G.R. No. 77284 July 19, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BONIFACIO BALANSI alias “BAN-OS”, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Bonifacio Balansi, was charged with the murder of Elpidio Dalsen. The Information alleged that on January 30, 1982, in Balinciagao, Pasil, Kalinga-Apayao, the accused, armed with a Garand rifle, entered the house where the victim was sleeping and shot him twice, resulting in his death. The prosecution alleged the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The accused, a Barangay Captain and CHDF member, and the victim, a Provincial Development Officer, were present at a nearby wedding celebration when the incident occurred.
The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence. Witnesses testified that they saw the accused standing at the entrance of the victim’s parents’ house, armed with a rifle, minutes before two gunshots were heard emanating from that house. Immediately after the shots, witnesses saw the accused descending from the house’s steps, brandishing the rifle. A struggle for the firearm ensued with a fellow CHDF member, who noted the weapon was still warm. The accused then fled and hid for four days before surrendering. The defense presented an alibi, claiming the accused was also investigating the gunshots and was falsely implicated when his rifle was seized.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present; and (3) whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was applicable.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime and penalty. The Court held that the totality of the circumstantial evidence satisfied the requirements for conviction under Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. The proven circumstances—the accused’s presence at the scene with a rifle, the immediate gunshots, his emergence with the weapon, the rifle’s warmth, and his flight—formed an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that he was the perpetrator. His alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsupported.
However, the Court found that treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution failed to prove how the attack was commenced, as the victim was asleep and there was no evidence detailing the manner of execution to show that the means were deliberately adopted to ensure the killing without risk to the assailant. Thus, the crime is homicide, not murder. The Court, however, appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. The killing occurred in the house of the victim’s parents, which served as his temporary abode. The sanctity of the dwelling is accorded to invited guests, and the victim, as a son, was entitled to the respect and privacy of that home.
Consequently, the accused is guilty of homicide aggravated by dwelling. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal. The award of damages was affirmed.