THIRD DIVISION
|
people of the Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - Jose barcenal
and randy solis, Accused-Appellants. |
|
G.R. No. 175925 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For Review is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02204, which affirmed the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
On
That on or about the 17th day of January, 2000
at about 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon, in the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one
another, did then and there, with malice aforethought and with deliberate
intent to take the life of one NELSON B. MOLINA, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously,
suddenly, unexpectedly, and treacherously attack the latter with bolos, thereby
inflicting several mortal wounds on the different parts of his body, which
caused the direct and immediate death of the said Nelson B. Molina, to the
great damage and prejudice of the latter’s heirs.[3]
During the arraignment on
The evidence of the prosecution, as
culled from the combined testimonies of Jasam Barcenal (Jasam), an 8-year old
boy; Zacarias Barcenal (Zacarias), the father of witness Jasam
Barcenal; Joseph Molina (Joseph), brother of the
victim; Medy Molina, spouse of the victim; and Dr.
Wilson Moll Lee (Dr. Lee), a medico-legal of the National Bureau of
Investigation, Naga City, who conducted the autopsy
of the victim’s body, is as follows:
In the afternoon of
Nelson then proceeded to his banana
plantation.
Worried by what Nelson had just disclosed,
Zacarias followed him. While Nelson was treading the
path towards the plantation, he met his brother Joseph Molina. Nelson proceeded to the plantation, while
Joseph headed for his home. Zacarias was trailing
Nelson for about 10 to 15 minutes when he decided to stop following the latter
and instead started to work. Meanwhile, Jasam was looking for his father, Zacarias,
to fetch him for merienda. While searching for Zacarias,
Jasam saw Nelson being attacked. Upon seeing his father, who was then removing
dried coconut leaves, Jasam beckoned him and informed
him that Nelson was being mauled. Zacarias went near Jasam, and the
two sought cover under a tree located at the upper portion of a hill. Nelson, appellants and the other assailants
were on the lower portion of the hill about 20 meters from Zacarias
and Jasam. Jasam then heard Nelson shouting as the two men with masks
hit Nelson with a piece of bamboo. They
dragged Nelson to a grassy place and tied his hands. The two masked men called appellants and
accused Jimmy Barcenal to come out from where they
were hiding. Appellants and Jimmy, who
were armed with bolos, appeared. The
masked men tied Nelson to a coconut tree.
Suddenly, Jimmy hacked the right hand of Nelson, almost separating it
from his arm. Appellant Jose Barcenal, on the other hand, hacked Nelson’s left hand,
almost cutting it off. Randy Solis, in
turn, struck Nelson’s right foot with his bolo, nearly detaching it from his
leg. Then, the masked men picked a short
piece of wood and gave the same to Jimmy, who plucked out Nelson’s eyes. The excruciating pain made Nelson shout. With his bolo, Jimmy attacked again by
ripping Nelson’s head off his body. Not
satisfied, the masked men stabbed Nelson with a “veinte
nueve” (fan knife) on his chest. Finally, Jimmy made his final stroke by
scalping Nelson’s head. Jimmy told the
group that if ever Nelson’s mother or Nelson’s brother would pass by, they
should also be assaulted. Jimmy covered
the dismembered body of Nelson with coconut leaves. The group hurriedly left the crime scene.
After the assailants left, Zacarias and Jasam also left the
place. Instead of proceeding to their
home, they stayed in the house of Zacarias’s parents,
and they did not tell anyone about the incident for fear that they might be
involved, or, worse they might suffer the same fate as that of the victim.
In the morning of
On
It was only after the victim’s body
was discovered that Zacarias disclosed the killing
incident to the family of the deceased.
He was forced to do so since Jasam had
revealed the incident earlier to his ‘ninong’
and the victim’s brother, Manuel Molina, Jr.
Dr. Lee conducted an autopsy of the
body and made the following findings:
The cadaver is buried underground, wearing T-shirt and
shorts.
He is in the advanced stage of postmortem
decomposition.
Head, skeletonized.
All internal organs have been converted into a pultaceous mass.
Hands, absent.
Feet, absent.
