People vs. Balondo

Relationship is an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code that is considered only when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender; it is not inherently aggravating and does not apply to collateral relatives such as a niece who is a second degree cousin. Additionally, voluntary plea of guilt before the presentation of evidence by the prosecution constitutes a mitigating circumstance.

The case arose from a particularly savage homicide in Kawayan, Subprovince of Biliran, Leyte, where the accused, Diego Balondo, killed a young female relative and subsequently mutilated her body, allegedly cooking and consuming parts of the cadaver. The case presented significant issues regarding the appreciation of alternative circumstances—specifically relationship—and the determination of mental capacity in capital offenses, requiring clarification on whether relationship could be treated as an aggravating circumstance and whether the accused's bizarre conduct indicated insanity negating criminal liability.

• On September 29, 1966, at approximately 6:00 a.m., the accused was in his farm in Barrio Balacson, Kawayan, Leyte, clearing his camote plantation; he returned home for breakfast at 9:00 a.m.
• At approximately 1:00 p.m., the accused saw Gloria Bulasa, a 16-year-old maiden and his niece (second degree cousin), cutting banana leaves behind the Aglipayan church; he followed her surreptitiously.
• Upon seeing her cutting banana leaves, he confronted her; when she replied that it was none of his business as the property was government-owned, he became furious.
• The accused grabbed her with his left hand, strangled her by the neck, pushed her violently to the ground face downward, rode on her back, pinned her down with his knees, lifted her head and smashed her face against the mud, then choked and buried her face in the mud for approximately one hour until she died.
• After confirming her death, he dragged her body approximately thirty brazas away and covered it with nipa leaves to protect it from sunlight.
• Using the victim's own knife (as his bolo was dull), he sliced and removed flesh from her thighs, legs, and shoulder; he also cut away both feet from the ankle joints downwards and removed all digits of her left hand.
• He tied the sliced flesh with a piece of rattan, brought it to his farm, built a fire, barbecued the human flesh, and ate it as viand with roasted bananas; he described the taste as bitter and poignant like a gall bladder.
• He admitted that he killed Gloria Bulasa first specifically to taste human flesh and determine if it was good; he ceased mutilation only because darkness fell.
• Post-mortem examination by Dr. Jose J. Tupaz revealed liver mortis, semi-circular strangulation marks on the neck, circular incisions on the thighs, complete loss of soft tissues leaving only bones on the thighs and legs, missing feet, missing digits on the left hand, and a long incised wound from the left shoulder to the right scapula.
• Upon apprehension, the accused readily admitted killing the victim in statements reduced to writing in the Visayan dialect, which he signed; he later provided a detailed sworn statement before the municipal judge describing the killing and mutilation, and reenacted the crime at the scene.
• The victim's father (Meliton Bulasa) and uncle (Anatalio Bulasa) corroborated important details in sworn statements before the municipal judge.

• The crime constitutes murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation as alleged in the information, and further aggravated by abuse of superior strength, deliberate augmentation of wrong by causing unnecessary additional wrongs (mutilation and desecration), means employed adding ignominy to the natural effects of the act, utter disregard of the victim's sex, and relationship (the victim being the niece of the accused).
• The accused was legally sane and fully criminally responsible based on his detailed, consistent written confessions, his voluntary admission of guilt during preliminary investigation, his plea of guilty before the trial court, and his coherent reenactment of the crime demonstrating clear memory and understanding of his actions.

