UP Law F2021 People v. Barro, Sr.

Criminal Procedure Rule 122 2000 Buena

SUMMARY

Benigno Barro, Joel FLorina dn Jel Barro were charged with the crime of murder and was found guilty by
the RTC of Camarines Sur. They appealed the decision on the ground that the prosecutions’ witnesses have
“irreconcilable and contradictory statements” which were not enough to convict them. They also alleged
that conspiracy was unattendant in the case. The denied the petition and affirmed their conviction.

FACTS
 Benigno Barro, Joel Florin and Joel Barro were charged with the crime of murder. and was found
guilty by the RTC of Camarines Sur;
 The antecedent facts were as follow:
o The group of the victim (Virgilio Saba) was drinking some gin at a local store, while the group of
the accused were playing “pusoy” at the same store;
o When the victim’s group decided to go home, they hurled invectives which irritated the group of
the accused, an altercation almost happened but it was stopped and everyone went their own
ways;
o At some point, when Virgilio, with his group (Rufino Saba, Nimfa Saba and Danilo Libang) was
on his way home, the group of the accused suddenly appeared and struck Virgilio with a knife
directly hitting him on the abdominal region, the accused took turns and ganged up on Virgilio;
o Rufino fled, while Nimfa and Danilo saw how the group murdered Virgilio.
 The prosecution presented Nimfa and Danilo, as a witnesses. They also presented Dr. Roger
Atanacio, the medico-legal in the case;
 After trial of merits, the RTC rendered the assailed decision.

RATIO

W/N the irreconcilable and contradictory statements of the witnesses should not hold as basis for
the accused conviction
No. 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. The alleged variance
in the testimony of the prosecution's two eyewitnesses relate to inconsequential details. At any rate, herein
appellant's participation in the slaying of Virgilio Saba is not being contested.
W/N the accused were guilty of conspiracy
Yes. 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.

FALLO
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.