People v. Barro

3/1/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 338
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Barro, Sr.
*
G.R. No. 118098. August 17, 2000.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

ARNULFO BARRO, SR., ARNULFO BARRO, JR.,
BENIGNO BARRO, JUAN BARRO, JOEL BARRO,
WILFREDO ARROYO, JOEY FLORIN, and CRISTOBAL
SARTE, accused. BENIGNO BARRO and JOEL FLORIN,
accusedappellants.
Criminal Law; Murder; Evidence; Finality of Findings of

Fact; This Court accords great respect to the factual conclusions
drawn by the trial court, particularly on the matter of credibility of
witnesses, since the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the
behavior and demeanor of witnesses while testifying.It has
become a doctrinal rule for this Court to accord great respect to
the factual conclusions drawn by the trial court, particularly on
the matter of credibility of witnesses, since the trial judge had the
opportunity to observe the behavior and demeanor of witnesses
while testifying. We will not disturb the findings of trial courts
with respect to the credibility of the witnesses unless there are
facts, or circumstances, of weight and influence appearing in the
record which have been overlooked, or the significance of which
have been misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial courts.
Same; Same; Conspiracy; Where conspiracy is adequately
shown, the precise modality or extent of participation of each
individual conspirator becomes secondary, the applicable rule
being that the act of one is the act of all of them.The existence of
conspiracy was proven by the prosecution. Where conspiracy is
adequately shown, the precise modality or extent of participation
of each individual conspirator becomes secondary, the applicable
rule being that the act of one conspirator is the act of all of them.
What is important in this case is that the herein appellant
Benigno Barro was positively identified by the vital prosecution
witnesses in a straightforward, categorical and candid manner to
have participated in the overt act before and during the killing of
Virgilio Saba. The alleged inconsistencies do not in any way refute
the positive identification made by the two eyewitnesses that it
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a8a513f3df1955dc2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20
was Benigno Barro, Joel Barro and Joel Florin, among others,
who killed the victim.
Same; Same; Same; It bears emphasis that witnesses
testifying on the same event do not have to be consistent in every
detail as differences in recollections, viewpoints, or impressions are
inevitable.Witnesses are not
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
313
VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 313
expected to remember every single detail of an incident with

perfect or total recall. It bears emphasis that witnesses testifying
on the same event do not have to be consistent in every detail as
differences in recollections, viewpoints, or impressions are
inevitable. Even the most candid witness oftentimes make
mistakes and fall into confused and inconsistent statements but
such honest lapses do not necessarily affect their credibility.
Same; Same; Same; Relationship per se of a witness to the
victim, whether by consanguinity or affinity, is no indicator of an
impaired credibility of a witness, nor would it affect his positive
and clear testimony and render it unworthy.As to the
appellants allegation that the witnesses were allegedly interested
blood relatives of the deceased victim, and thus the trial court
erred in relying on Danilo Libang and Nimfa Sabas testimonies,
suffice it to say that no law disqualifies relatives of the victims of
a crime from testifying about the facts and circumstances of the
crime. Relationship per se of a witness to the victim, whether by
consanguinity or affinity, is no indicator of an impaired credibility
of a witness, nor would it affect his positive and clear testimony
and render it unworthy. The defense did not even present
evidence to indicate that the said prosecution witnesses were
moved by improper motives. Thus, the presumption is that they
were not so moved and their testimonies are thus entitled to full
faith and credit.
Same; Same; Same; Conspiracy need not be shown by direct
proof of an agreement by the parties to commit the crime. The
conduct of the malefactors before, during or after the commission
of the crime is sufficient to prove their conspiracy.Conspiracy

need not be shown by direct proof of an agreement by the parties
to commit the crime. The conduct of the malefactors before,
during or after the commission of the crime is sufficient to prove
their conspiracy.
Same; Same; Same; Conspiracy was shown to exist when the
appellants and their companions surrounded the victim and,
without a word, hacked and stabbed him to death.In People vs.
Datun this Court ruled that conspiracy was shown to exist when
the appellants and their companions surrounded the victim and,
without a word, hacked and stabbed him to death.
Same; Same; Same; While the autopsy report of a medico legal
expert in cases of murder, or homicide, is preferably accepted to
show the extent of the injuries suffered by the victim, it is not the
only competent evidence thereon.The testimony of an expert
witness is not indispensable to a successful prosecution for
murder. While the autopsy report of a medico
314
legal expert in cases of murder, or homicide, is preferably

