3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Barde

thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are

accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is because the
trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are
Notes.—The withdrawal of the Petition for telling the truth. In this case, it is notable that the Court of
Naturalization did not and cannot amount to a recall of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the trial court, according
untruthful statements, nor extinguish any offense which credence and great weight to the testimonies of the prosecution
may have been committed by reason of such untruthful witnesses. Settled is the rule that when the trial court’s findings
statements. (Choa vs. Chiongson, 253 SCRA 371 [1996]) have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are
The required probable cause that will justify a generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless the trial
warrantless search and seizure is not determined by a fixed court had overlooked, disregarded, misunderstood, or misapplied
formula but is resolved according to the facts of each case. some fact or circumstance of weight and significance which if
(People vs. Gonzales, 365 SCRA 17 [2001]) considered would have altered the result of the case. None of
The Court sees petitioner’s filing of the present petition these circumstances is attendant in this case. This Court, thus,
as outright forum-shopping, as it seeks to revisit what has finds no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings arrived
become a final and executory decision. (Alcantara vs. at by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 560 Criminal Law; Alibis and Denials; It is well-entrenched that
SCRA 753 [2008]) alibi and denial are inherently weak and have always been viewed
——o0o—— with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can
be concocted.—In comparison with the clear and straightforward
  testimony of prosecution witnesses, all that appellant could
muster is the defense of denial and alibi. It is well-entrenched
G.R. No. 183094. September 22, 2010.*
that alibi and denial are inherently weak and have always been
viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which
they can be concocted. They warrant the least credibility or none
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
at all and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the
REYNALDO BARDE, accused-appellant.
appellant by the prosecution witnesses. For alibi to prosper, it is
not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when the
Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Evidence; Settled is the rule crime was committed; he must also demonstrate that it was
that when the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the
appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding crime at the time of its commission. Unless substantiated by clear
upon the Supreme Court, unless the trial court had overlooked, and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and
disregarded, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or undeserving of any weight in law. Denial, like alibi, as an
circumstance of weight and significance which if considered would exonerating justification is inherently weak and if uncorroborated
have altered the result of the case.—Primarily, it has been regresses to blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also constitutes self-
jurisprudentially acknowledged that when the issues revolve on serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the trial evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who
court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its testify on affirmative matters.
assessment of the probative weight Evidence; Witnesses; Inconsistencies in the testimonies of
witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details do not
_______________ destroy their credibility—they, instead, manifest truthfulness and
candor and
* FIRST DIVISION.
189

188
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 189

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/33

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

People vs. Barde

unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and
erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.—As regards the unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.—Treachery,
alleged inconsistencies on Elmer’s narration of events, this Court which was alleged in the Information, also attended the
considers the same trivial, inconsequential and do not affect the commission of the crime. Time and again, this Court, in a plethora
credibility of the statement that it was appellant who rolled the of cases, has consistently held that there is treachery when the
hand grenade towards the people dancing inside the dancing offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
place, the explosion killing and injuring scores of victims. means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend
Furthermore, the alleged inconsistencies pointed to by appellant directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to
have been properly clarified in the course of Elmer’s testimony. As himself arising from the defense that the offended party might
the Court of Appeals stated in its Decision, thus: Records reveal make. There are two (2) conditions that must concur for treachery
that during the direct examination, Elmer testified that to exist, to wit: (a) the employment of means of execution gave the
immediately after the [appellant] rolled the grenade, he went out person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate;
and when he was about to reach the gate the grenade exploded, and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and
while on cross-examination, Elmer testified that he saw consciously adopted. “The essence of treachery is that the attack
[appellant] leave the [dancing place] after the explosion. However, is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected
when the trial court and [appellant’s counsel] asked him about manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim
the inconsistency, Elmer clarified and confirmed that [appellant] no chance to resist or escape.”
left the dance place before the explosion. Inconsistencies in the Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the killing is perpetrated
testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant with both treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall be
details do not destroy their credibility. They, instead, manifest considered as a qualifying circumstance since it is the principal
truthfulness and candor and erase any suspicion of rehearsed mode of attack, while treachery will be considered merely as a
testimony. generic aggravating circumstance.—As the killing, in this case, is
Criminal Law; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; Use of perpetrated with both treachery and by means of explosives, the
Explosives; The killing of several people with the use of explosive, latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance since it is
i.e., hand grenade particularly M26-A1 fragmentation grenade, the principal mode of attack. Reason dictates that this attendant
certainly qualifies the crime to murder.—Article 248 of the circumstance should qualify the offense while treachery will be
Revised Penal Code provides: ART. 248. Murder.—Any person considered merely as a generic aggravating circumstance.
who, not falling within the provisions of article 246 shall kill Same; Same; Same; Evident Premeditation; Elements.—The
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by Information also alleged that evident premeditation attended the
reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the commission of the crime. For evident premeditation to be
following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, appreciated, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an
or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons overt act showing that the accused clung to their determination to
to insure or afford impunity. x x x x 3. By means of inundation, commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a period of time between
fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, the decision and the execution of the crime sufficient to allow the
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by accused to reflect upon the consequences of the act. However,
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means none of these elements could be gathered from the evidence on
involving great waste and ruin. [Emphasis supplied]. From the record.
afore-quoted provision of law, the killing of the aforesaid deceased
victims with the use of explosive, i.e., hand grenade particularly Same; Same; Attempted Murder; Where the injuries inflicted
M26-A1 fragmentation grenade, certainly qualifies the crime to upon some persons were not fatal and there was no showing that
murder. they would have died if not for the timely medical assistance
accorded to
Same; Same; Same; Treachery; The essence of treachery is that
the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and 191

