People v. Barnuevo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 2, 1983, in Abuyog, Leyte, Leopoldo Nacman was attacked by Filomeno Barnuevo, Demetrio Palacat, and Teresito Sabalza. Eyewitnesses Mauro Valdez and Eduardo Zarzua testified that they saw the three accused box, kick, and stab Leopoldo. Leopoldo fell, pleaded for them to stop, but was kicked again, falling face down. He was brought to the hospital and died on December 11, 1983. The victim's widow testified that Leopoldo identified the three accused as his attackers. Dr. Josenilo E. Bunado testified that Leopoldo sustained multiple stab wounds, with the cause of death being septicemia peritonitis secondary to multiple stab wounds. Procedural History: The accused were charged with Murder. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them of Murder and sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty and P30,000 indemnity. They appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the conviction and increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua and the indemnity to P50,000. The CA certified the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellants contended that the CA should have appreciated the justifying circumstance of defense of relative for Demetrio Palacat and that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies should not be given weight, given Demetrio's admission of stabbing the victim.
Issue(s)
Whether the justifying circumstance of defense of relative can be appreciated in favor of Demetrio Palacat. Whether Filomeno Barnuevo and Teresito Sabalza are liable for murder despite Demetrio Palacat admitting to the stabbing. Whether the killing was attended by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength. Whether the penalty and indemnity awarded are proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, convicting Filomeno Barnuevo, Demetrio Palacat, and Teresito Sabalza of Murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They were ordered to pay P50,000 death indemnity and P176,000 as indemnity for the deceased's loss of earning capacity.
Ratio Decidendi
On the justifying circumstance of defense of relative: The Court held that the justifying circumstance of defense of relative could not be appreciated. The requirements for defense of relative, namely unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable means to repel it, and no provocation given by the person making the defense, were not met. The Court found that even if the victim initiated the attack, the aggression ceased when the appellants wrested the knife from him and he fell in a helpless position. At that point, the appellants became the unlawful aggressors by continuing to inflict blows. The presence of multiple fatal stab wounds also negated the claim of justification, indicating a determined effort to kill. On the liability of Filomeno Barnuevo and Teresito Sabalza: The Court ruled that even if Demetrio Palacat admitted to stabbing the victim, his co-appellants Filomeno Barnuevo and Teresito Sabalza were equally liable due to conspiracy. The Court emphasized that in a conspiracy, it is not necessary for all conspirators to directly inflict fatal blows; what is important is that they performed specific acts with closeness and coordination, indicating a common purpose to kill. The acts of Filomeno and Teresito in boxing and kicking the victim while Demetrio was stabbing him clearly showed a unity of purpose and design to kill Leopoldo Nacman. On the presence of aggravating circumstances: The Court found that the killing was attended by abuse of superior strength. The victim was alone and unarmed, attacked by three assailants, one of whom was armed with a knife. Furthermore, the victim was described as "tipsy and weak" and was occupied with fending off the blows from Filomeno and Teresito while Demetrio was stabbing him. The number of wounds inflicted also indicated excessive force disproportionate to any means available to the victim, thus constituting abuse of superior strength. On the penalty and indemnity: The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua as the crime committed was Murder, which carries a penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, with no modifying circumstances. The Court also sustained the increase in death indemnity to P50,000 in line with current jurisprudence. Additionally, the Court awarded P176,000 as indemnity for the loss of earning capacity, calculated using the formula 2/3 x (80 – age) x annual net income, considering the victim's age (36) and monthly income (P1,000).
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy is established when the accused performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design to kill the victim, even if not all directly inflicted fatal blows. Defense of relative is unavailing when unlawful aggression has ceased and the accused became the aggressor.