• The trial court committed reversible error by failing to subject the defendant to psychiatric testing to determine his sanity before rendering judgment, particularly given the bizarre and savage nature of the crime involving cannibalism which suggests possible insanity or mental abnormality.
• The judgment should be set aside and the case remanded to the lower court with instructions to order the submission of the accused to a psychiatric test to determine his sanity, as the defense of insanity was never properly ruled out by the trial court.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the trial court committed reversible error in failing to order a psychiatric examination of the accused to determine his sanity prior to rendering judgment.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, thereby exempting him from criminal liability.
  • Whether the alternative circumstance of relationship may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance where the victim is a niece who is a second degree cousin.
  • Whether the aggravating circumstances of ignominy and relationship were properly appreciated by the trial court.
  • Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilt should be considered in favor of the accused.
  • Whether the penalty of death is proper given the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the trial court erred in failing to order a psychiatric examination. The Court held that the record contained sufficient justification to conclude that the defendant was not insane at the time of the commission of the crime, evidenced by his detailed and internally consistent written statements, his voluntary admission of guilt during preliminary investigation, his voluntary plea of guilty before the trial court, and his coherent reenactment of the crime. The Court noted that it was impossible to ascertain the mental condition of the defendant as of the time of the commission of the crime (three years prior), and the absence of a psychiatric test at the trial level did not constitute reversible error where other evidence of sanity was overwhelming.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that the accused was not insane, as he demonstrated clear intelligence, planning, and awareness of his actions, including the specific intent to kill the victim first in order to taste human flesh.
  • The Court affirmed that abuse of superior strength qualified the killing as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
  • The Court corrected the trial court's error in appreciating relationship as an aggravating circumstance, holding that under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, relationship is an alternative circumstance applicable only when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate/natural/adopted sibling, or relative by affinity in the same degree; a niece who is a second degree cousin does not fall within this classification.
  • The Court also rejected the appreciation of ignominy as an aggravating circumstance, finding nothing in the record showing that the victim was subjected to indignities causing shame or moral suffering before death.
  • The Court affirmed the appreciation of two aggravating circumstances: (1) disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her sex, and (2) deliberate augmentation of wrong by causing other wrong not necessary for the commission of the crime (the post-mortem mutilation and cannibalism).
  • The Court affirmed one mitigating circumstance: voluntary plea of guilt entered before the presentation of evidence by the prosecution.
  • Although the penalty would properly be death given two aggravating circumstances against one mitigating circumstance, the Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua for lack of the required number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty.

• Alternative Circumstances (Article 15, Revised Penal Code) — These are circumstances that must be taken into consideration in imposing the penalty as either aggravating or mitigating depending on the nature and circumstances of the crime. Relationship, as an alternative circumstance, is considered only when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender. In this case, the Court applied this doctrine to exclude the victim (a niece who was a second degree cousin) from the coverage of Article 15, thereby preventing the appreciation of relationship as an aggravating circumstance and correcting the trial court's error.
• Voluntary Plea of Guilt — A mitigating circumstance under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code when the accused voluntarily pleads guilty before the court prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution, demonstrating remorse and saving the government the time and expense of a full trial.
• Insanity as Exempting Circumstance — Complete deprivation of intelligence or freedom of will at the time of the act is required to exempt an accused from criminal liability under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. The mere commission of bizarre, heinous, or savage acts does not create a presumption of insanity if the accused demonstrates understanding, planning, and coherent recollection of events.

• "Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, the alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration only when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offended."
• "The defendant had made several statements, which were reduced to writing and duly signed by him. We find that the facts and circumstances narrated by the defendant in those different statements tally in important details."
• "But when one, like in this case, choked a maiden to death just 16 years old for the simple reason that she was getting leaves from the banana plants of the accused to wrap local cookies, the said accused after killing her, sliced the flesh of the legs, shoulder and the thigh, cooked those human flesh; devoured them like an ancient cannibal; the accused, Diego Balondo went bizarrely beyond the extreme of a carnivorous wild beast."

• U.S. vs. Insierto, 15 Phil. 358 — Cited as controlling precedent for the interpretation of Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code regarding the limited application of the alternative circumstance of relationship to specific relatives (spouse, ascendant, descendant, siblings), excluding other collateral relatives such as nieces who are second degree cousins.

• Article 15, Revised Penal Code — Defines alternative circumstances, specifically relationship, and limits its application to spouses, ascendants, descendants, and siblings. The Court applied this provision to exclude the victim (niece/second degree cousin) from the definition of relatives for whom relationship may be considered as an alternative circumstance.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines the crime of murder and its penalties. The Court applied this article to qualify the killing as murder based on the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
• Article 13(7), Revised Penal Code — Governs mitigating circumstances, specifically voluntary plea of guilt, which the Court applied to benefit the accused.
• Article 14, Revised Penal Code (paragraphs 3, 6, and 13) — Governs aggravating circumstances; the Court applied paragraph 13 (disregard of sex) and paragraph 6 (deliberate augmentation of wrong/cruelty), but rejected paragraph 3 (ignominy).