EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 135957-58. September 17, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. GUILLERMO

SAMUS, appellant.

DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

While it is true that the confessions of appellant were made without benefit
of counsel, they are still admissible in evidence because of appellants failure to
make timely objections before the trial court. If only the defense had proffered
them on time, the prosecution could have been warned of the need to present
additional evidence to support its case. To disregard a major portion of the
prosecutions case at a late stage during an appeal goes against the norms of
fundamental fairness. Indeed, justice is dispensed not only for the accused, but
also for the prosecution. Be that as it may, and even if we now affirm appellants
conviction for murder, we do not, however agree with the trial courts imposition
of the death sentence, because the proven aggravating circumstance of
dwelling was not alleged in the Information.

The Case

For automatic review by this Court is the Decision dated October 8, 1998,
[1]

issued by the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, in Criminal
Case Nos. 5015-96-C and 5016-96-C. The trial court found Guillermo Samus
guilty beyond reasonable of two counts of murder. The decretal portion of its
Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE:

A. With respect to Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C for the killing of Dedicacion Balisi,
the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide
and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of, after appreciating the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor as minimum up to 20 years of
Reclusion Temporal as maximum.

The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Dedicacion Balisi the amount
of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) for her death and another FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as and for moral and actual damages and cost of
suit.

B. With respect to Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C for the killing of John Ardee Balisi,
this Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Murder
and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of, after appreciating the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling, death.

The accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of John Ardee Balisi the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) for his death and another
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as and for moral and actual damages and
cost of suit.
[2]

Two separate Informations, both filed on November 27, 1996, charged

[3] [4]

appellant as follows:

Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C

That on or about 2:30 oclock in the afternoon of September 2, 1996 at San Ramon de
Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, with intent
to kill, treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously hold the neck, strangle and
thereafter bange[d] the head on the concrete pavement floor of one DEDICACION
BALISI Y SORIANO, a 61 years of age, woman, thereby inflicting upon her fractured
bones, serious and mortal wounds which directly caused her death, to the damage and
prejudice of the surviving heirs of the said Dedicacion Balisi y Soriano.

That in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances of treachery,

evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength were in attendant and
ordinary aggravating circumstance committing a crime with disregard of respect due
the offended party by reason of her age and sex.

Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C

That on or about 4:30 oclock in the afternoon of September 2, 1996 at San Ramon de
Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, with intent
to kill, treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously hold the neck, strangle and
thereafter bang[ed] the head on the concrete pavement floor of one JOHN ARDEE
BALISI Y SORIANO, a six year old boy, thereby inflicting upon him fractured bones,
serious and mortal wounds which directly caused his death, to the damage and
prejudice of the surviving heirs of the said John Ardee Balisi y Soriano.

That in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances of treachery,

evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength were in attendan[ce].

When arraigned on May 28, 1997, appellant, assisted by his counsel de

oficio, pleaded not guilty. In due course, he was tried and found guilty.
[5] [6]

The Facts
Version of the Prosecution

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the evidence for the
prosecution in this wise: [7]

Appellant was a farmer, tilling and living in the land of Miguel Completo at Barangay
Niugan, Cabuyao, Laguna. The victims, sixty two (62) year old Dedicacion Balisi and
her grandson, six (6) year old John Ardee Balisi, were the neighbors of appellants
father at San Ramon de Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna.

At 4:20 P.M. on September 2, 1996, Senior Police (SP) Inspector Rizaldy H. Garcia
was at his office at the 4th PNP Criminal Investigation Group Regional Office at
Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba, Laguna when he received an order from his superior
to investigate the murder of the two victims. Their office had received a telephone call
from a local barangay official informing them of the victims deaths.

Arriving at the victims residence at Block 8, Lot 6 at San Ramon, Brgy. Canlubang,
Calamba, Garcia and his team conducted an investigation, making a sketch of the
relative positions of the victims, lifting fingerprints from the crime scene and taking
pictures. Thereafter, an investigation report was prepared by Garcia and signed by his
superior, Colonel Pedro Tango. The investigators likewise found a pair of maong
pants, a white T-shirt, a handkerchief and dirty slippers in the bathroom and roof of
the house. A pair of earrings worn by Dedicacion Balisi was likewise reported missing
from her body by her daughter, Nora B. Llore[r]a.
The victims bodies were brought to the Funeraria Seerez de Mesa in Calamba where
Senior Inspector Joselito A. Rodrigo, a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory, performed an autopsy. His findings showed that John sustained three (3)
contusions, one of which lacerated his liver, caused by a blunt instrument, while
Dedicacion suffered four (4) contusions, also caused by a blunt instrument.