accepted to show the extent of the injuries suffered by the victim,
it is not the only competent evidence to prove the injuries and the
fact of death. The testimonies of credible witnesses are equally
admissible regarding such injuries and the surrounding
circumstances thereof.
Same; Same; Same; Under the laws of evidence, corroborative
evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the
suspicion that the witness is prevaricating or that his observations
were inaccurate.Hence, granting that Dr. Atanacios opinions as
to the instrument used in the killing of Virgilio, and the cause of
death should be expunged from the record as he might not qualify
as an expert witness, conviction of herein accused is still in order.
Dr. Atanacios opinion on the matter was merely corroborative, as
he was presented merely as an ordinary witness, and, under the
laws of evidence, corroborative evidence is necessary only when
there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness is
prevaricating or that his observations were inaccurate. In the case
at bar, since credibility of prosecution witnesses was established
and these witnesses were able to positively identify the three
accused to be among those who brutally slew Virgilio with bladed
instruments, resort to, and reliance on Dr. Atanacios testimony

were mere surplusage.
Same; Same; Same; Mitigating circumstances are personal to
an accused in whose favor they are determined to exist and cannot
be enjoyed by his coconspirators or coaccused.However,
mitigating circumstances are personal to an accused in whose
favor they are determined to exist and cannot be enjoyed by his
coconspirators or coaccused.
Same; Same; Same; Penalty; Where the penalty imposed on
the coaccused who did not appeal was a nullity because it was
never authorized by law, that penalty imposed on the accused who
did not appeal can be corrected to make it conform to the penalty
prescribed by law, the reason being that said penalty can never
become final and executory and it is within the duty and inherent
power of the Court to have it conformable with law.Joel Barro,
below 15 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, is
entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
pursuant to Article 68, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The
penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death. Two degrees lower is prision correcional maximum to
prision mayor medium. Joel Barro escaped from jail, hence, he is
disqualified from the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
He should, therefore, be meted the straight penalty of eight years
which is within the medium period (6 years 1 month and 11 days
to 8 years and 20 days) of the said penalty. The trial
315
VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 315
court erred in imposing the penalty of imprisonment of 8 years

and 8 months because it is outside the range of said penalty. The
records show that Joel Barro did not appeal. However, where the
penalty imposed on the coaccused who did not appeal was a
nullity because it was never authorized by law, that penalty
imposed on the accused who did not appeal can be corrected to
make it conform to the penalty prescribed by law, the reason
being that, said penalty can never become final and executory and
it is within the duty and inherent power of the Court to have it
conformable with law.
Same; Same; Same; Same; There being no mitigating nor
aggravating circumstance, the trial court correctly imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is the medium period of the
penalty for murder.As to accusedappellant Benigno Barro,
there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the trial

court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which
is the medium period of the penalty for murder.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of San

Jose, Camarines Sur, Br. 30.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiffappellee.
Public Attorneys Office for accusedappellants.
BUENA, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision dated April 11, 1994

rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, San Jose,
Camarines Sur, finding Benigno Barro, Joel Florin and Joel
Barro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the accused Benigno Barro is hereby sentenced

to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the inherent
accessories provided by law; the accused Joel Florin to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum to fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal,
as maximum; the accused Joel Barro to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of eight (8) years and eight (8) months of prision
mayor, and the three (3) of them to indemnify, jointly and
severally the heirs of the late Virgilio Saba the sum of Fifty,
Thousand Pesos
316

(P50,000.00), the sum of Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred

Seventy Six Pesos (P38,176.00), as actual damages, and the sum
of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), all of Philippine Currency,
as moral damages, which civil liability shall be enforced pursuant
to Art. 110, RPC, and for each of them to pay the proportionate
costs.
The accused, Benigno Barro, is entitled to full credit of his
preventive imprisonment upon proper showing that he agreed to
abide with (sic) the rules imposed upon convicted persons,
otherwise, he shall only be entitled to fourfifths (4/5) credit
thereof. As to the accused, Joel Barro and Joel Florin, pursuant to
Art. 197 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, being Youthful
offenders, both of them shall be credited in the service of their
sentence with the full time they spent in actual confinement and
detention.
The case against the accused, Arnulfo Barro, Sr., Arnulfo
Barro, Jr., Juan Barro, Wilfredo Arroyo and Cristobal Sarte is
hereby ordered archived subject to reactivation as soon as the
court acquires jurisdiction over them.
1
SO ORDERED.
The facts of the case, as correctly summarized in the

Peoples Brief, are as follows:
On June 29, 1989, around 6:00 oclock in the evening, at Sitio