No antemortem bone injury
noted on the remaining bones examined.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Cannot be determined due to the advanced stage of postmortem
decomposition, in the absence of bone injuries.[5]
The medico-legal officer found that
Nelson has been dead for more than three days and that the cadaver was already
in an advanced stage of decomposition.
Maggots were eating up the whole body.
The head was already “skeletonized,” which
means that the skull was devoid of any soft tissue and that the eyes, ears and
muscles no longer adhered to the skull.
Only the side part of the head contained hair, and it was possible that
the hair had been scalped or removed. He,
likewise, found that the hands and feet were missing. The head was separated from the body. He stated that a sharp bladed-instrument
could have severed the bone connecting the body and the head.
Appellants denied participating in
the killing of the victim. They
interposed the defense of denial and alibi.
Randy Solis testified that he was a truck
helper loading sand at the Hillside Construction. That at
Jose Barcenal
confirmed the testimony of appellant Randy Solis that the two of them reported
for work on that fateful day. However,
he declared he and Randy Solis finished the delivery at about
Ramon Solis, father of appellant
Randy Solis, testified that his son worked at the Hillside Construction on
Evelyn Solis, appellant Randy Solis’s
mother, testified that Nelson confided to her that he caught Zacarias, together with his brothers, butchering a cow
owned by a certain Romeo Baracena. Zacarias and his brothers were asking money from Nelson,
with a threat that if the latter would not meet their demand, he would be
slaughtered soon.
Armando Botor,
the truck driver of the Hillside Construction, affirmed that his truck helpers
on
The trial court was convinced that
the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence to prove the guilt
of the appellants of the crime charged. It
gave full credence to the version of the prosecution and brushed aside the
defense of alibi of the appellants.
Thus, it convicted the appellants of murder, qualified by treachery, and
imposed upon them the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Appellants
were also ordered to indemnify their victim in the amounts of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P60,000.00 as actual damages and to pay the costs. The dispositive
portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding accused, RANDY SOLIS and JOSE
BARCENAL guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, they are sentenced to reclusion perpetua; pay an indemnity of P50,000.00 and actual
damages of P60,000.00 and to pay the cost.[6]
Appellants filed a notice of appeal.[7] The trial court ordered the transmittal of the
entire records of the case to this Court. Thereafter, this Court ordered the
referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with the ruling in People v. Mateo.[8]
The Court of Appeals, on P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damges,
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and another P25,000.00 as
temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.
The Court of Appeals decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision
of the P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, the further amounts of P50,000.00
as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P25,000.00
as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.[9]
Hence, the instant case.
In their Brief, the appellants assign
the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND
CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEIR GUILT WAS
NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE
WAS A CONSPIRACY AND IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING ACTUAL
DAMAGES.[10]
On the first and second assignment of
errors, appellants disagree with the trial court’s assessment of the evidence
before it and the weight and credence given to the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, Zacarias and Jasam. According to appellants, the testimonies of
these two witnesses were “riddled with incredibilities,
inconsistencies and doubts which should have been seriously considered by the
trial court.”[11] In support of such claim, the appellants make
reference to the testimony of Zacarias on direct
examination, wherein he stated that he was about 25 meters from the place where
Nelson Molina and Joseph Molina met. But
on cross-examination, he averred that he was about 15 meters away from Nelson
and Joseph. Appellants also put forward
another testimony of Zacarias where, on direct
examination, he testified that he followed Nelson from his house to the
latter’s banana plantation for about 10 to 15 minutes; yet, on cross, Zacarias stated that he followed Nelson for about 3 minutes
only.
Appellants find it incredible for an
eight-year old boy to vividly testify on every detail of what he witnessed,
including those who hacked the victim and on what specific part of the victim’s
body. They likewise find suspect Zacarias’ silence and his failure to report the incident to
the victim’s family or to the police authorities. Such silence, according to appellants, is
contrary to human experience. They suggest
that Zacarias pretended to be an eyewitness of the
incident and pointed an accusing finger at them in order not to cast any
suspicion on his person and his possible participation in the crime. They allege that Jasam’s
testimony was coached by Zacarias.