On that same day, September 2, 1996, Ponciano Pontanos, Jr., then a resident of
Barangay Niugan, Cabuyao and an acquaintance of appellant, happened to meet
appellant at Sammy Pachecas house in the same barangay where appellant asked
Ponciano to accompany him to Poncianos wife to pawn a pair of earrings. Poncianos
wife was mad at first but upon Poncianos prodding, gave appellant P300.00 with no
interest. The earrings were placed in a jewelry box; thereafter, appellant received
another P250.00.

At 6:00 P.M. on September 10, 1996, Major Jose Pante of the Criminal Investigation
Group received information that appellant was the principal suspect in the killing of
the two (2) victims and that he was sighted inside the residence of spouses Rolly and
Josie Vallejo at Barangay Macabling, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. He then formed and led a
team composed of SPO3 Galivo, Intelligence Commission Officer Casis and SPO3
Mario Bitos. Arriving at the site at past 7:00 P.M., the team, accompanied by local
barangay authorities, asked permission from the Vallejo spouses to enter the house,
which was granted. Shortly thereafter, they heard loud footsteps on the roof. Rushing
outside, they saw appellant crawling on the roof. They ordered him to stop, but he
suddenly jumped from the roof and landed hard on the ground, sustaining an injury on
his ankle and bruises on his left and right forearm. At that point, the police team
closed in on appellant who, while trembling and shaking, admitted the killings upon a
query from Rolly Vallejo.

Appellant was brought to the Camp Vicente Lim PNP Investigation Office where he
was informed of his constitutional rights by SPO3 Alex Malabanan. In the morning of
September 11, 1996, appellant, assisted by Atty. Arturo Juliano, gave his statement
admitting the killings. SPO3 Malabanan also took the statements of tricycle driver
Rafael Baliso, the victims relatives Salvacion and Mona Balisi and witness Mary
Arguelles, who saw appellant enter the house of Dedicacion Balisi.

On the same day, September 11, 1996, PNP Fingerprint Examiner Reigel Allan Sorra
took fingerprint samples from appellant. His prints exactly matched with a set of
prints found at the crime scene on September 2, 1998. Later that day, SPO3 Mario
Bitos was able to recover the pawned earrings from Ponciano who turned them over to
SPO3 Malabanan. (Citations omitted)
 Version of the Defense

Alleging denial and alibi as defenses, appellant presents his version of the
incident as follows: [8]

Mrs. Fe Vallejo testified that she knew Guillermo Samus. At about 6:00 p.m. of
September 10, 1996, Guillermo Samus was in their house. It was then that CIS
operatives together with their Brgy. Captain entered their house, arrested and
handcuffed Guillermo Samus. It was not true that accused Guillermo Samus hid
himself on the roof of her house. When the accused was arrested by the CIS men,
together with the barangay officials, the other persons present were the witness and
her 3 children. The police were not armed with a warrant of arrest or search warrant.

Accused Guillermo Samus denied the accusations against him. He testified that he
was a farmer, working on the land of one Miguel Completo at Brgy. Niugan,
Cabuyao. From 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. of September 2, 1996, he was harvesting palay
with Eligio Completo; that he never left the farm. He took his lunch at the hut of
Miguel Completo; that he arrived home at 6:00 in the afternoon, took his dinner then
went to sleep.

He further testified that on September 10, 1996, he was at the house of his friend,
Rolly Vallejo at Brgy. Macabling, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, when a group of CIS operatives
arrived and arrested him inside the same house. It was not true that he jumped from
the roof of the house. The CIS people did not have any warrant for his arrest. His
kumpadre Rolly Vallejo was not present at that time. He was brought to Camp
Vicente Lim where he was tortured until he lost his consciousness. On the same night,
he was brought to a hospital, was given medicine, then brought back to the cell where
he was handcuffed at the door of the cell. The CIS got hold of the medical
certificate. He was forced by the CIS to admit the killing of the victims and the sale of
jewelry by means of torture and threat.