190
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 191

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED People vs. Barde

People vs. Barde

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

them, the crime committed against them is merely attempted separate and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal
murder.—Despite the fact that the injuries sustained by Purisima offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on
and Ligaya were not mortal or fatal, it does not necessarily follow which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was
that the crimes committed against them were simply less serious impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows his lesser
physical injuries, because appellant was motivated by the same degree of perversity. Thus, applying the aforesaid provision of
intent to kill when he detonated the explosive device inside the law, the maximum penalty for the most serious crime, which is
dancing place. Since the injuries inflicted upon them were murder, is death. Pursuant, however, to Republic Act No. 9346
not fatal and there was no showing that they would have which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the appellate
died if not for the timely medical assistance accorded to court properly reduced the penalty of death, which it previously
them, the crime committed against them is merely imposed upon the appellant, to reclusion perpetua.
attempted murder. Same; Moral Damages; Moral damages like civil indemnity, is
Same; Same; Evidence; The court shall consider no evidence also mandatory upon the finding of the fact of murder.—As to
which has not been formally offered.—As this Court has damages. Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that when death
previously stated, the rest of the injured victims named in the occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled
Information failed to testify. Though their medical certificates to be indemnified for the death of the victim without need of any
were attached in the records, they were not marked as exhibits evidence or proof thereof. Moral damages like civil indemnity, is
and were not formally offered as evidence by the prosecution. also mandatory upon the finding of the fact of murder. To conform
Consequently, this Court cannot consider the same to hold that with recent jurisprudence on heinous crimes where the proper
the crime committed as to them is frustrated murder and to grant imposable penalty is death, if not for Republic Act No. 9346, the
damages in their favor. This Court has held in People v. Franco, award of civil indemnity and moral damages to the heirs of each
269 SCRA 211 (1997), thus: We thus reiterate the rule that the of the deceased victims are both increased to P75,000.00 each.
court shall consider no evidence which has not been
Same; Physical Injuries; Damages; Ordinary human
formally offered. So fundamental is this injunction that
experience and common sense dictate that the wounds inflicted
litigants alike are corollarily enjoined to formally offer any
upon the surviving victims would naturally cause physical
evidence which they desire the court to consider. Mr. Chief Justice
suffering, fright, serious anxiety, moral shock, and similar
Moran explained the rationale behind the rule in this wise: The
injuries, for which the grant of moral damages is justified.—The
offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge to rest
surviving victims, Purisima and Ligaya, are also entitled to
his findings of facts and his judgment only and strictly
moral, temperate and exemplary damages. Ordinary human
upon the evidence offered by the parties to the suit. [Emphasis
experience and common sense dictate that the wounds inflicted
supplied]. Without the testimonies of the other injured victims or
upon the surviving victims, Purisima and Ligaya would naturally
their medical certificates, the court will have no basis to hold that
cause physical suffering, fright, serious anxiety, moral shock, and
appellant committed the crime of frustrated murder as to them.
similar injuries. It is only justifiable to grant them moral damages
Same; Same; Complex Crimes; The single act of the accused in in the amount of P40,000.00 each in conformity with this Court’s
detonating an explosive device may quantitatively constitute a ruling in People v. Mokammad, 596 SCRA 497 (2009).
cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet these Damages; Temperate Damages; When actual damages proven
component criminal offenses should be considered only as a single by receipts during the trial amount to less than 25,000.00, the
crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed because the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of
offender was impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows actual damages of a lesser amount.—This Court affirms the
his lesser degree of perversity.—A complex crime is committed appellate court’s award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages to
when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave each of the surviving victims, Purisima and Ligaya. It is beyond
felonies. Appellant’s single act of detonating an explosive device doubt that
may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several
193
192

VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 193

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Barde
People vs. Barde

these two surviving victims were hospitalized and spent money

for their medication. However, Purisima failed to present any
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

receipt for her hospitalization and medication. Nevertheless, it Dado (Purisima) and Ligaya Dado (Ligaya), the appellate
could not be denied that she suffered pecuniary loss; thus, it is court similarly increased the temperate damages awarded
only prudent to award P25,000.00 to her as temperate damages. to them by the court a quo from P5,000.00 to P25,000.00
Ligaya, on the other hand, presented receipts for her each. They were also awarded exemplary damages of
hospitalization and medication but the receipts were less than P25,000.00 each.
P25,000.00. In People v. Magdaraog, 428 SCRA 529 (2004), citing On the other hand, appellant’s co-accused and brother,
People v. Andres, Jr., 409 SCRA 141 (2003), when actual damages Jimmy Barde (Jimmy), was acquitted for failure of the
proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than prosecution to prove conspiracy and for insufficiency of
P25,000.00 as in this case, the award of temperate damages for evidence to prove his guilt for the crime charged. No civil
P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser liability has been adjudged against him as there was no
amount. preponderance of evidence to prove the same.
Appellant and Jimmy were charged in an Information4
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals. dated 13 August 1999 with the complex crime of multiple
  The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. murder and multiple frustrated murder, the accusatory
  The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. portion of which reads:
  Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
“That on or about the 15th day of April, 1999 at more or less
PEREZ, J.: 12:30 o’clock in the morning, at Sitio Santo Niño, Barangay
On appeal is the Decision1 dated 24 September 2007 of Liguan, Municipality of Rapu-Rapu, Province of Albay,
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01245, which Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
affirmed with modifications, the Decision2 dated 29 the above-named [appellant and Jimmy], conspiring and
January 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi confederating and acting in concert to achieve a common purpose,
City, 5th Judicial Region, Branch 1, in Criminal Case No. willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and
8661, finding herein appellant Reynaldo Barde (appellant) committed with the qualifying circumstances of treachery
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of (alevosia), evident premeditation, and by means of
multiple murder with multiple frustrated murder. The explosion, did then and there roll and
appellate court, however, increased the penalty imposed
upon the appellant by the court a quo from reclusion _______________
perpetua to the ultimate penalty of death, being the
maximum penalty prescribed by law, for the crime of 3  Also known as, “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the

murder. In view, however, of the subsequent passage Philippines.” It was signed into law on 24 June 2006.
4 Records, pp. 166-168.