The long-established rule is that,
the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and
most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate
magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the declarant’s
demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.[12] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the
credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of
witnesses, unless it be manifestly shown that the latter court had overlooked
or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the
case.[13]
In the instant case, the prosecution’s
main witnesses, Jasam and Zacarias
Barcenal, steadfastly pointed to appellants, together
with Jimmy Barcenal and two “John Does” as the
persons who violently took the life of Nelson in broad daylight on
q: You
said that you went to fetch your father to have merienda,
what happended?
a: I
heard Manoy Nelson shouting and then I saw 2 men
wearing masks hitting Manoy Nelson.
q: What
was that instrument used by the 2 men in mask hitting your Manoy
Nelson?
a: Bamboo.
q: Then
what happened next?
a: Then
they were dragging him and they said you get out and later Jose and Jimmy went
out.
q: After
seeing that what happened next?
a: They
dragged him to the grassy place and they tied his hands.
q: In
particular who dragged your Manoy Nelson?
WITNESS
a: The 2
men in masks.
COURT
q: So,
you were not able to recognize the 2 men wearing masks?
a: No,
Your Honor.
PROS. RAMOS
q: How
about the 3 men being called by the masked persons, did they go out?
a: Yes,
sir, and they were carrying bolos.
q: In
particular who were carrying bolos?
a: Jimmy
Randy and Jose.
q: Where
was your Manoy Nelson tied?
a: He
was tied to the coconut tree.
q: Who
tied him?
a: The 2
men in masks.
q: What
is the family name of your Manoy Nelson?
a: Molina.
q: After
your Manoy Nelson Molina was tied in (sic) the coconut tree, what happened
next?
a: They
hacked his hand (witness pointing to his right hand).
q: And
who hacked the right hand of your Manoy Nelson?
a: Jimmy.
q: And
what happened to the hand of Nelson Molina?
a: It
was almost cut.
PROS. RAMOS
q: After
Jimmy Barcenal hacked the right hand of Nelson
Molina, what happened next?
a: And
then Jose hacked the left hand of Nelson Molina.
q: Again
when Jose Barcenal hacked the left hand of Nelson
Molina what happened next?
a: The
hand was not separated.
q: But it
was cut?
a: Almost
cut.
q: When
Jose Barcenal hacked the left hand of Nelson Molina
what happened?
a: And
then Randy cut again his right foot.
q: And
what happened when Randy Solis cut the right foot, what happened to the right
foot of Nelson Molina?
a: It
was almost separated.
q: After
that what else happened?
a: And
then the 2 men got a short piece of wood and gave it to Jimmy and Jimmy plucked
out the eyes of Manoy Nelson.
q: The
eyes of Nelson?
a: Yes,
sir.
q: What
did you observe on the eyes of Nelson when it was plucked out by Jimmy Barcenal?
a: He
shouted and then after that his head was cut.
q: Who
cut the head of Nelson Molina?
WITNESS
a: Jimmy.
PROS. RAMOS
q: What
did the five men do after the head of Nelson Molina was cut?
a: According
to Manoy Jimmy if Amay
Milagros Molina passes by she should be struck or even when Manoy
Ibin Molina he should be struck.
q: And
how is this Milagros Molina related to Nelson Molina?
a: Nelson
is the son of Milagros Molina.
q: How
about this Ibin?
a: Manoy Ibin is also the son of Amay Milagros.
q: So, Ibin is the brother of Nelson?
a: Yes,
sir.
q: And
what happened next after seeing that?
a: Manoy Nelson was covered with coconut leaves.
q: Who
covered him with leaves?
a: Jimmy.
q: And
then what happened?
a: A “beinte nueve” was thrust on the
chest of Nelson.
q: How
many times?
a: 2.
q: Who
stabbed Nelson Molina with a batangas knife?
a: The 2
men in masks.
PROS. RAMOS
q: Then
what happened?
a: He
removed the scalp.
q: Who
removed the scalp?
a: Jimmy.
x x x x
q: After
Jimmy removed the scalp what happened?
a: I saw
Jimmy left and passed by the canal.