Catduce, Turague, Sangay, Camarines Sur, while waiting for the
drizzle to subside, the group of Virgilio Saba, Danilo Libang,
Rufino Saba, Exequiel Dacuno and Hilario Cristo, opted to down a
few bottles of gin before going home. The group proceeded to a
store owned by one Eli Credo where they ordered two bottles and
some polotan. Eli on his part allowed the group to use the
kitchen of the said store where the group could enjoy their drink.
(TSN, April 8, 1991; TSN, October 16, 1991, p. 3)
At about the same time, Nimfa Saba, wife of Rufino also
arrived to buy some viands for supper and kerosene. (TSN,
October 16, 1991, p. 20) However, upon learning of Rufinos
presence, she decided to stay and wait for her husband. While
waiting, she conversed with Edwina Credo, wife of Eli, who was
attending the store at that time. (Ibid., p. 3)
Outside the store was an awning where Juan Barro, Arnulfo
Barro, Jr., Joel Florin, Joel Barro and Cristobal Arte (invariably
referred to in the records as Cristobal Sarte) were playing cards
known as pusoy. (Ibid, pp. 45; pp. 2021)
_______________
1 RTC Decision, Original Records, pp. 391400.
317
VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 317

At around 7:00 oclock that evening, since the drizzle had stopped
and considering that Hilario Cristo was already losing his normal
dexterity due to excess alcohol intake, Virgilios group decided to
wrapup their drinking spree and went home instead. Since it was
already dark, Nimfa who went along with them carried an
improvised kerosene lamp known in the local dialect as caraba.
(TSN, August 14, 1991, p. 7; Ibid., p. 8)
On their way home while traversing the National road going to

Tiwi, Hilario who was drunk kept on hurling invectives and
making oral challenges to anybody: Siisay an maorag. (who is
tough) (TSN, April 8, 1991, pp. 89; TSN, August 14, 1991: Ibid.,
p. 5)
Without their knowledge, such oral invectives hurled by
Hilario infuriated the group of Joel Barro who was then still
playing pusoy at the store. And while they were about seventy
(70) meters away from that store, Juan Barro confronted Hilario
Cristo, followed immediately by Arnulfo Barro, Jr., Benigno
Barro, Joel Barro, Joel Florin, Cristobal Arte and Wilfredo
Arroyo. Exasperated, Juan Barro acrimoniously asked Hilario
what he wanted. (TSN, October 16, 1991, pp. 56; August 14,
1991, p. 11)
Suspecting that something untoward might happen, Virgilio,
Rufino and Nimfa, confident that the irate group would do them
no harm, since the latter were laborers of their father in his
lemon plantation, tried to pacify the group telling them to brush
aside and ignore Hilario and his importunities, since he was
under the influence of liquor. (TSN, April 8, 1991, p. 8; TSN,
October 16, 1991, p. 6) However, instead of mellowing down, their
actuations all the more irked Benigno Barro, resulting in a heated
confrontation between the latter and that of Virgilio. To calm
down the almost tense situation and to avoid an imminent
physical confrontation between the two groups, Danilo Libang
pulled away Virgilio from Benigno. (TSN, August 14, 1991, p. 10)
Believing that everything was already settled, Virgilios group
continued headway to their respective houses. But to their great
consternation and surprise, an enraged Arnulfo Barro, Sr.
instantaneously alighted when the group passed by his house
located along the National road and which was around fifty (50)
meters from the place where they were first accosted. Arnulfo Sr.,
brandishing a bolo known as dinalayap confronted Virgilios
group fiercely uttering Haen an mga hayop na iyan? (Where are
those animals?) Immediately thereafter, sensing another trouble
Virgilio embraced Arnulfo, Sr. telling the latter, Wala ito Nol,
wala pang nangyayari. (TSN, October 16, 1991, pp. 79; April 8,
1991, pp. 1011)
At this precise moment, Arnulfo, Sr.s attention was diverted
upon seeing Exequiel Dacuno who was then one of Virgilios
companions.
318