He also testified that he was forced to execute a document admitting the killing. He
was forced to sign said document. He did not know Atty. Juliano and did not talk to
him. The victims were the neighbors of his father in the province. He had been in the
house of Dedicacion Balisi. He was known to Dedicacion Balisi and her household;
and, that the last time he visited the house of Dedicacion Balisi was on August 30,
1996. He was given food by Dedicacion and he later washed dishes, swept the floor,
and put dirt in the trash can. He left at 12:00 p.m. that same date and returned to his
house in Brgy. Niugan.
On cross-examination, he testified that from Brgy. Niugan to San Ramon de
Canlubang it took less than 15 minutes to travel, and he also mentioned that the media
interviewed him 2 days after his arrest. He and his relatives in Laguna did not have
the capacity to hire/secure the services of a lawyer.

The defense also presented Exhibit B (and submarkings), the transcript of

stenographic notes of the testimony of Atty. Juliano, given before the Municipal Trial
Court of Calamba, Laguna on December 1, 1997 in connection with [C]riminal [C]ase
[N]o. 26099, also against Guillermo Samus for theft (of the earrings). The prosecution
admitted the existence of said exhibit and the presentation of the witness who was
supposed the identify the same was dispensed with. (Citations omitted)

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court found enough pieces of circumstantial evidence to prove the
guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Rejecting his alibi for being
unreliable and uncorroborated, it convicted him of homicide for the death of
Dedicacion Balisi; and of murder, with dwelling as aggravating circumstance,
for the death of John Ardee Balisi.
Hence, this automatic review. [9]

Assignment of Errors

In his Brief, appellant faults the court a quo with the following alleged
errors:[10]

The lower court gravely erred in giving credence to the testimonies of police officers
to the effect that the accused tried to escape when he was arrested and that he readily
admitted responsibility for the crimes.
II

The lower court gravely erred in admitting and considering evidence that were
obtained in violation of the accuseds constitutional rights.
III
The lower court gravely erred in holding that there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence to warrant the conviction of the accused.
IV

The lower court gravely erred when it ruled that the qualifying circumstance of abuse
of superior strength attended the killing of John Ardee Balisi.

The Courts Ruling

The appeal is partly meritorious.

First Issue:
Arrest of Appellant

As a general rule, the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of the
witnesses is accorded great respect, if not finality. In the present case, however,
there are cogent reasons to disregard its findings with respect to the arrest of
appellant on September 10, 1996.
The police officers version of the arrest is incredible. Not only are their
allegations uncertain and inconsistent, they are also contrary to human
experience. We find it hard to believe that anyone would jump from the roof of
a two-story house to escape and, after landing on the ground without any
broken bones, make a complete turnaround and just meekly surrender without
further ado. Even if this story were true, jumping from a roof is not a crime that
would justify the warrantless arrest of appellant.
It is undisputed that when the CIS team went to the Vallejo residence on the
evening of September 10, 1996, it had no warrant of arrest against
appellant. Yet, they arrested him. Under the Rules, peace officers may,
[11]

without a warrant, arrest a person under any of these circumstances: (a) when,
in their presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit, an offense; (b) when an offense has just
been committed, and they have probable cause to believe, based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another, or from a
penal establishment where he or she is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while the case is pending.
 None of these circumstances was present when members of the Criminal
Investigation Group (CIG) arrested appellant. He was not a prisoner. The killing
of Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi was not done in the presence of the
arresting officers. Since it took place on September 2, 1996, it could not have
been considered as having just been committed. Evidently, they unlawfully
arrested appellant on September 10, 1996. When they did so, we cannot
ascribe to them the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions, contrary to the court a quos finding.
Considering that the arrest of appellant was unlawful, the apprehending
officers uncertainty and reluctance in admitting it becomes understandable. In
their Joint Affidavit executed on September 11, 1996, they alleged that he had
voluntarily surrendered to them. On the other hand, he had allegedly been
merely invited by Chief Inspector Jose Pante, according to SPO3 Alex
Malabanan. It was only upon being pressed that the police officers admitted that
they had indeed made the arrest. [12]