I
also saw the 2 men removed their masks but they hid in the bamboo groove.
q: Were
you able to recognize the 2 men after they removed their masks?
a: No,
sir.
q: Why?
a: They
ran away.
q: Towards
what direction?
a: They
ran passing the canal. I did not
recognize them.
q: Where
was Jose Barcenal and Randy Solis?
a: They
were also running.
q: Towards
what direction?
a: Towards
the canal also.
q: So,
all of them the five were going together?
a: Yes,
sir.[14]
Zacarias lends support to the testimony of Jasam on material points. He saw appellants and the rest of
the perpetrators consummate the brutal crime.
The autopsy report is consistent with the declarations of Jasam and Zacarias. The body of the victim was in the clothing described
by the said witnesses. Only the sides of
Nelson’s head had hair which led the medico-legal to deduce that the scalp had
been removed. This confirms Jasam’s affirmation that Jimmy took off the victim’s
scalp. Also noteworthy is the finding of
the medico-legal officer stating that the hands, the feet and the eyes of
Nelson were missing. The absence of
these parts of the body substantiates Jasam’s account
that appellants and Jimmy took turns in mutilating the victim. The overwhelming evidence eloquently depicts
what had really transpired on that ill-fated day. Only a trustworthy witness could have
described such vivid picture of the incident which ineluctably points to
appellants as the culprits in the atrocious wrongdoing.
Given the sincere, trustworthy and
positive identification by the prosecution witnesses of the assailants and
their respective participation in the felony, appellants’ alibis are rendered
futile. Jurisprudence has it that for an
alibi to prosper, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence that
it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its
commission. Hence, it is not sufficient
that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed.
In the case under consideration,
appellant Jose Barcenal, during the direct
examination, testified that he and appellant Randy Solis were able to finish
their job at about
Q: Now x x x at
A: Yes,
Ma’am.
Q: That
was only your estimate at that time because you were not wearing a wristwatch,
am I correct?
A: Yes,
Ma’am.
Q: So, it
was possible that you even finished earlier with your work than
A: It
could be that I finished my work x x x a little bit earlier than
From the foregoing testimony of
appellant Jose Barcenal, there is a huge possibility
that appellants were present at the scene of the crime when it was committed at
around
Quite pointedly, although appellants
claimed that they reported for work during that day, nobody except Armando Botor and the relatives of appellant Randy Solis affirmed
their alibi. Moreover, we note that Armando
allegedly hired the appellants as truck helpers on
Also unreliable are the testimonies
of appellant Randy’s relatives confirming his alibi. As appropriately articulated in People v. Sumalinog,
Jr. [16]:
One can easily fabricate an alibi and ask friends and
relatives to corroborate it. When a
defense witness is a relative of an accused whose defense is alibi, courts have
more reason to view such testimony with skepticism.
As to the alleged inconsistencies in
the testimonies of Zacarias and Jasam
Barcenal, such do not affect the credibility of these
witnesses, because they refer to collateral and trivial matters that have no
bearing on the commission of the felony.
Unblemished testimony cannot always
be expected from witnesses.[17]
This is especially applicable when they are called to recount the details of a
grisly event that happened before their eyes.
Minor disagreements in their testimony do not at all crush the veracity
of the evidence in its entirety, nor should they reflect adversely on the
witnesses’ credibility, as they erase suspicion that the testimonies were rehearsed
or concocted.[18] Inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters
serve to strengthen rather than destroy the credibility of witnesses to a
crime.[19] Provided that their testimonies agree on
substantial matters, as in this case, the inconsequential contradictions do not
dilute the witnesses’ credibility.
Appellants are clutching at straws in
making an issue of Zacarias’s act of not immediately
reporting the incident or disclosing appellants’ identity after witnessing the
crime. Failure of a witness to divulge
to the authorities that he witnessed a crime and to reveal the identities of
the offenders for a number of days, weeks or even a number of years, is
allowable if there is a valid reason for such delay.[20] Fear for one’s life is a valid explanation for
a witness’ failure to immediately report the crimes and the identities of the offenders
to the authorities.[21] In the case under consideration, Zacarias’ delay in revealing the crime was due to fear. He explained that he was afraid that
appellants and their companions might also kill him and his family. Therefore, his testimony remains trustworthy.
