G.R. No. 108871 - People vs. Ballabare

The case arises from the killing of two brothers, Juan Tacadao and Leonardo Tacadao, Jr., on September 16, 1990.
The incident occurred in the afternoon at Sitio Isumbo, Barangay Pulot II, Municipality of Brookeas Point, Province of Palawan.
Accused-appellant Gerry Ballabare, along with his brother Eder Ballabare and other companions, was charged with double murder (under the Revised Penal Code) and violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearm).
The information alleged that the accused, armed with firearms and acting with evident premeditation and treachery, attacked and fatally shot the victims by hitting vital parts of the body.

Testified witnessing the initial commotion while inside her kitchen.
Reported seeing members of the Ballabare group, including Gerry Ballabare, engage in the melee and subsequently pursue the victims.
Claimed to have seen the actual shooting, noting that the fatal shots occurred near the kitchen.

Testimony of Roque Asenita, husband of Tessie Asenita, alleging that Gerry Ballabare was involved and that the prosecution’s motive was linked to familial retribution.
Other witnesses including Dr. Narciso B. Leoncio, who conducted the autopsy, and Aida Veloria Magsipoc of the NBI, whose paraffin test revealed the presence of gunpowder on the accused’s left hand.
A certification from the Firearms and Explosive Unit confirmed that Gerry Ballabare was not authorized to carry a firearm.

Accused-appellant’s alibi: claimed he was in his yard playing basketball.
Affidavit for the withdrawal of Tessie Asenita’s testimony and an Affidavit of Desistance of Leonardo Tacadao, Sr., which were introduced by the defense to negate the prosecution’s evidence.
Corroborative alibi witness, Evelyn Alcantara, supported Gerry Ballabare’s claim of being away from the scene.

The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two separate cases:

Criminal Case No. 9067: Found guilty as principal in the murder of Juan and Leonardo Tacadao with penalties of reclusion perpetua (two penalties) and orders to pay indemnity and moral damages.
Criminal Case No. 9071: Found guilty of violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Treat the withdrawal affidavit as a recantation.
Base the alibi on uncorroborated affidavits.
Exonerate the accused on the ground of double jeopardy or conspiracy inadequacy.

The decision was later modified on appeal by the appellate court, addressing issues regarding:

The determination of treachery and abuse of superior strength.
The separation of the offense of illegal possession of firearm from the homicide/murder charge.
The appropriate penalty for the offense committed under PD No. 1866 considering the period of the crime.

Accused-appellant contended that his constitutional right to be presumed innocent and tried by an impartial tribunal was violated.
Claimed that the withdrawal affidavit and the Affidavit of Desistance should have resulted in his acquittal.
Argued that the trial court erred in convicting him separately for murder and illegal possession of a firearm, thus subjecting him to double jeopardy.
Disputed the sufficiency of evidence establishing his presence at the scene and participation in the killing.

Whether the withdrawal affidavit executed by Tessie Asenita should be treated as a formal recantation that negates her earlier testimony.
Whether the affidavit of desistance by Leonardo Tacadao, Sr. should have altered the weight of evidence against the accused.

Whether the single positive identification of the accused by Tessie Asenita, in light of her testimony and physical evidence (paraffin test), is sufficient to uphold the conviction.
Whether the defense’s alibi, supported by affidavits and a corroborating witness, creates reasonable doubt about the accused’s presence at the scene.

Whether the evidence establishes a prior agreement or concerted plan (conspiracy) between the accused and his brother, or whether his later appearance in the melee was incidental.
Whether the accused can be held liable under the principle that the act of one is the act of all participants in a conspiracy.

Whether imposing separate convictions for murder and illegal possession of a firearm constitutes double jeopardy.
Whether the sentence of life imprisonment for violation of PD No. 1866 is appropriate given that the penalty for the aggravated form of illegal possession should be reclusion perpetua under the temporal prohibition of the death penalty.
The propriety of awarding moral damages when supporting evidence is absent.