Thenceforth, he challenged the latter, O, ano Exequiel, ano

malaban ka? Exequiel, as if hearing nothing ignored the
challenge and casually left the place thereby leaving the others.
(TSN, April 8, 1991, p. 12; TSN, August 14, 1991, p. 9; October 16,
1991, p. 9)
It was at this juncture that Wilfredo Arroyo, Benigno Barro,
Juan Barro, Arnulfo Barro, Jr., Joel Barro, Joel Florin and
Cristobal Arte spontaneously positioned themselves in front of
Virgilio and without forewarning the latter, Wilfredo Arroyo
suddenly struck Virgilio with a knife directly hitting him on the
abdominal region. Thereafter, the Barros, Joel Florin and
Cristobal Arte, all armed with bladed weapon briskly took turns
in gangingup mercilessly Virgilio Saba, hitting him all over his
body several times. (TSN, October 16, 1991, pp. 1011, TSN, April
8, 1991, pp. 1213; TSN, August 8, 1991, p. 8)
Nimfa, Rufino and Danilo were dumbfounded upon witnessing
the gruesome crime happening right before their very eyes.
Trepidation overpowered Rufino such that unmindful of his wife,
he ran away leaving behind Nimfa, Danilo and Virgilio who was
still being mauled. Danilo on his part was about to extend some
help but was prevented since Cristobal Arte and Juan Barro
knowing that Danilo was about to aid Virgilio chased him, so he
was left with no other alternative but to also run away. (TSN,
October 16, 1991, p. 13; TSN, April 8, 1991, p. 15)
Beleaguered though she was, Nimfa on her part was able to
cry for help. But this was the most that she could do under this
most compelling circumstances. Hence, while yelling thats
enough she could just witness how Virgilio was being mauled to
death by Barros group. She also witnessed how Virgilio, who was
already severely wounded, was grappling to walk towards a
coconut tree beside the road, approximately about three (3)
meters from where the brutal slaying happened, where he
subsequently fell down. (TSN, October 16, 1991, pp. 1115)
Still confused, Nimfa was about to approach Virgilio after he
fell down when she (was) tripped (off), throwing away the
improvised lamp she was carrying. Hence, with no other option,
she went back to look for another. Upon reaching the house of one
Angeles Aquino, she was able to borrow one and while carrying
the said lamp on her way back, Arnulfo Barro, Jr., carrying a
knapsack and a pair of shoes passed by her. Since her attention
was on the fate of Virgilio, she did not mind him. (TSN, October
16, 1991, pp. 1516)
Upon reaching the place where the killing happened, Nimfa
already saw many people gathered including Eli Credo, her
husband Rufino and Virgilios wife Tedia Saba. She and Tedia
decided to board Virgilio to a jeep and brought him straight to St.
John Hospital at Naga City. However,
319
VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 319

in the hospital, the attending physician of Virgilio pronounced

him dead. (TSN, October 16, 1991, pp. 1618)
So, the late Virgilio Saba was brought back to Sangay,
Camarines Sur, where Dr. Roger Atanacio conducted an autopsy
2
on his cadaver (Exh. A).
3
In his report Dr. Atanacio found out that Virgilios death
was caused by massive hemorrhage, secondary to multiple
stab wounds. (Exh. A2) Per MedicoLegal Certificate,
Virgilio suffered the following injuries:
1. Wound stab nonpenetrating, 2 cm in length, 3 cm

in depth, mid axillary line, level of 7th rib.
in depth, posterior axillary line, level of 9th rib.
in depth, along the left nipple line, level of 8th rib.
4. Wound stab penetrating, 2 cm in length, along the
left nipple line, 5 cm above umbilicus, with omental
evisceration.
5. Wound stab penetrating, 2 cm in length, 3 cm above
left paraumbilical area with omental evisceration.
6. Wound stab penetrating, 2 cm in length, 5 cm below
left paraumbilical area.
7. Wound and avulsion, 2 x 1 cm subcutaneous depth
3 cm below right paraumbilical area.
8. Wound, incised, 3.5 cm in length, 4 cm in depth left
mid upper arm.
9. Wound, incised, 3 cm in length, 4 cm depth, mid
forearm left.
10. Wound, incised, 3 cm in length, 4.5 cm depth, Distal
3rd left forearm.
11. Wound, stab, penetrating 2 cm in length along right
nipple line, 6 cm above umbilicus with omental
evisceration.
12. Wound, stab, nonpenetrating 2 cm in length, 3 cm
depth, located at right posterior axillary line, 3 cm
above the level of umbilicus.
13. Wound, stab, penetrating, 2 cm in length, right
posterior axillary line, level of 9th rib with omental
evisceration.
14. Wound, hacked, 3 cm in length, 4 cm depth, upper
thigh left.
Wound hacked, 4 cm in length, bone depth, right

15.
parietal area.
_______________
2 Appellees Brief, pp. 311, Rollo, pp. 150158.

3 Exhibit A, Original Records, pp. 34.
320

16. Wound, hacked, 5 cm in length, 4 cm depth, left

outer lumbar area.
17. Wound, stab, nonpenetrating, 2 cm in length, 3 cm
depth, level of T12 5 cm right para vertebral area
(back).
18. Wound, stab 2 cm, 6 cm depth, right upper outer
quadrant buttocks.
19. Abrasion, confluent 2 x 2 cm left knee.
Internal Findings:
1. There is a perforating injury at the head of pancreas,

apparently an extension of wound #4.
2. There is a thru and thru injury of the splenic flexure.
3. There is a thru and thru injury of the duodenum, severely
damaged gastroepeploic artery.
4. The inferior mesenteric artery is severely damaged.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Massive Hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds.
On October 31, 1989, the Provincial Prosecutor of

