G.R. No. 136748 ; November 21, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUANITO CANTONJOS @ BONG (AT LARGE), HERLINO MORTEL BALAG Y CANTONJOS; AND ERNESTO ARAÑAS @ JAPONG (ACQUITTED), accused-appellant.

FACTS

An information for Murder was filed against Juanito Cantonjos, Herlino Balag, and Ernesto Arañas for the killing of Rogelio Alcantara on November 16, 1997, in Rosario, Cavite. Cantonjos remained at-large, while Balag and Arañas pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s principal witness was Joselito Bolon, a relative and townmate of Cantonjos and Balag. Bolon testified that on the night of the incident, he was with Cantonjos, who had earlier argued with the victim about a tricycle. Cantonjos, together with Balag, went inside the Rosario Institute compound. Bolon saw Cantonjos pull out an ice pick. Later, both accused emerged running with bloodied hands. Cantonjos confessed to killing Alcantara and warned Bolon to keep silent. The victim’s body was found with at least fifty stab wounds.
The defense presented a different version. Accused Balag claimed he was elsewhere, sleeping, and was merely framed. The trial court convicted Herlino Balag of Murder but acquitted Ernesto Arañas due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy. Balag appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and questioning Bolon’s credibility as a witness.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Herlino Balag for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Joselito Bolon to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. His account was corroborated by the physical evidence and the number of wounds inflicted, indicating a determined effort to kill. The Court rejected the defense of alibi, noting it is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. The claim that Bolon was biased due to his relationship with the accused was also dismissed, as relationship alone does not impair credibility, especially when the testimony is clear and corroborated.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, denying the victim any chance to defend himself. The Court modified the damages awarded, increasing the civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000.00 each, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, and awarding exemplary damages of P25,000.00 due to the presence of treachery. The decision of the trial court was affirmed with these modifications.