Title
People vs. Barrameda
Case
G.R. No. 130177
Decision Date
Oct 11, 2000
Two men convicted of murder for hacking an unarmed victim during a fiesta; defense of relative rejected; penalty modified to reclusion perpetua.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 130177)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Crime and Incident Background
    • The accused, Joaquin Barrameda and Adolfo Belga, were charged with murder for allegedly conspiring and assisting in the stabbing and hacking death of Ruperto Dizon, perpetrated with treachery and by taking advantage of their superior strength.
    • On 9 June 1996, during the barangay fiesta in Tanagan, Bacacay, Albay, events unfolded that led to the brutal killing of the unarmed victim, Ruperto Dizon.
  • Witness Testimonies and Evidence
    • Prosecution Witness Romeo Barsaga
      • Testified that at around 9:00 p.m. on the said day, while at the barangay hall, he heard a woman screaming and immediately rushed toward the direction of the sound.
      • From about five (5) meters away, he observed the accused simultaneously attacking Ruperto Dizon by hacking him with bolos.
      • His account included details of the assailants’ movements and the continuous hacking that led to the victim falling to the ground.
      • The next morning, he informed Milagros Dizon, the victim’s wife, about the incident, which led her to the police headquarters where the lifeless body was found.
  • Autopsy and Medical Findings
    • The autopsy performed by Dr. Merlie G. Beltran revealed multiple wounds on Ruperto Dizon’s head and body, including:
      • Avulsion on the scalp.
ii. Hack wounds on the parietal, occipital, and other cranial regions. iii. Various stab, incised, and abrasion injuries on the neck, shoulder, back, and limbs.
  • The final diagnosis established hypovolemia as the cause of death resulting from the multiple hacked wounds.
  • Accused-Appellants’ Testimonies
    • Joaquin Barrameda’s Account
      • Recounted that on the eve of the fiesta, his house hosted several guests including Adolfo Belga, his wife Hermiliana, Edmundo Besenio, Ruperto Dizon, and Mando Bongadillo.
ii. Described a convivial dinner setting with drinking and supper. iii. Claimed that while he had stepped out to run an errand, he returned and found his wife being assaulted by Ruperto Dizon, prompting him to retrieve a bolo and attack the victim in defense of his relative. iv. Asserted that the subsequent violent exchange, including multiple strikes, was a result of the attack against his family.
  • Adolfo Belga’s Account
    • Stated that he was in Pili, Camarines Sur on 8 June 1996 with his family and only returned to Bacacay the next morning.
ii. Described joining the dinner at Joaquin’s house and recounting that after supper, he retired early and was not present during the incident. iii. Claimed ignorance of the events that transpired once he and his family left the premises the following morning.
  • Contradictory Testimony from Another Witness
    • The defense presented Ruben Bio, who testified that Romeo Barsaga was in his house in San Antonio, Santicon, Malilipot, Albay from the afternoon of 9 June 1996 until the following morning.
ii. Bio’s testimony highlighted Barsaga’s excessive drinking and erratic behavior, attempting to discredit his testimony.
  • Trial Court Findings and Proceedings
    • The trial court, after evaluating the testimonies and evidence, gave full credence to the detailed narration of witness Romeo Barsaga.
    • The court found that the accused committed the murder in a concerted and conspiratorial manner, citing:
      • The presence of eight (8) distinct wounds on the victim.
      • The use of treachery and abuse of superior strength, as both assailants attacked a defenseless victim with bolos.
    • The evidentiary basis, supported by the autopsy and witness identification, led the trial court to convict the accused of murder, imposing the death penalty and ordering them to indemnify the heirs for civil indemnity, moral damages, and funeral expenses.

Issues:

  • Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the accused-appellants’ defense, specifically the plea of defense of a relative as well as their denial of the commission of murder.
  • Whether the trial court should have given less credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Romeo Barsaga, given the challenge posed by the defense regarding his reliability and conduct.
  • Whether the evidence supports the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the commission of the crime.
  • Whether the eventual imposition of reclusion perpetua (as opposed to the death penalty) is appropriate considering the legislative changes and the established evidence in the record.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.