." 2 3

Fourth Issue:
Crime and Punishment
The testimony of Salvacion Balisi, as well as the Birth Certificate of John Ardee Balisi
(Exhibit II), 2 4 prove that John was only six (6) years old at the time of his death. As
correctly ruled by the court a quo, "the killing of [the] child [was] characterized by treachery
because the weakness of the victim due to his tender age resulted in the absence of any
danger to the accused." 2 5 Indeed "[i]t has time and time again been held that the killing of
minor children who, by reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a
defense is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack was not
shown." 2 6 Indubitably, treachery qualified the killing of six-year-old John Ardee Balisi as
murder.
As for the death of Dedicacion Balisi, however, none of the qualifying circumstances
alleged in the Information was proven by the prosecution. Hence, appellant can be
convicted of homicide only.
In either of the two cases, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be appreciated
against appellant, simply because it was not alleged in the Information. 2 7

There being no aggravating circumstances, the imposable penalty for the homicide 2 8 of
Dedicacion Balisi is reclusion temporal in its medium period. In this case, appellant is
entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. For the same reason, reclusion
perpetua not death is the correct penalty that should be imposed on appellant for the
murder 2 9 of John Ardee Balisi.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna (Branch 36) is
hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: in Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C, the
maximum of the penalty is reduced to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal
medium; in Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Davide Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-
Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Penned by Judge Norberto Y. Geraldez.

2. Assailed Decision, pp. 11-12; rollo, pp. 39-40; records, Vol. I, pp. 184-185.

3. Rollo, pp. 13 & 14.

4. Signed by 2nd Asst. Prov. Prosecutor Florante D. Gonzales.

5. Atty. Crisostomo B. Manalo.

6. Order dated May 28, 1997; records, Vol. I, p. 76.

7. Appellee's Brief, pp. 4-7; rollo, pp. 114-117. The Brief was signed by Solicitor General
Ricardo P. Galvez, Asst. Solicitor General Carlos N. Ortega and Solicitor Magtanggol M.
Castro.
8. Appellant's Brief, pp. 8-9; rollo, pp. 77-78. Appellant's Brief was signed by Atty.
Crisostomo B. Manalo, counsel de oficio.

9. This case was deemed submitted for resolution on February 2, 2001, upon receipt by this
Court of appellant's Reply Brief.
10. Appellant's Brief, p. 1; rollo, p. 70; original in upper case.

11. 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court.

12. TSN, July 17, 1997, p. 17; TSN, October 6, 1997, p. 5; TSN, October 28, 1997, p. 4.
13. TSN, October 6, 1997, p. 13.

14. Ibid.
15. People v. Escalante, 238 SCRA 554, 563, December 1, 1994, per Padilla, J.
16. TSN, July 17, 1997, p. 10.

17. Id., p. 18.

18. TSN, October 6, 1997, p. 13.

19. TSN, October 28, 1997, pp. 22-23.

20. People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 143702, September 13, 2001, per Mendoza, J.
21. United States v. Ong Shiu, 28 Phil. 242, October 21, 1914; People v. Uy, 327 SCRA 335,
March 7, 2000.
22. People v. Rayos, 351 SCRA 336, 344, February 7, 2001, citing People v. Ragon, 282
SCRA 90, November 18, 1997; People v. Doro, 282 SCRA 1, November 17, 1997; People v.
Oracoy, 224 SCRA 759, July 27, 1993; People v. Peligro, 225 SCRA 65, August 3, 1993.
23. Decision, p. 9; rollo, p. 37.
24. Records, Vol. I, p. 115.

25. Decision, p. 11; rollo, p. 39; citing US v. Oro, 19 Phil. 554, August 14, 1911.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 26. People v. Gonzales, 311 SCRA 547, July 28, 1999, per Gonzaga-Reyes, J. See also
People v. Diaz, 320 SCRA 168, December 8, 1999.
27. See Sec. 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
28. Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article shall be deemed guilty of
homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

29. Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

"Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be
guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with
any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity."
xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com