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in
appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery and in finding the
existence of conspiracy.
The essence of treachery is a
deliberate and sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared to
defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.[22] It is an aggravating circumstance that
qualifies the killing of the person to murder.
Two essential elements are required in order that treachery can be
appreciated: (1) The employment of
means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender’s safety
from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, who had, thus no
opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) deliberate or conscious
choice of means, methods or manner of execution. Moreover, it must be alleged in the
information and proved during the trial.
Appellants, who were in hiding, came
out when the two masked men suddenly hit Nelson with bamboo rendering him
helpless to defend himself. Then the two
unidentified men tied Nelson to a coconut tree. It was only when the victim was totally
helpless that appellants and Jimmy commenced their own assault, taking turns in
striking the defenseless victim with their bolos and hacking off the victim’s hands and feet. Jimmy plucked out the victim’s eyes before
cutting off his head. The two masked men
stabbed Nelson on his chest twice. Still dissatisfied, Jimmy scalped the head
of the victim. Clearly, it was
impossible for appellant to defend himself against the onslaught of appellants
and their cohorts. They deliberately
adopted means and methods to ensure the barbaric demise of Nelson.
While it may be true that Nelson had a
bolo at that time, he was unable to use it because of the suddenness and the
stealth employed by the assailants.
Contrary to the postulation of the
appellants, the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of conspiracy.
There is conspiracy when two or more
persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.[23] Conspiracy need not be proven by direct
evidence. It may be inferred from the
conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime,
showing that they acted with common purpose and design. The concerted acts of appellants and the other
assailants showed unanimity in design, intent and execution of the attack
against the victim. Each performed
specific acts with closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a
common purpose to bring about the suffering and death of Nelson. Indubitably, conspiracy was established.
In fine, this Court, defers to the
findings of the trial court which are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, there
being no cogent reason to veer away from such findings. This is in line with the rule stating that
when the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said
findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[24]
Also affirmed is the ruling of the trial
court and the Court of Appeals imposing upon the appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
However, the award of actual damages by
the trial court in the amount of P60,000.00 cannot be sustained,
considering that the prosecution merely presented a list of expenses. This Court has already held that actual
damages cannot be awarded based on a list of expenses presented, as such claim
must be adequately supported by receipts.
In place of the actual damages, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00
should be awarded to the heirs of the victim in line with the prevailing
jurisprudence.[25] Temperate damages are awarded to the heirs of
the victim where no documentary evidence of actual damages were presented in
the trial, because it is reasonable to presume that, when death occurs, the
family of the victim incurred expenses for the wake and funeral.[26] Moreover, appellants are also ordered to pay
the heirs of the victim the amount P50,000.00 as moral damages. However, in addition to these damages,
exemplary damages should also be awarded to the heirs of the victim, since the
qualifying circumstance of treachery was proven by the prosecution.[27] When a crime is committed with an aggravating
circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.[28] This kind of damage is intended to serve as a
deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and
wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of
outrageous conduct.[29]
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon with
Associate Justices Elvi John S.
[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Alfredo D. Agawa; id. at 34-49.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4]
[5] Exhibit “A-1”, Folder of Exhibits, p. 2.
[6] CA rollo, p. 49.
[7]
[8] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[9] Rollo, p. 15.
[10] CA rollo, p. 73.
[11]
[12] People
v. Matito, G.R. No. 144405,
[13] People v. Piedad, 441 Phil. 818, 839 (2002).
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] 466 Phil. 637, 651 (2004).
[17] People
v. Aguila, G.R. No. 171017,
[18]
[19]
[20] People v. Aguinde, 457 Phil. 207, 225 (2003).
[21]
[22] People
v.
[23] People v. Pagalasan, 452 Phil. 341, 363 (2003).
[24] People v. Castillo, G.R. No.
118912,
[25] People v. Tumulak, 448 Phil. 57, 77 (2003).
[26]
[27] People v. Aguila, supra note 15 at 663.
[28]
[29]