G.R. No. 175925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSE BARCENAL AND RANDY SOLIS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

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 28 August 2006, promulgated its Decision affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused. It, however, modified the award of damages by deleting the actual damages imposed by the trial court and ordering the appellants, in addition to the award of 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 Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 35 dated November 15, 2002 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that the award of actual damages is deleted. However, appellants are ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim, in addition to the award of 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 f