1  Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam with Associate Justices 195

Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Sesinando E.
Villon, concurring. Rollo, pp. 3-23.
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 195
2 Penned by Judge Romeo S. Dañas. CA Rollo, pp. 13-49.
People vs. Barde
194
explode a hand grenade (M26-A1 Fragmentation grenade) inside
the dance area which exploded and resulted to the instantaneous
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
deaths of the following persons, to wit:
People vs. Barde 1. FRANCISCO BIAGO, JR. alias Tikboy5
  2. ROGER SISO6
of Republic Act No. 93463 prohibiting the imposition of the 3. NICANOR OLOROSO
death penalty, the appellate court reduced the penalty to 4. MARGIE BAÑADERA
reclusion perpetua. The appellate court further increased 5. VICTOR BAÑADERA
the amount of moral and temperate damages awarded by 6. BIENVENIDO BAÑADERA
the court a quo to the heirs of each of the deceased victims 7. DIOSDADO BAÑADERA7
from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 and from P5,000.00 to 8. WILLIAM BUTIAL
P25,000.00, respectively. The heirs of each of the deceased 9. MARYJANE BECHAYDA
victims were also awarded exemplary damages of 10. RICHARD BLANSA8
P25,000.00. With respect to the surviving victims, Purisima 11. EFREN YASUL9

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/33

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

12. JOSE BOMBALES10 18. THERESA BAJARO 42. VICTOR BORJAL

13. DEONY BALIDOY11 19. ANTONIO ECAL 43. VIRGILIO BALINGBING
14. DAISY OLOROZO12 20. FLORENCIA ECAL 44. ALEJANDRO BALUTE
21. MA. NETOS ECAL 45. GIL BINAMIRA, JR.
15. ROLLY BELGA13 22. VENUS ECAL 46. RODELITA BARNEDO
23. NELIZ MORALINA 47. SANTIAGO BARNIDO
_______________ 24. NORMA BAJARO 48. LEVI MAGALONA
 
5  As evidenced by Certificate of Death dated 5 July 1999. Exhibit “1”,
records, p. 373.
6    As evidenced by Certificate of Death dated 19 April 1999, Exhibit _______________
“F”, id., at p. 370.
14  As evidenced by Medical Certificate dated 26 April 1999, Exhibit
7  Per Certificate of Death dated 16 April 1999, it should be “Diosdado
“R”, id., at p. 382.
Bañadera, Jr., Exhibit “L”, id., at p. 29.
15  As evidenced by Medico-legal Certificate issued on 23 April 1999,
8  In Richard’s Certificate of Death dated 3 May 1999 his surname is
Exhibit “Q”, id., at p. 381.
spelled as “Blanza,” Exhibit “K”, id., at p. 375.
9  In Efren’s Certificate of Death dated 19 April 1999, his surname is 197
spelled as “Yasol,” Exhibit “G”, id., at p. 371.
10  As evidenced by Certificate of Death dated 21 May 1999, Exhibit
“H”, id., at p. 372. VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 197
11 Per Certificate of Death dated 21 April 1999, Balidoy’s first name is People vs. Barde
spelled as “Junnie,” Exhibit “P”, id., at p. 380.
12  Per Certificate of Death dated 15 April 1999, Daisy’s surname is 49. JUANITO CAÑO 63. VIOLETA BUEMIA
spelled as “Oloroso,” Exhibit “J”, id., at p. 374. 50. ARELFA BETCHAYDA 64. TIRSO BARBERAN
13  As evidenced by Certificate of Death dated 23 April 1999, Exhibit 51. EDITHA BELCHES 65. NELLY BUEMIA
“M”, id., at p. 28.
52. JANET BOMBALES 66. RODOLFO BOMBITA
53. MARILOU 67. BIENVENIDO BAÑADERA
196
BETCHAYDA
54. MARIFE BETCHAYDA 68. BERNARDINO BARBERAN,
JR.
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 55. ROSEMARIE BEQUIO 69. MYLEN CERILLO
56. ALEXANDER 70. DIONY BALIDOY
People vs. Barde BASALLOTE
57. VICTOR BALLARES 71. PO3 SAMUEL BATAS
58. LUIS OLOROSO, JR. 72. LITO BERMAS
This single act of exploding the hand grenade (M26-A1 59. DOMINGO SISO 73. JOSEPHINE BEJORO
Fragmentation grenade) by the above-named [appellant 60. DOMINGO MICALLER 74. ROGER BELARO
and Jimmy] also caused and resulted in the injuries and 61. JENIFER OLOROSO 75. ADELA VERGARA
wounding on the different and various parts of the bodies of 62. CATALINO ARCINUE 76. VINCENT BERMEJO
at least seventy six (76) persons, namely, to wit:
these wounds and injuries caused being fatal and mortal; and
1. JOEL MORALES 25. ALEX BAÑADERA thus the above-named [appellant and Jimmy] have already
2. MARGARITA YASOL 26. ALADIN MORALINA performed all the acts of execution which would have produced
3. SANTOS BAÑADERA, JR. 27. PEDRO BIÑAS, JR. the crime of Multiple Murder but which nevertheless did not
4. LEA BAÑADERA 28. ROMEO MORALINA produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
5. LIGAYA DADO14 29. PABLITO FORMENTO
[appellant and Jimmy], that is, the able and timely medical
6. VIRGILIO BAÑADERA 30. ANGELES BOMBALES
7. MANUEL BAÑADERA 31. SARDONINA BERSABE assistance given to these victims which prevented their deaths, to
8. RODOLFO GALANG, JR. 32. DOLORES BAÑADERA the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of those who died
9. PURISIMA DAO15 33. CATALINO BARRAMEDA herein and also those who suffered injuries on the various parts of
10. MELCHOR BALIDOY 34. ABIGAEL BROSO their bodies.”16 [Emphasis supplied].
11.ABUNDIO BARCENILLA 35. NILDA YASOL
12. LOURDES BALIDOY 36. ESPERANZA BARDE Upon arraignment,17 appellant and Jimmy, assisted by
13. JULIO ROMANGAYA 37. RYAN BALUTE
14. FRANDY SANGCAP 38. ROBERTO BETITO
counsels de oficio, pleaded NOT GUILTY to the crime
15. LOLIT BERSABE 39. WILLIAM BALUTE, JR. charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
16. DONDON BERSABE 40. JESUS CAÑO As culled from the records and testimonies of
17. FERMIN BARNEDO, JR. 41. BIENVENIDO CAÑO prosecution witnesses, the facts of this case are as follows:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

