G.R. No. L-59738 June 8, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOROTEO BASLOT and QUIRINO LLANO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On January 11, 1981, around 3:00 AM in Barangay Mat-i, Surigao City, accused Doroteo Baslot and Quirino Llano, together with others, were charged with murder for hacking and stabbing Roberto B. Balinas, Jr., a 15-year-old minor, causing his death. The information alleged conspiracy, abuse of superior strength, and nighttime as aggravating circumstances. Only Baslot and Llano were arraigned, pleading not guilty. The trial court found them guilty as co-principals of murder and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and damages. Only Quirino Llano appealed. The prosecution evidence established that on the evening of January 10, 1981, Llano, accompanied by Doroteo Baslot, Rodrigo Baslot, Epifanio Baslot, and Bello Payao, went to a beerhouse/disco. After Llano left early, a commotion later occurred between his companions and Balinas’s group, leading to Rodrigo Baslot’s disappearance. Doroteo Baslot’s group, including Llano (who was awakened and joined them), searched for Rodrigo. They encountered Balinas and a companion, leading to a chase. Balinas was subsequently chanced upon and hacked to death by Doroteo Baslot and Quirino Llano, both armed with bolos. The victim’s mutilated body was discovered hours later, bearing multiple hack and stab wounds. Prosecution witnesses Jimmy Palomo and Arturo Mahinay positively identified Llano at the scene.

ISSUE

The appeal raised several alleged errors, which primarily questioned: (1) the admissibility of Llano’s extrajudicial confession; (2) the trial court’s interpretation of a query directed to Llano during the search; (3) the conviction based on the sworn statement of co-accused Doroteo Baslot; (4) the sufficiency of witness identification of Llano; and (5) the conclusion that Llano was a gold panner.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. It found no need to rule on the admissibility of Llano’s extrajudicial confession, as it was taken without counsel. Nevertheless, other evidence sufficiently established his guilt. The positive identification by prosecution witnesses Palomo and Mahinay, who were familiar with Llano and recognized him when a flashlight was focused on his group, established his presence and participation at the crime scene. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on witness credibility, noting no reason to overturn them. The query (“Hepe, is Rodrigo in the house?”) was correctly found to be directed at Llano, as only he and his wife were in the house at the time. The conviction was not based on the co-accused’s sworn statement but on the dovetailing testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the sequence of events. Whether Llano was a gold panner or a visitor was immaterial, as the substantial aspects of the crime were proved. The Court modified the civil liability by increasing the indemnity for death to P50,000.00 and deleting the P30,000.00 award for actual and moral damages for lack of basis.