We now proceed to the alleged confession. In their Joint-Affidavit, the

arresting officers said that after appellant had initially jumped from a two-story
house to escape, they closed in on him and he voluntarily surrendered. At the
same place where he did so, they conducted a preliminary interview, during
which he readily admitted killing Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi.
But during their testimonies, the police officers denied questioning appellant
after arresting him. Instead, they claimed that it was Rolly Vallejo who had
conducted the preliminary interview in their presence as follows: Pare totoo ba
ang sinasabi nila tungkol sa iyo na ikaw ay pinaghihinalaan nilang pumatay sa
mag-lola sa Canlubang[?]; to this question appellant allegedly
answered, [T]otoo nga pare, ako nga. No further questions were allegedly
asked by the law enforcement officers. Instead, they immediately brought
appellant to Camp Vicente Lim for further investigation.
SPO3 Mario Bitos, on the other hand, stated in his Affidavit, also dated
September 11, 1996, that during the conduct of the preliminary interview,
appellant admitted that the victims pair of earrings made of gold was taken by
him after the incident and x x x sold to Mr. Jhun Pontanos y Matriano, a resident
of Bgy. Niugan, Cabuyao, Laguna, for the amount of five hundred (P500) pesos.
During his testimony, however, Bitos denied that they had conducted any
investigation. Instead, he claimed that upon their arrival at Camp San Vicente
[13]

Lim, an interview was conducted by the media in the presence of Major Pante,
SPO3 Bitos and SPO3 Malabanan (the investigator). From this interview, the
[14]

team was able to cull from appellant that he was responsible for the killings,
and that he had stolen the earrings of Dedicacion Balisi and sold them to
Pontanos for P500. This information was allegedly verified by Bitos upon the
order of Major Pante.
Thus, the apprehending officers contend that the constitutional rights of
appellant were not violated, since they were not the ones who had investigated
and elicited evidentiary matters from him.
We are not persuaded. The events narrated by the law enforcers in court
are too good to be true. Their Sworn Statements given a day after the arrest
contradict their testimonies and raise doubts on their credibility.
We find the claims of appellant more believable, supported as they are by
Fe Vallejo who testified that he had been arrested inside her house, and that
Rolly Vallejo was not around then.
Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness, but must be credible in itself -- such as [that which] the common
experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We
have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our
knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these
belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance. [15]

Second Issue:
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Appellant claims that his alleged confession to the media while in police
custody cannot be admitted in evidence. He further contends that the pair of
earrings, the turnover receipt, as well as the testimonies of Pontaos and Bitos,
relative thereto should be excluded for being fruits of the poisonous tree.
We clarify. After being illegally arrested, appellant was not informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel. Hence, any admission elicited from him by the law enforcers during
custodial investigation are normally inadmissible in evidence.
In their affidavits, the police officers readily admitted that appellant was
subjected to a preliminary interview. Yet, during their examination in open court,
they tried to skirt this issue by stating that it was only the media that had
questioned appellant, and that they were merely present during the interview.
However, an examination of the testimonies of the three law enforcers show
the folly of their crude attempts to camouflage inadmissible evidence. SPO4
Arturo Casis testified as follows:
FISCAL:
Q: And after that what did you do with the accused Guillermo Samus?
WITNESS:
A: He went with us voluntarily in Camp.
Q: Camp what?
A: Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna.
Q: After arriving at Camp Vicente Lim what happened there?
A: We turned over him to our investigator CIS.
Q: To whom in particular?
A: SPO3 Alex Malabanan, sir.
Q: What was the purpose for your turning over the accused to Alex Malabanan?
A: To ask him question and to investigate him.
Q: Before that when you arrived at the camp, did you see many people at the camp?
A: I noticed some reporters were there.
Q: Where were the reporters at that time?
A: In our office.
Q: Do you know the reason why these reporters were there at that time?
A They used to hang out at our office because they have a press office holding in our office.
Q: Did you notice these press people when you brought Guillermo Samus to the camp?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did they do when you arrived?
A: They keep on asking who is this fellow we have arrested.
Q: Did anyone answer them?
A: Its up for the investigator and Maj. Pante.[16]

xxxxxxxxx
Q: And the apprehending team did not ask question regarding the alleged involvement of
Guillermo Samus to the kiling?
A: At the office, sir.[17]