On 14 April 1999, at around 9:00 p.m., Elmer Oloroso 19 TSN, 12 November 1999, pp. 6-10, 12-13 and 35; TSN, 17 November
(Elmer), one of the prosecution witnesses and first cousin of 1999, pp. 5 and 38; TSN, 25 November 1999, p. 7.
20 TSN, 12 November 1999, pp. 11 and 13.

_______________
199
16 Records, pp. 166-168.
17 Per Order dated 19 October 1999, id., at p. 201. VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 199
198 People vs. Barde

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED that moment, appellant was already one-half meter away
from the gate of the dancing place.21
People vs. Barde The lights went off, people scampered away, and many
died and were seriously injured as a result of the said
appellant and Jimmy, was at a dancing place18 at Sitio Sto. explosion. Elmer went out of the dancing place, together
Niño, Liguan, Rapu-Rapu, Albay, to attend a dance held in with the crowd, through the destroyed bamboo fence.
connection with the feast day celebration thereat. The Realizing his brothers and sisters might still be inside the
dancing place, which was more or less ten (10) meters long dancing place, Elmer went back, together with the people
and eight (8) meters wide, was enclosed by bamboo fence carrying flashlights and torches, to look for his siblings.
and properly equipped with long benches. It was well- There he saw the lifeless body of his brother, Nicanor
lighted by the fluorescent lights surrounding it and an Oloroso (Nicanor). His other brother, Luis Oloroso (Luis),
oscillating light located at the center thereof. While sitting on the other hand, was seriously injured. Elmer’s two other
on the bench inside the dancing place, near the front gate siblings, Jenny and Edwin, both surnamed Oloroso, was
thereof, Elmer saw appellant and Jimmy outside holding slightly injured. Elmer immediately brought Luis at Bicol
flashlights and focusing the same toward the people Regional Training and Teaching Hospital (BRTTH), Albay
inside.19 Provincial Hospital, where the latter was confined for
At around 11:00 p.m., Jimmy entered the dancing place almost three months.22
and approached the person sitting beside Elmer. The latter The second prosecution witness, Antonio Barcelona
overheard Jimmy telling the person beside him to go out (Antonio), corroborated Elmer’s testimony on material
and look for their companions. Not long after, Jimmy went points. Antonio first met appellant on 20 March 1999 as
out of the dancing place and it was the last time Elmer saw the latter’s brother, Rafael Barde (Rafael), invited him to
him on that particular day.20 their house to attend a dance in Mancao, Rapu-Rapu,
Then, at around 12:00 midnight, which was already 15 Albay. There they had a little conversation and appellant
April 1999, Elmer spotted appellant, who was wearing told Antonio that he would not enter any dancing place
maong pants and maong jacket with a belt bag tied around without creating any trouble. On 14 April 1999 at around
his waist, entered the dancing place and walked towards 9:30 p.m., Antonio again met appellant at the dancing place
the people who were dancing. At that time, Jimmy was no at Sitio Sto. Niño, Liguan, Rapu-Rapu, Albay. While
longer there. Elmer, who was only more or less three (3) Antonio was inside the dancing place, appellant saw him
meters away from the appellant, saw the latter get a and summoned him to go out. Then, Antonio and appellant,
rounded object from his belt bag, which he believed to be a who was then with his brothers, Jimmy
hand grenade as he has previously seen one from military
men when he was in Manila. Later, appellant pulled _______________
something from that rounded object, rolled it to the ground
towards the center of the dancing place where the people 21  TSN, 12 November 1999, pp. 14-16, 20, 23, 53 and 63; TSN, 17
were dancing, and left immediately. Five seconds November 1999, pp. 8 and 29-31; TSN, 18 November 1999, pp. 14 and 37;
thereafter, the rounded object exploded. At TSN, 24 November 1999, pp. 9-12; TSN, 25 November 1999, p. 3.
22  TSN, 12 November 1999, pp. 22-24, 26-32, 36-39 and 43; TSN, 18
November 1999, pp. 12-13.
_______________

