PEOPLE V.

BALLESTEROS

JANUARY 29, 1998

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE BALLESTEROS, CESAR

GALO and ALVIN BULUSAN, accused-appellants

ROMERO, J.

• The group of the victims were at the barangay hall to attend a dance.

• Not long after, they sensed hostility from the group of the accused

• They decided to leave, but just within 50 meters from the dance hall, Galo fired at
the owner jeep.

• Two died while four others were injured

• The accused were charged with double murder with multiple frustrated murder.
• DEFENSE:
• Galo claimed that he was not at the scene of the crime at that night, and the
paraffin test results that showed positive was because he smoked 8 sticks of
cigarettes that night

• Ballesteros: alibi + no motive to kill

TRIAL COURT: GUILTY OF MURDER, QUALIFIED BY TREACHERY

• Reclusion perpetua

• Sentenced to pay:

• Heirs of Jerry Agliam—

• Compensatory damages (P50,000)

• Moral damages (P20,000)

• Actual damages (P35,755)

• Heirs of Tolentino—

• Compensatory (P50,000)

• Moral (P20,000)

• Actual (P61, 785)

• Carmelo Agliam —

• Actual (P2,003.40)

• Moral (P10,000)

• Others who were injured —

• Moral (P5000)

ISSUE: WON THE AWARD FOR DAMAGES WAS CORRECT (YES, EXCEPT
COMPENSATORY)

DAMAGES — pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury sustained, or

as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of
some duty or the violation of some right.

• ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY: awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for,

loss or injury sustained

• The party making a claim must present the best evidence available —
receipts, vouchers, etc., as corroborated by his testimony

 • IN THIS CASE:
• Claim for ACTUAL DAMAGES was not controverted and was fully
substantiated by receipts accumulated by them and presented to the
court — PROPER!

• Claim for COMPENSATORY DAMAGES must be amended —

P50,000 should be given to the heirs of the victim by way of
INDEMNITY, not as compensatory damages (consistent with the
policy of the Court).

• MORAL: invoked when the complainant has experienced mental anguish, serious
anxiety, physical suffering, moral shock and so forth and had furthermore shown
that these were the proximate result of the offender’s wrongful act or omission

• Amount of psychological pain, damage and injury caused to the heirs of the
victims, although inestimable, may be determined by the trial court in its
discretion — PROPER!

OTHER ISSUES:
• The Court found the RTC correct in holding them GUILTY.
• There was a positive identification of all the accused, and the identification cannot
be questioned because the witnesses have had several interactions through the
years with the suspects which would necessarily lead to familiarity with each other.

• No motive to kill is IRRELEVANT.

• Differentiate motive with intent: motive alone is NOT proof of a crime —

intent must be established by the prosecution.

• Defense of alibi also fails.

• Proof beyond reasonable doubt DOES NOT require total freedom from any quantum
of doubt.
• Absolute certainty of guilt is NOT demanded by law

• Reasonable doubt is that engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and

inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt

• Offense was qualified by treachery.

• It is obvious that the accused- appellants had sufficient opportunity to reflect on
their heinous plan.

• The attack was well- planned and not merely a result of the impulsiveness of the
offenders.

DISPOSITIVE: AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.