On the other hand, SPO3 Bitos declared:

Q And you said that in your earlier testimony that Guillermo Samus was immediately brought
to Camp Vicente Lim which is your headquarters after his arrest on September 10, 1996,
is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
 Q And you said that the purpose of bringing Guillermo Samus to your headquarters on that
day after his arrest was for further investigation, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q The member of the CID once Guillermo Samus was there in your custody at Camp Vicente
Lim he was immediately investigated right then and there in the headquarters, is that
correct?
A He was interviewed by the media people upon the arrival of said suspect. We were not
able to conduct the investigation because of the media people who was also asking
question from him, sir.
Q Who authorized the media people to propound questions to Guillermo Samus when he
was at your headquarters in the night of September 10, 1996?
A I think nobody has given the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation with Guillermo
Samus that is why we were bother our investigation because these media people were
conducting immediate interview with that suspect, sir.[18]

xxxxxxxxx
For his part, SPO3 Malabanan gave the following testimony during his
cross-examination:
Q By the way, what time did Guillermo Samus finish giving the statement to the media
people on the night of September 10, 1996?
A I cannot recall the exact time as to when he finished but I think it is past 8:00 oclock, sir.
Q If you know the reason, can you tell us why Guillermo Samus had to be presented to the
media first before you as an investigator assigned to the case actually take his
statement?
May I request, your Honor that the statement of the witness transpired in the vernacular
be quoted (sila na po and nag-interview).
A Because when we arrived at that time the press people were already there and we can no
longer prevent from asking or conducting an investigation or interview because the case
is already on public knowledge.
ATTY. MANALO:
Q So, after 8:00 p.m. when Guillermo Samus had already finished giving his statement to the
media, do you know where Guillermo Samus was brought?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you tell us where?
A Yes, sir. After that Guillermo Samus was brought to our office and Maj. Pante talked to
him, sir.
Q And do you know where Guillermo Samus spent the night?
A Yes, sir.
 Q Can you tell us where?
A In our stockade, sir.[19]

The above testimonies do not tie up. Casis categorically stated that
appellant had been turned over to SPO3 Malabanan. Appellant noticed
reporters in their office, but he did not answer their questions. SPO3 Bitos
alleged that the interview by the media could not have been prevented, because
it was an ambush interview. Meanwhile, SPO3 Malabanan claimed that when
he arrived at the camp, there were already reporters questioning
appellant. Malabanan further narrated that after 8:00 p.m., appellant was
brought to the office where Major Pante talked to him.
In the absence of testimony from any of the media persons who allegedly
interviewed appellant, the uncertainties and vagueness about how they
questioned and led him to his confession lead us to believe that they
themselves investigated appellant and elicited from him uncounselled
admissions. This fact is clearly shown by the Affidavits they executed on
September 11, 1997, as well as by their testimonies on cross-examination.
Nonetheless, even if the uncounselled admission per se may be
inadmissible, under the present circumstances we cannot rule it out because of
appellants failure to make timely objections. Indeed, the admission is
inadmissible in evidence under Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the
Constitution, because it was given under custodial investigation and was made
without the assistance of counsel. However, the defense failed to object to its
presentation during the trial, with the result that the defense is deemed to have
waived objection to its admissibility.[20]

Can the testimony of Pontaos and the picture of a pair of earrings together
with the turnover receipt, which appellant identified during his testimony, be
considered inadmissible as the fruit of the poisonous tree and hence be
disregarded at this stage of appeal?
Upon examination of the records, we find that during the entire examination
in court of Prosecution Witness Pontaos, appellant did not question or object to
the admissibility of the formers testimony. Worse, the latters counsel even freely
cross-examined the witness without any reservations. Having made no
objection before the trial court, appellant cannot raise this question for the first
time on appeal. The evidence having been admitted without objection, we are
[21]

not inclined to reject it.

If only appellant had made a timely objection to the admissibility of the said
testimony, the prosecution could have been warned of the need to present
additional evidence to support its case. To disregard unceremoniously a major
portion of its case at this late stage when it can no longer present additional
evidence as substitute for that which is now claimed to be inadmissible goes
against fundamental fairness.