Camarines Sur filed an Information dated October 26, 1989
which reads:
The undersigned 3rd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses

Arnulfo Barro, Sr., Arnulfo Barro, Jr., Benigno Barro, Juan Barro,
Joel Barro, Wilfredo Arroyo, Joel Florin and Cristobal Arte with
the crime of Murder defined and punished under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on or about the 29th day of June, 1989 at Sitio Catduce,
Barangay Turague, Municipality of Sagnay, Province of
Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused Joel Barro, who is a minor, 15 years of
age, at the time of the commission of the offense and who acted
with discernment with the seven (7) remaining accused who were
still at large, with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating
together and mutually helping one another, armed with sharp
bladed instrument, with treachery and evident premeditation,
with cruelty and abuse of superior strength, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab one
after the other one Virgilio Saba y Libang thereby inflicting upon
the latter multiple stab wounds on the different parts of his body
which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.
321
VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 321

That as a consequence of the illegal acts of the accused, the heirs

of said deceased suffered damages in the amount of P50,000.00
plus other forms of damages that may be proven in Court.
4
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
For their part, Benigno Barro and Joel Florin interposed

the defense of alibi, claiming that they were in the house of
Arnulfo Barro, Sr. in Catduce, Turague, Sangay,
Camarines Sur, when the incident happened. Joel Barro
failed to testify because he escaped from his confinement at
the Tinangis Penal Farm, in a jailbreak.
As aforestated, on April 11, 1994, after trial on the
merits, the trial court rendered the herein assailed
Decision.
As Joel Barro escaped from his confinement during the
trial, a notice of appeal was filed only by Benigno Barro
and Joel Florin
5
through their counsel Atty. Briones. In a
Resolution dated October 14, 1996, this Court granted
appellant Joel Florins motion to withdraw appeal. The sole
appellant in the case at bar is Benigno Barro.
Appellant raises the following errors:
The trial court erred in convicting the three (3) accused of the
offense charged on the basis of the contradictory and
irreconcilable testimonies of the two (2) prosecution witnesses
Danilo Libang and Nimfa Saba, who are blood relatives of the
victim, and on the basis of the wounds sustained by the latter.
II
The trial court erred in holding that, with the nineteen (19)
wounds inflicted on the body of the deceased, Virgilio Saba,
conspiracy is established.
III
The trial court erred in giving undue reliance on the medical

findings of Dr. Roger Atanacio on the cause of death and the
surrounding circum
_______________
4 Information, Original Records, p. 34.

5 Resolution, Rollo, p. 188.
322

stances thereof notwithstanding the fact that said witness

relevant practical experiences, special knowledge and skill of the
subjectmatter about which he is to testify, did not qualify him as
an expert; and in not disallowing hypothetical questions asked
6
that tends to elicit conclusions as to the facts directly in issue.
After a careful study of the records of the case and the

pleadings submitted by both parties, the Court finds the
appeal to be without merit.
In support of the first assigned error, appellant faults
the court a quo for its reliance on the testimonies of the
vital prosecution witnesses, namely: Danilo Libang and
Nimfa Saba. He contends that such testimonies are replete
of contradictions and are diametrically opposed on such
material points as to cast serious doubt on their integrity
and credibility. Appellant alleges that there are
irreconcilable variance in the testimony of prosecution
witnesses, namely: Nimfas claim that after the first
confrontation was pacified, both groups parted ways which,
allegedly, contravenes Danilos testimony that after such
mollification, Juan Barros group followed them and tried
to block their way; and the exact participation of Arnulfo
Barro, Sr., for, according to Nimfa, the latter simply
accosted them with a bolo, hurting nobody, while Danilo
positively identified him as the one who inflicted injuries
upon the body of the deceased Virgilio Saba.
Appellants contention is not impressed with merit.
It has become a doctrinal rule for this Court to accord
great respect to the factual conclusions drawn by the trial
court, particularly on the matter of credibility of witnesses,

since the trial judge had the opportunity to observe7 the
behavior and demeanor of witnesses while testifying. We
will not disturb the findings of trial courts with respect to
the credibility of the witnesses unless there are facts, or
circumstances, of weight and influence appearing in the
record which have been overlooked, or the significance of
which have 8been misapprehended or misinterpreted by the
trial courts.
______________
6 Appellants Brief, pp. 12, Rollo, pp. 9495.

