G.R. No. 112924 - EDUARDO P. BALANAY, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds EDUARDO BALANAY Y PENADOS guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of homicide defined in Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code and included in the offense charged in the Information and, there being the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position without any mitigating circumstance in offset, imposes upon him the indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor , as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal , as maximum. He is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Diomercio Antabo y Candes in the amount of P50,000.00, Philippine Currency. On September 21, 1993, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial but the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution dated November 9, 1993 denied it. Hence, this appeal. Petitioner faults the Sandiganbayan in holding that: The victim was shot in front; The accused was guilty of the crime of homicide; and There was suppression of evidence. Petitioner contends that he should not have been required to present his evidence and that the case should have been dismissed outright because the testimony of the lone prosecution witness, Dr. Benlot, does not prove his alleged guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner likewise contends that the evidence of the prosecution is weak because Dr. Benlot testified only on his post-mortem examination of the cadaver of Antabo and not on the circumstances leading to the shooting of the victim. He argues that the prosecution had no testimonial evidence from an eyewitness that he (petitioner) was allegedly in front of the victim when he shot the latter. On the other hand, defense witness Dagayluan testified that while the victim was running, petitioner fired two warning shots which the victim ignored, thereby forcing the petitioner to fire the third and fatal shot. Defense witness Eyas testified that the victim was shot while trying to escape. In other words, petitioner argues that he should not be held accountable for his act of shooting the detention prisoner, Antabo, as it was done in the lawful discharge of his official duty. The appeal, not being meritorious, must fail. It is a settled jurisprudence that in criminal cases the prosecution has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat ., i.e ., he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. [30] However, once the defendant admits the crime charged but raises a justification for its commission, the burden of proof is shifted to him to prove justification to relieve himself of any criminal liability or mitigate its gravity. [31] To prove justification, the defendant must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused had admitted the killing. [32] In the instant case, by invoking the justifying circumstance of fulfillme