18  It was simply called a “dancing place,” instead of dancing hall 200

because it was just an open space properly enclosed with bamboo fence.
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

People vs. Barde Supply of RECOM 5, informing him about the explosion
incident happened in a dancing place at Sitio Sto. Niño,
and Joel, both surnamed Barde, conversed about their Liguan, Rapu-Rapu, Albay, and asking assistance from
work.23 Suddenly, appellant uttered, “Diyan lang kamo, dai them. In response thereto, a team was organized composed
kamo maghale sa Tokawan na iyan, to kong may ribok of members from the Crime Laboratory, IID Investigators,
man, yaon kami sa likod lang.”24 Appellant told Antonio CIS Investigating Agents and the Explosive Ordinance
that he would just be behind him and his companions Team. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the scene of the
because there might be a trouble. Thereafter, Antonio went crime. They reached the place at more or less 11:00 a.m. of
inside the dancing place.25 16 April 1999. The team found a crater inside the dancing
At about 11:30 p.m., the dance was declared open to all. place that served as their lead in determining the kind of
At this juncture, appellant and his two brothers went explosive used. In the course of their investigation, they
inside the dancing place. Jimmy then approached Antonio. interviewed people living nearby who told them that the
Then, at around 12:30 a.m. of 15 April 1999, Antonio explosion was loud. Later, SPO2 Talagtag placed a magnet
noticed appellant walking slowly towards the crowd inside in the crater inside the dancing place and recovered several
the dancing place with his hands partly hidden inside his shrapnels similar to those that can be found in an M26-A1
maong jacket with an eagle figure at the back thereof. fragmentation grenade. By reason thereof, SPO2 Talagtag
Suddenly, appellant stopped, looked around, got something concluded that the explosion was caused by an M26-A1
from his waist line, rolled it to the ground towards the fragmentation grenade. Thereafter, the recovered
crowd and hastily left. Antonio confirmed that what was shrapnels were turned over to the crime laboratory at
rolled to the ground by appellant was a grenade because Camp Simeon Ola, Legazpi City, for examination.28
after more or less four seconds that thing exploded. Engineer Ma. Julieta Razonable (Engr. Razonable),
Appellant was already in front of the gate of the dancing Police Senior Inspector and Forensic Chemical Officer
place when the explosion occurred. Antonio was not injured assigned at Camp Simeon Ola, Legazpi City, received the
as he was more or less four (4) meters away from the place specimen, i.e.,
where the explosion occurred. Darkness followed after the
explosion as the lights went off. People bustled. Many died _______________
and were injured.26
27 He is a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) since 1981.
Other prosecution witnesses, Alexander Basallote
In 1998, he had undergone training at Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City,
(Alexander) and Nilda Yasol (Nilda)—the Barangay
as scout ranger, airborne SWAT and in Explosive Ordinance Disposal
Captain of Liguan, Rapu-Rapu, Albay, also corroborated
(EOD). During the course of his training, he studied different kinds of
the testimonies of Elmer and Antonio.
explosives, i.e., hand grenade, riffle grenade, bombs, TNT, death cord and
the like. He was able to complete the 45 days of training in the said field
_______________
[TSN, 28 September 2000, pp. 3-5].
23 TSN, 26 November 1999, pp. 4-7 and 24; TSN, 9 February 2000, p. 28 TSN, 28 September 2000, pp. 7-16.
50.
202
24 TSN, 26 November 1999, p. 9.
25 Id., at p. 10.
26 Id., at pp. 12-17, 21-22; TSN 10 February 2000, pp. 19 and 22. 202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