7 People vs. Cabel, 282 SCRA 410 (1997).
8 People vs. Carpio, 282 SCRA 23 (1997).
323
VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 323

The alleged variance in the testimony of the prosecutions

two eyewitnesses relate to inconsequential details. At any
rate, herein appellants participation in the slaying of
Virgilio Saba is not being contested.
Moreover, the existence of conspiracy was proven by the
prosecution. Where conspiracy is adequately shown, the
precise modality or extent of participation of each
individual conspirator becomes secondary, the applicable
rule being
9
that the act of one conspirator is the act of all of
them. What is important in this case is that the herein
appellant Benigno Barro was positively identified by the
vital prosecution witnesses in a straightforward,
categorical and candid manner to have participated in the
overt act before and during the killing of Virgilio Saba. The
alleged inconsistencies do not in any way refute the
positive identification made by the two eyewitnesses that it
was Benigno Barro, Joel Barro and Joel Florin, among
others, who killed the victim.
Witnesses are not expected to remember every 10
single
detail of an incident with perfect or total recall. It bears
emphasis that witnesses testifying on the same event do
not have to be consistent in every detail as differences in 11
recollections, viewpoints, or impressions are inevitable.
Even the most candid witness oftentimes make mistakes
and fall into confused and inconsistent statements but 12 such
honest lapses do not necessarily affect their credibility.
As to the appellants allegation that the witnesses were

allegedly interested blood relatives of the deceased victim,
and thus the trial court erred in relying on Danilo Libang
and Nimfa Sabas testimonies, suffice it to say that no law
disqualifies relatives of the victims of a crime from
testifying about the facts and circumstances of the crime.
Relationship per se of a witness to the victim, whether by
consanguinity or affinity, is no indicator of an impaired
credibility of a witness, nor would it affect his positive and
clear testi
_______________
9 People vs. Mercado, 275 SCRA 581 (1997).

10 People vs. Alas, 274 SCRA 310 (1997).
11 People vs. Alas, 274 SCRA 310 (1997); People vs. Alolod, 266 SCRA
154 (1997).
12 People vs. Mendoza, 236 SCRA 666 (1994).
324

13
mony and render it unworthy. The defense did not even
present evidence to indicate that the said prosecution
witnesses were moved by improper motives. Thus, the
presumption is that they were not so moved and 14
their
testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credit.
With regard to the second assigned error, appellant
claims that the trial court erred in holding them guilty of
conspiracy for the murder of Virgilio Saba on the basis of
the nineteen (19) wounds inflicted on the deceased.
According to them, the evidence on record is bereft of proof
to establish facts and circumstances that could lead to a
reasonable and logical inference that the three accused
agreed to kill the victim and actually decided to commit it.
The Court is not persuaded.
Conspiracy need not be shown by direct proof of an
agreement by the parties to commit the crime. The conduct
of the malefactors before, during or after the commission
15
of
the crime is sufficient to prove their conspiracy.
The following telling circumstances attending the
instant case all point out unequivocally to the existence of
conspiracy: the prosecution witnesses were able to
categorically identify the accused as among those present
in the store of Eli Credo playing pusoy during that fateful
night; they were the companions of Juan Barro when the
latter tried to accost an unruly Hilario Cristo; they were all

there, present, and armed with bladed weapons, during the
precise moment when Arnulfo Barro, Sr., brandishing a
bolo, ferociously confronted the group of the deceased; and
their active participation in the mauling, stabbing and
killing of the helpless victim.
16
In People vs. Datun this Court ruled that conspiracy
was shown to exist when the appellants and their
companions surrounded the victim and, without a word,
hacked and stabbed him to death. The same thing could be
said in this case, considering the following testimony of
Danilo Libang on crossexamination:
_______________
13 People vs. Baniel, 275 SCRA 472 (1997).

14 People vs. Perciano, 233 SCRA 393 (1994).
15 People vs. Hayahay, 279 SCRA 567 (1997).
16 272 SCRA 380 (1997).
325
VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 325

Atty. Orino: When Virgilio Saba was then being assaulted

by the group of the Barros namely Arnulfo Barro, Sr.,
Arnulfo Barro, Jr., Benigno Barro, Juan Barro, Joel Barro,
Alfredo (sic) Ar royo, Josel (sic) Florin and Cristobal Arte,
some of them were behind Virgilio Saba, correct?
A While he was still stepping backwards the group was in
front of him but when the group caught up with him
that was the time when they gangedup with (sic) him
and was surrounding him.
Q And the others were stabbing the back of Virgilio Saba?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many did you see stabbing the back of Virgilio
Saba?
A The group was encircling Virgilio Saba.
Q So you want to impress this Honorable Court that all of
them stabbed the back of Virgilio Saba?
A There were those who were in front, there were those
who were
17
on the side, there were those who were at the
back.
Taking into consideration the foregoing testimony of

