People v. Ballabare

G.R. No. 108871 (November 19, 1996)

Facts:

The case involves the appeal of Gerry Ballabare, who was convicted of double murder and illegal possession of firearms by the Regional Trial Court in Palawan. The incident occurred on September 16, 1990, in Sitio Isumbo, Barangay Pulot II, Brookeas Point, Palawan, where Gerry and his brother Eder Ballabare were accused of killing two brothers, Juan and Leonardo Tacadao. The prosecution alleged that the Ballabare brothers, armed with firearms, conspired to attack and shoot the Tacadao brothers, resulting in their deaths.

The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of Tessie Asenita, the sole eyewitness, who recounted that a commotion ensued when her brother Juan attempted to intervene in a fight involving Eder Ballabare. Tessie testified that after the initial altercation, the Ballabare group, which included Gerry, pursued Juan and Leonardo, ultimately shooting them. The prosecution also presented forensic evidence, including a paraffin test that indicated Gerry's left hand was positive for gunpowder nitrates, suggesting he had fired a weapon.

In his defense, Gerry Ballabare claimed he was playing basketball at the time of the incident, supported by an alibi witness. Additionally, the defense introduced affidavits from Tessie Asenita and Leonardo Tacadao Sr., the father of the victims, which purportedly withdrew their testimonies and expressed a lack of interest in pursuing the case. The trial court, however, found the eyewitness testimony credible and rejected the alibi and the affidavits as attempts to evade liability.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of Tessie Asenita despite her subsequent affidavit withdrawing her testimony.
2. Whether the defense of alibi presented by Gerry Ballabare was sufficient to exonerate him from the charges.
3. Whether the trial court correctly found Gerry Ballabare guilty of conspiracy in the commission of the murders.
4. Whether the trial court properly appreciated the presence of treachery in the commission of the crime.
5. Whether the conviction for illegal possession of firearms constituted double jeopardy in light of the murder charges.

Arguments:

Prosecution:

• The prosecution argued that the testimony of Tessie Asenita was credible and corroborated by forensic evidence. They contended that the affidavits presented by the defense were not true recantations and should not negate the original testimony.
• The prosecution maintained that Gerry Ballabare was positively identified as one of the shooters and that the circumstances surrounding the incident indicated a conspiracy to commit murder.

Defense:

• The defense contended that the trial court erred in relying on Tessie's testimony, as she later executed an affidavit withdrawing her statements. They argued that this withdrawal should lead to Gerry's acquittal.
• Gerry's alibi was presented as evidence that he was not present at the scene of the crime, and the defense claimed that the prosecution's case was based on false testimony motivated by revenge.
• The defense also argued that the trial court improperly found conspiracy and treachery, asserting that the evidence did not support these conclusions.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conviction of Gerry Ballabare for the murder of Leonardo Tacadao Jr. but modified the conviction regarding the murder of Juan Tacadao, finding insufficient evidence to establish conspiracy. The Court ruled that the trial court correctly found Tessie Asenita's testimony credible, despite her later affidavit, which was deemed a mere expression of her father's lack of interest in prosecution rather than a formal recantation.

The Court emphasized that a witness's retraction does not automatically invalidate their original testimony, especially when the retraction is not subjected to cross-examination. The positive identification of Gerry by Tessie, coupled with the forensic evidence, was deemed sufficient to uphold the conviction for the murder of Leonardo.

Regarding the issue of treachery, the Court found that the attack was not executed in a manner that deprived the victims of the opportunity to defend themselves, as the incident occurred in broad daylight and was preceded by a commotion. Thus, the Court ruled that the killing of Leonardo Tacadao Jr. should be classified as homicide rather than murder.

The Court also addressed the issue of double jeopardy, clarifying that the separate charges of murder and illegal possession of firearms did not constitute double jeopardy, as they were distinct offenses. The Court modified the penalty for illegal possession of firearms to reclusion perpetua, as the trial court had incorrectly imposed life imprisonment.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. A witness's affidavit withdrawing testimony does not automatically negate their original statements unless subjected to cross-examination.
2. Positive identification by a credible witness can suffice for conviction, even if there is only one witness.
3. The presence of treachery must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be inferred from the circumstances alone.
4. Separate charges of murder and illegal possession of firearms do not constitute double jeopardy, as they are distinct offenses under the law.