Third Issue:
Circumstantial Evidence

No one saw who killed Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi. However, to
prove appellants culpability for their deaths, the prosecution presented the
following circumstantial evidence:
1. Finger and palm prints matching appellants own were found near bloodstains at the
scene of the crime.
2. Dedicacion Balisi owned a pair of earrings that she wore every day. Those earrings
were missing from her dead body. Appellant pawned those same earrings to
Ponciano Pontaos wife on the afternoon of September 2, 1996.
3. Appellant admitted killing Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi, whose dead bodies were
found inside their residence on the afternoon of September 2, 1996.

Circumstantial evidence would be sufficient for conviction, if (a) there is

more than one circumstance, (b) the facts from which the inferences have been
derived are proven, and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such
that it produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. These circumstances
must be consistent with one other, and the only rational hypothesis that can be
drawn therefrom must be that the accused is guilty. They must create a solid
chain of events, coherent and intrinsically believable, that pinpoints the accused
-- to the exclusion of others -- as the perpetrator of the crime and thereby
sufficiently overcomes the presumption of innocence in his or her favor. [22]

In the present case, it is indisputable that someone entered the house

of Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi, and that someone killed them and left the
house with Dedicacions earrings.
The left palm and right thumb prints of appellant near the bloodstains found
on the kitchen tiles, together with other blood-smudged fingerprints, lead to no
other reasonable conclusion except that he was in the house in the afternoon
when the victim died. Considering that the former had bloodstained hands, it
can reasonably be deduced that his hands were responsible for producing the
flow of blood (shown in the pictures marked as Exhibits E to 7) from the heads
of Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi.
 The act of appellant -- pawning the earrings of Dedicacion Balisi on the
same afternoon of her death -- is consistent with, and further supports the
conclusion that he was at the crime scene around the time of her killing.
The absence of any indication of the presence of any person other than
appellant at the locus criminis around the time of the victims deaths further
bolsters the hypothesis that he, to the exclusion of all others, was the one who
killed them.
The pieces of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution are
consistent with one other, and the only rational hypothesis that can be drawn
therefrom is that appellant is guilty of killing Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi.
The prosecution evidence, taken together with the extrajudicial admissions
of appellant, passes the test of moral certainty and establishes beyond
reasonable doubt that he was the person who killed the victims.
Alibi
Appellants uncorroborated alibi -- that he was at the farm in Cabuyao,
Laguna -- was correctly debunked by the court a quo. We have nothing to add
to the trial courts short and straightforward discussion of the matter, which we
reproduce hereunder:

For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish not only that he was somewhere else
when the crime was committed but that it was also physically impossible for him to
have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (People v. Torrifiel,
326, Phil. 388). By the accuseds own admission, the distance between his alleged
whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offense and the scene of the crime
was a fifteen minute drive. To the mind of this court, the accuseds presence at the
scene of the crime is not impossible.[23]

Fourth Issue:
Crime and Punishment

The testimony of Salvacion Balisi, as well as the Birth Certificate of John

Ardee Balisi (Exhibit II), prove that John was only six (6) years old at the time
[24]

of his death. As correctly ruled by the court a quo, the killing of [the] child [was]
characterized by treachery because the weakness of the victim due to his
tender age resulted in the absence of any danger to the accused. Indeed [i]t
[25]

has time and time again been held that the killing of minor children who, by
reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a defense is
considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack was not
shown. Indubitably, treachery qualified the killing of six-year-old John Ardee
[26]

Balisi as murder.
As for the death of Dedicacion Balisi, however, none of the qualifying
circumstances alleged in the Information was proven by the prosecution.
Hence, appellant can be convicted of homicide only.
In either of the two cases, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot
be appreciated against appellant, simply because it was not alleged in the
Information. [27]

There being no aggravating circumstances, the imposable penalty for the

homicide of Dedicacion Balisi is reclusion temporal in its medium period. In
[28]

this case, appellant is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence

Law. For the same reason, reclusion perpetua -- not death -- is the correct
penalty that should be imposed on appellant for the murder of John Ardee
[29]

Balisi.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba,
Laguna (Branch 36) is hereby AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATIONS : in Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C, the maximum of
the penalty is reduced to 17 years and four months of reclusion
temporal medium; in Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C, the penalty is reduced
to reclusion perpetua. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Callejo Sr., JJ., concur.