prosecution witness Danilo Libang, conspiracy may be
inferred therefrom as it is clear that the acts of the accused
were characterized by unity of purpose, intent and design
in order to effect a common unlawful objectiveto kill the
victim Virgilio Saba.
The above quoted testimony also serves to negate
appellants allegation that the aggravating circumstance of
treachery is not attendant in this case. Appellant cites the
principle that for treachery to be appreciated, the offender
employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the
crime which tend directly and specially to insure, its
execution without risk to himself, arising from the defense
which the offended party might make, which means that no
opportunity was given to the latter to do so.
This was precisely what the appellant and his co
accused did to the victim Virgilio Saba. The accused, all
armed with bladed weapons, surrounded the accused, who
was not armed, and together, attacked the victim thereby
insuring the execution of the crime without risk to
themselves, and giving the victim no opportunity to
_______________
17 TSN, August 14, 1991, p. 11.
326

defend himself nor harm his attackers. Thus, the trial court
did not err in ruling that treachery is attendant in this
case.
On the third assigned error, appellant assails the trial
court for according credence to the medical findings of Dr.
Roger Atanacio as to the cause of death and other
surrounding circumstances of Virgilio Saba,
notwithstanding that said witness relevant and practical
experience, and special knowledge do not qualify him as an
expert witness.
This contention is misplaced.
The testimony of an expert witness is not indispensable
to a successful prosecution for murder. While the autopsy
report of a medico legal expert in cases of murder, or
homicide, is preferably accepted to show the extent of the
injuries suffered by the victim, it is not the only competent
evidence to prove the injuries and the fact of death. The
testimonies of credible witnesses are equally admissible

regarding18
such injuries and the surrounding circumstances
thereof.
Hence, granting that Dr. Atanacios opinions as to the
instrument used in the killing of Virgilio, and the cause of
death should be expunged from the record as he might not
qualify as an expert witness, conviction of herein accused is
still in order. Dr. Atanacios opinion on the matter was
merely corroborative, as he, was presented merely as an
ordinary witness, and, under the laws of evidence,
corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are
reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness19 is
prevaricating or that his observations were inaccurate. In
the case at bar, since credibility of prosecution witnesses
was established and these witnesses were able to positively
identify the three accused to be among those who brutally
slew Virgilio with bladed instruments, resort to, and
reliance on Dr. Atanacios testimony were mere surplusage.
We now discuss the penalties imposed on the appellants.
As heretofore stated, the circumstances recited indicate
the attendance of conspiracy among the appellants. In such
case, the act
_______________
18 People vs. Baybayon, 184 SCRA 13 (1990).

19 People vs. Comia, 236 SCRA 185 (1994).
327
VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 327

of one becomes the act of all, and each of the accused will
20
thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.
However, mitigating circumstances are personal to an
accused in whose favor they are determined to exist21 and
cannot be enjoyed by his coconspirators or coaccused.
The trial court correctly ruled that:
The court, however, believes that the accused, Joel Barro being
then 14 years old, eleven (11) months and twentytwo (22) days,
who acted with discernment at the time of the commission of the
offense as alleged in the information and therefore, a fact deemed
admitted by the prosecution, said accused is entitled to a
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, and pursuant to
Art. 68, par. (1), Revised Penal Code, he is entitled to a
discretionary penalty which is lower by two (2) degrees from that
provided by the law for the crime which he committed. And with
respect to accused Joel Florin, then 17 years old at the time of the
commission of the offense he is entitled to the penalty next lower
to that prescribed by law shall be imposed to him but always in
the proper period.
As to accused, Benigno Barro neither is their (sic) aggravating
nor mitigating circumstance is attendant in the commission of the
offense, the penalty to be imposed shall, therefore, be in the
medium period. As such, the indeterminate sentence law is not
applicable as regards the said accused. But, as regards the
accused, Joel Barro, who escaped from jail during the pendency of
this case, he is disqualified from the benefits of the indeterminate
sentence law (People vs. Manabat, L8904, December 28, 1956
O.G. 6090 cited in 78 SCRA 57). However, as regards the accused
Joel Florin the indeterminate (sentence) law is applicable to him
and the penalty imposable shall be within the range of a penalty
next lower to that prescribed by the code for the offense, and the
maximum shall be that, which after taking into account the
circumstance attending the commission of the offense shall be
22
properly imposed under the rules of the code.
Joel Barro, below 15 years old at the time of the

commission of the offense, is entitled to the privileged
mitigating circumstance of
______________
20 People v. Sanchez, et al., 308 SCRA 264 [1999].

