People v.

Balanon (1994)

DOCTRINE: Probability is not evidence, and even if Acasio took alcohol, it does not follow
that he was drunk. Moreover, a drunk person is competent to testify on what he sees or
experiences, however limited or hazy his perception may be. In the same way, a hijacker or a
falsifier is not necessarily a liar. Under the Rules of Court, conviction of a crime, unless
otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification of witnesses.

Facts
1. Roberto Laino and Gregorio Santillan, both trustee inmates, were engaged in a fist
fight
2. Accused Sgt. Jerry Balanon was standing nearby and left for a nearby store as the fight
progressed
3. Two teachers, Ms. Maria Luningning Sinsuan and Ms. Elsa de la Cruz, were seated
nearby, waiting for a bus going to Zamboanga City. They were seated 20 to 25 meters
away from Laino and Santillan.
4. One of protagonists shouted for help so Ms. Sinsuan went near to pacify them and
said, “Tama na yan.”
5. One of them retorted, “Alam mo, Ma’am…” but was cut short when Balanon walked to
Ms. Sinsuan and told her not to interfere.
6. Sgt. Balanon then pulled out his gun from his waist and shot them one after another
twice. A fifth shot was supposedly fired but the trial court did not consider the same
7. Fearing that Balanon was running amok, Ms. Sinsuan ran back to where she was
previously sitting. Ms. de la Cruz, who was then six months pregnant, remained seated
on the bench
8. Later that day, Sgt. Balanon was picked up by the military and charged with murder
on 2 counts, both qualified by evident premeditation and treachery.
9. Trial Court: guilty of the crime, qualified by treachery. Penalty: reculsuion perpetua

Issue: W/N the trial court erred in convicting Balanon. NO

On the alibi
1. Appellant claims that he was SOUTHCOM headquarters contrary to the testimony of
prosecution witness Rogene Acasio, also an inmate, that he was drinking liquor with
Balanon and the victims
2. Appellant’s alibi cannot stand in the face of his clear and positive identification by
Acasio who, appellant even admitted, had no ill will to implicate him (Balanon) in the
crime
3. There is no compelling reason to depart from the assessment of the credibility of the
witnesses made by the trial judge who, unlike the reviewing court, had the occasion
and opportunity to observe their demeanor and detect any badge of fabrication

Credibility of the testimony of witness Acasio (IMPORTANT)

1. Appellant faults the trial court for giving credence to the testimony of Acasio who was
not only probably drunk, but was a convicted hijacker and falsifier of public documents
as well; hence, apt to fabricate his testimony
2. Probability is not evidence, and even if Acasio took alcohol, it does not follow that he
was drunk. Moreover, a drunk person is competent to testify on what he
sees or experiences, however limited or hazy his perception may be. In the
 same way, a hijacker or a falsifier is not necessarily a liar. Under the Rules
of Court, conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, shall
not be a ground for disqualification of witnesses

On stitches behind the ear

1. Appellant claims that he is not the assailant described by prosecution witness Sinsuan
since he does not have any wound or stitches as confirmed by the prosecutor who “was
not able to see any scar” behind his ears.
2. The SC quoted the SolGen saying that a scar may disappear through the passage of
time. Furthermore, appellant only showed his head to the fiscal 5 years after the
commission of the crime. He only alleged that he had no scar after 5 years. It was
probably because it would have been very obvious at that time to the untrained eye

On prosecution witness Elsa de la Cruz’s alleged inconsistent statements

1. She allegedly averred that she got a close view of the accused when she was still
boarding the bus, but on cue from the prosecutor, she said she was already on board
the bus
2. Ms. de la Cruz could be referring to two instances when accused came close to Ms.
Sinsuan: (1) when the latter was already inside the bus and when she was still boarding
the bus, and (2) the follow-up question of the prosecutor referred to the instance when
the witnesses were still boarding
3. But even if we consider as inconsistent this portion of Ms. de la Cruz’ testimony, this
is too trivial to affect their straightforward account of the shooting of the victims by
appellant
4. While it may be unnatural for a person who has just committed a grave felony to walk
back and forth and approach bystanders amiably instead of fleeing, criminal acts are
aberrations and criminals are not expected to act naturally, especially in this case
where the crime was committed in front of several witnesses.

Testimony of the defense

1. Appellant tries to revitalize the testimony of defense witness Rolando Daño who
claimed not to have seen any teacher nor heard shots at the scene of the crime
2. SC: trial court disregarded the account because he doesn’t know all of the teachers of
the HS
3. Defense witness Rolando Daño claimed that he saw Balanon go out of the store at 3
o’clock in the afternoon (thus Balanon was at the scene of the crime). Balanon
discredits Daño stating that Daño doesn’t have a watch and was unaware of the time.
4. SC: Since the testimony of defense witness Daño did not do any good to appellant’s
cause, the latter now belabors to justify every unfavorable statement made by said
witness

DECISION AFFIRMED.