PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE BARCENAL AND RANDY SOLIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Barcenal

The Case

This is People versus Barcenal, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Jose Barcenal and Randy Solis, together with Jimmy Barcenal and two unidentified men, for the killing of Nelson Molina with bolos in Baao, Camarines Sur. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the doctrines that repeat in criminal law examinations: the weight given to a child eyewitness, the essence of treachery, the proof of conspiracy by conduct, and the rules on civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.

Procedural History

The accused were charged by information with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, qualified by treachery. Upon arraignment, Jose Barcenal and Randy Solis pleaded not guilty; Jimmy Barcenal and the two unidentified accused remained at large. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 35, rendered its decision dated November 15, 2002, finding Jose Barcenal and Randy Solis guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay an indemnity of 50,000 pesos, actual damages of 60,000 pesos, and the costs. From that judgment, the two accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, on proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, on conspiracy and treachery, and on the award of actual damages.

Facts

On January 17, 2000, at about half past three in the afternoon, Nelson Molina, carrying a bolo and wearing striped short pants and a sando, arrived at the home of Zacarias Barcenal in Barangay Perpetual Help, Iriga City, looking for Jose Barcenal and Randy Solis. He asked Zacarias to take care of him, saying he might suffer the fate of a certain Popoy who had been shot and killed, and intimated that the appellants were angry at him because he had caught them stealing bananas. Nelson then went to his banana plantation, and Zacarias followed.

From a hill about twenty meters away, Zacarias and his son Jasam, an eight year old boy, watched the killing. Two masked men hit Nelson with bamboo, dragged him to a grassy portion, and tied his hands. The masked men then called out the appellants and Jimmy Barcenal, who emerged carrying bolos. The masked men tied Nelson to a coconut tree. Jimmy hacked the victim's right hand, Jose Barcenal hacked the left hand, and Randy Solis hacked the right foot, each nearly severing the limb. Jimmy plucked out the victim's eyes with a piece of wood, cut off his head, and scalped him, while the masked men stabbed the chest twice with a beinte nueve. The assailants then covered the body with coconut leaves and fled.

Out of fear, Zacarias and Jasam stayed away from their house for several days and told no one. The body was later found in a shallow grave at the Baao Municipal Cemetery. Dr. Wilson Moll Lee of the National Bureau of Investigation exhumed the body and found it in an advanced state of decomposition, with the hands and feet missing, the head skeletonized and separated from the body, and the hair possibly scalped, findings that matched the eyewitness accounts. Only after the body was discovered did Zacarias reveal the identities of the perpetrators.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the child Jasam Barcenal.
• Whether or not the guilt of the accused-appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of treachery were established.
• Whether or not the award of actual damages was proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 2, defines conspiracy, and the Court quotes it in resolving the third issue:

a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

This definition supplies the test the Court applies: the appellants must be shown to have agreed to commit the killing and to have performed specific acts with closeness and coordination toward that common purpose.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance. The Court found no reason to doubt Jasam, an eight year old boy who understood the consequence of his oath, and whose testimony was corroborated by Zacarias and by the exhumation report. Where there is no evidence that the principal witness was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated, and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. The delay in reporting was explained by fear.

On the second issue, the Court held that the testimonies of Jasam and Zacarias positively established the direct and active participation of the appellants in the killing, and that the physical findings on the exhumed body matched those testimonies.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing, because the victim was alone when he was mauled and then hacked, and the attack was so sudden and unexpected that he had no opportunity either to avert it or to defend himself. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. The Court also held that conspiracy existed, since direct proof is not essential and may be shown by the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. The appellants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as unmistakably to indicate a common purpose and design to bring about the death of the victim.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the award of actual damages of 60,000 pesos was not proper, because the prosecution failed to present receipts or any substantial evidence to support the claim; actual damages cannot be awarded based merely on a list of expenses. However, temperate damages of 25,000 pesos should be awarded where no documentary evidence of actual damages was presented, because it is reasonable to presume that the family of the victim necessarily incurred expenses for his wake and funeral. The Court further held that moral damages of 50,000 pesos are awarded in cases of violent death even in the absence of proof, because an untimely and violent death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family, and exemplary damages of 25,000 pesos are awarded because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is accorded the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of overlooked or misapplied facts of weight and substance. Second, where there is no evidence that a prosecution witness was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated, and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Third, treachery, or alevosia, exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself from any defense the offended party might make; its essence is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim who is deprived of any real chance to defend himself. Fourth, conspiracy, as defined in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, need not be proved by direct evidence; it may be shown by the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime, indicating a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. Fifth, actual damages require proof, such as receipts; where none is presented, temperate damages may be awarded. Sixth, in cases of violent death, moral damages are awarded even without proof, and exemplary damages are awarded where treachery qualifies the killing.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jose Barcenal and Randy Solis for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, deleted the award of actual damages, and ordered them to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages, and 25,000 pesos as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.

Remember This

Memorize this line: treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim who is deprived of any real chance to defend himself, and conspiracy may be proved by the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime. Examiners use this case for the credibility of child witnesses, the elements of treachery and conspiracy, and the proper awards of damages in murder, especially temperate damages in lieu of unproven actual damages.