21 People vs. Quitorio, 285 SCRA 196 [1998].
22 RTC Decision, pp. 910, Rollo, pp. 2425.
328

23
minority pursuant to Article 68, par. I of the Revised
Penal Code. The penalty for murder 24
is reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to death. Two degrees lower is
prision correcional maximum to prision mayor medium. 25
Joel Barro escaped from jail, hence, he is disqualified from
the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. He should,
therefore, be meted the straight penalty of eight years
which is within the medium period (6 years 1 month and 11
days to 8 years and 20 days) of the said penalty. The trial
court erred in imposing the penalty of imprisonment of 8
years and 8 months because it is outside the range of said
penalty. The records show that Joel Barro did not appeal.
However, where the penalty imposed on the coaccused who

did not appeal was a nullity because it was never
authorized by law, that penalty imposed on the accused
who did not appeal can be corrected to make it conform to
the penalty prescribed by law, the reason being that, said
penalty can never become final and executory and it is
within the duty and inherent
26
power of the Court to have it
conformable with law.
Joel Florin, 17 years old at the time of the commission of
the offense is entitled to the privileged mitigating 27
circumstance of minority pursuant to Art. 68, par. 2 of the
Revised Penal Code. One degree lower than the penalty
imposed by law is prision mayor in its maximum period, to
reclusion temporal in its medium period.
_______________
23 Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of

age.When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is
one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of
Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not
exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that
he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be
imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that
prescribed by law for the crime which be committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed,
but always in the proper period.
24 Article 248, Revised Penal Code.

25 Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law.
26 People vs. Gatward, et al., 267 SCRA 785 [1997].
27 See footnote No. 23.
329
VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 329

The maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be

imposed in its medium period (12 years, 5 months and 11
days to 14 years, 10 months and 20 days). The minimum of
the indeterminate penalty is anywhere within the range of
the penalty next lower, which is prision correccional
maximum to prision mayor medium (4 years, 2 months and
1 day to 10 years). As to Joel Florin, the trial court
correctly imposed the indeterminate penalty of

imprisonment of six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1)
day of prision mayor, as minimum to fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum.
As to accusedappellant Benigno Barro, there being no
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the trial court
correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which
is the medium period of the penalty for murder.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused Joel
Barro is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
eight (8) years of prision mayor.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing and

De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Notes.Conspiracy does not require a previous plan or

agreement to commit assault; It is sufficient if, at the time
of such aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts
a common intent or desire to attack. (People vs. Robedillo,
286 SCRA 379 [1998])
Where there is neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua.
(People vs. Viovicente, 286 SCRA 1 [1998])
o0o
330
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People v. Barro

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationfull text

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Barro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Barro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/1/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 338

312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

Criminal Law; Murder; Evidence; Finality of Findings of

VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 313

People vs. Barro, Sr.

expected to remember every single detail of an incident with

of the crime is sufficient to prove their conspiracy.Conspiracy

314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Barro, Sr.

legal expert in cases of murder, or homicide, is preferably

instruments, resort to, and reliance on Dr. Atanacios testimony

VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 315

People vs. Barro, Sr.

court erred in imposing the penalty of imprisonment of 8 years

there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the trial

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of San

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from the Decision dated April 11, 1994

WHEREFORE, the accused Benigno Barro is hereby sentenced

316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(P50,000.00), the sum of Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred

The facts of the case, as correctly summarized in the

On June 29, 1989, around 6:00 oclock in the evening, at Sitio

1 RTC Decision, Original Records, pp. 391400.

VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 317

On their way home while traversing the National road going to

318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Thenceforth, he challenged the latter, O, ano Exequiel, ano

VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 319

in the hospital, the attending physician of Virgilio pronounced

1. Wound stab nonpenetrating, 2 cm in length, 3 cm

Wound hacked, 4 cm in length, bone depth, right

2 Appellees Brief, pp. 311, Rollo, pp. 150158.

320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

16. Wound, hacked, 5 cm in length, 4 cm depth, left

1. There is a perforating injury at the head of pancreas,

On October 31, 1989, the Provincial Prosecutor of

The undersigned 3rd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses

VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 321

That as a consequence of the illegal acts of the accused, the heirs

For their part, Benigno Barro and Joel Florin interposed

The trial court erred in giving undue reliance on the medical

4 Information, Original Records, p. 34.

322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

stances thereof notwithstanding the fact that said witness

After a careful study of the records of the case and the

court, particularly on the matter of credibility of witnesses,

6 Appellants Brief, pp. 12, Rollo, pp. 9495.

VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 323

The alleged variance in the testimony of the prosecutions

As to the appellants allegation that the witnesses were

9 People vs. Mercado, 275 SCRA 581 (1997).

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

latter tried to accost an unruly Hilario Cristo; they were all

13 People vs. Baniel, 275 SCRA 472 (1997).

VOL. 338, AUGUST 17, 2000 325

Atty. Orino: When Virgilio Saba was then being assaulted