G.R. No. L-11325; November 29, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BOTO BALONTO, ET AL., defendants. BOTO BALONTO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Boto Balonto, Antonio Lumbos, Montos Moso, and Turing Moso were charged with murder in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato. Turing Moso pleaded guilty and was sentenced. After trial, Lumbos was acquitted, while Montos Moso was found guilty by direct participation and Boto Balonto by induction. Balonto and Montos Moso appealed, but Montos Moso later withdrew his appeal.
On July 31, 1951, Emilio Suazo, Tony Mondares, Jesus Olarte, and another person were returning to San Jose, Buayan, Cotabato, in a jeep driven by Olarte. At a barrio, they stopped to remove a log placed across the road. Shots were fired from the left side of the jeep, hitting and killing Olarte. The companions fled and later reported the incident.
Based on information from informants, the Chief of Police investigated Balonto, Lumbos, and the Mosos. Balonto made a sworn statement (Exhibit A) admitting he had quarreled with Olarte over land and family matters, that he discussed a plan with Turing Moso to kill Olarte, provided a carbine, and was later informed by Montos Moso that Olarte had been killed. Turing Moso (Exhibit B) and Montos Moso (Exhibit C) also made sworn statements implicating Lumbos and Balonto in ordering the killing.

ISSUE

1. Whether appellant Balonto’s sworn statement (Exhibit A) is admissible in evidence, given his claim that it was made under force and intimidation.
2. Whether the sworn statement of Montos Moso (Exhibit C) is admissible, despite the interpreter not being presented as a witness.
3. Whether Balonto should be acquitted based on Turing Moso’s testimony that he alone was responsible for the crime.

RULING

1. On the admissibility of Balonto’s sworn statement (Exhibit A): The Court found the contention without merit. Prosecution evidence showed Balonto made and signed the statement voluntarily. The justice of the peace inquired if he was aware of its contents, and the chief of police testified no threats or promises were used to induce the statement. Balonto did not raise any complaint about threats at the time.
2. On the admissibility of Montos Moso’s sworn statement (Exhibit C): The Court found the contention without merit. While presenting the interpreter would have been better, it was not necessary for admissibility. The chief of police’s testimony was sufficient to prove the statement was translated to Montos Moso before he signed it in the presence of the justice of the peace. Furthermore, the contents were substantially corroborated by independent evidence, such as the log on the road, the recovery of two carbines from the location indicated by Montos, and the circumstances of the ambush matching the descriptions in the statements.
3. On Turing Moso’s exculpatory testimony: The Court upheld the trial court’s decision not to believe Turing Moso’s testimony that he alone was responsible. Turing Moso testified after pleading guilty, had nothing to lose by admitting all blame, and had an obvious bias or interest in saving his stepfather (Balonto) and brother.
The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the medium period, reclusion perpetua, is imposed. The trial court’s penalty is modified accordingly. The indemnity is increased from P4,000 to P6,000. As modified, the decision is affirmed in all other respects.