201
People vs. Barde

the shrapnels recovered at the scene of the crime, for

VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 201 physical examination. Her examination yielded positive
People vs. Barde result, meaning, the specimen submitted to her were part
of a hand grenade fragmentation, M26-A1.29 This result
The prosecution likewise presented Senior Police Officer was subsequently reduced into writing as evidenced by
2 Hipolito Talagtag (SPO2 Talagtag),27 who was assigned Physical Identification Report No. PI-601-A-99 dated 16
at R-4 Division, Explosive and Ordinance Disposal, Police April 1999.30
Regional Office 5 at Camp Simeon Ola, Legazpi City. On 15 In his defense, appellant vehemently denied the charge
April 1999, SPO2 Talagtag received a call from Colonel against him and offered a different version of the incident.
Delos Santos (Col. Delos Santos), Chief of R-4 Division,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

Appellant asseverated that at around 7:00 p.m. on 14 then pushing each other in order to get out. Appellant was
April 1999 he was at home in Mancao, Rapu-Rapu, Albay, able to go out and run towards a lighted place nearby.
organizing the plates, spoons, forks and other kitchen When the people carrying torches came, appellant went
utensils that they were about to bring to the house of back to the dancing place to look for his mother and
Teodora Arsenue (Teodora) at Sitio Sto. Niño, Liguan, brothers. It was already 2:00 a.m. of 15 April 1999, when
Rapu-Rapu, Albay, in connection with the feast day he saw his mother and brothers. They went home
celebration in the said place. Then, at around 7:30 p.m., the afterwards. When they reached their house, appellant and
appellant, together with his mother Gloria Barde (Gloria) his father went to the house of his injured cousin to inform
and brothers Jimmy, Joel, Rafael, Jovito, Jr., all surnamed the latter’s family of what happened.34
Barde, proceeded to the house of Teodora and reached the The following day, or on 16 April 1999, appellant and
same before 9:00 p.m. Teodora offered them food. After Jimmy were invited by Police Officer, Efren Cardeño
eating, they acceded to the suggestion of Jovito, Jr., to go to (Cardeño), at Camp Simeon Ola, Legazpi City, to be
the dancing place also located at Sitio Sto. Niño, Liguan, utilized as witnesses to the explosion incident happened on
Rapu-Rapu, Albay, only a ten minute-walk away from the 15 April 1999. They refused the invitation as they did not
house of Teodora.31 actually witness the explosion. But, Cardeño insisted. On
Upon reaching the dancing place, they stayed outside as 17 April 1999, appellant and Jimmy went with Cardeño at
they had no tickets. At around 11:30 p.m., through the help Camp Simeon Ola, Legazpi City. Thereafter, they did not
of William Gutchal (William),32 appellant and his brothers see Cardeño anymore.35
Joel and Jimmy, both surnamed Barde, were able to enter While appellant was at Camp Simeon Ola, Legazpi City,
the dancing place while his mother and other brothers he was brought in one of the offices there and was told to
remained outside. They immediately proceeded to the left be a witness to the explosion incident happened at Sitio
side of the dancing place near the baffles of the sound Sto. Niño,
system and stood behind the benches as the same were
already occupied. The three of them remained in that place _______________
until the explosion oc-
33 TSN, 16 May 2003, pp. 10-15.
34 Id., at pp. 16-21.
_______________
35 Id., at pp. 24-28.
29 TSN, 11 January 2001, pp. 3-4.
30 Exhibit “O”, Records, pp. 4-5. 204
31 TSN, 16 May 2003, pp. 4-9.
32 Sometimes spelled as Butial. 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
203 People vs. Barde

VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 203 Liguan, Rapu-Rapu, Albay. Shortly thereafter, the
investigator showed him a typewritten document and was
People vs. Barde ordered to sign the same but, he refused because he did not
understand its contents. Appellant maintained that he was
curred inside the dancing place, which was more or less even promised money and work should he sign it and
twenty-five (25) meters away from them. The people testify but, once again, he refused. Due to his incessant
dancing in the area of the explosion died and some were refusal, he was ordered to go out. There he saw Jimmy who
injured.33 told him that he was also made to sign a certain document
Appellant claimed that he had no idea how the explosion but, he also refused.36
started because at that time he and his brother Jimmy Between 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. of 17 April 1999,
were talking to Roger Springael (Roger), who was standing appellant and Jimmy were awakened but the latter
outside the bamboo fence surrounding the dancing place, as continued sleeping. As such, it was only appellant who was
the latter was interested in buying a fighting cock from brought in another room and was made to drink wine by
him. His other brother, Joel, was also with them, but he persons in civilian clothes. When appellant declined, he
was sleeping. In the course of their conversation, he was then accused as the person responsible for the
suddenly heard an explosion. All lights went off and there explosion incident. Appellant, however, strongly denied the
was a total blackout inside the dancing place. People were accusation. At this instance, appellant was kicked and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

boxed and was ordered to admit the accusation but he Investigation (NBI), Legazpi City, where she executed her
refused to admit it. Appellant was subsequently brought sworn statement before Atty. Raymundo D. Sarga, Jr.
inside a detention cell. When he met Jimmy, the latter told (Atty. Sarga), Head Agent of NBI, Legazpi City.40
him that he was also tortured.37 Violeta affirmed that Wilfredo had interviewed her
The next day, or on 18 April 1999, appellant and Jimmy regarding the explosion incident and he had also
were brought at the office of a certain General Navarro and accompanied her in executing her sworn statement before
they were ordered to stand up with more than 30 people. the NBI, Legazpi City.41 During her testimony, she
Later, Antonio arrived. Appellant avowed that a certain disclosed that at around 10:00 p.m. of 14 April 1999, she
person in civilian clothes instructed Antonio to point at and her daughter entered the dancing place at Sto. Niño,
them as the perpetrators of the explosion incident, which Liguan, Rapu-Rapu, Albay. Her daughter sat down while
Antonio did. When they were pinpointed as the authors of she stood near the gate. At round 12:00 a.m., which was
the crime, they neither reacted nor denied the accusations. already 15 April 1999, she went out to urinate. In a
Afterwards, appellant and Jimmy were brought back inside distance of more or less two (2) meters, she saw Eddie
their detention cell.38 Oloroso (Eddie) standing outside the dancing place and
Appellant similarly denied having met Antonio on 20 then
March 1999 at a dance in Mancao, Rapu-Rapu, Albay.
Appellant likewise denied having told Antonio that _______________
whenever he
39 Id., at pp. 10-11 and 19.
40 TSN, 5 December 2001, pp. 3-15.
_______________
41 TSN, 16 May 2002, p. 4.
36 Id., at pp. 29-32.
206
37 Id., at pp. 33-38.
38 TSN, 18 July 2003, pp. 4-8.
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
205
People vs. Barde

VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 205

throw something inside that hit the wire beside a
People vs. Barde fluorescent bulb causing some sparks. The place became
very bright and she confirmed that it was really Eddie who
enters a dance hall he would always create trouble. threw that something. Eddie then ran away. The thing
Appellant maintained that he saw Antonio for the first exploded when it fell on the ground. The place became dark
time when the latter pinpointed him and Jimmy at the thereafter. She was hit by the flying pebbles coming from
office of a certain General Navarro. The second time was the explosion. She then looked for her daughter and was
when Antonio testified in court. Appellant, however, able to find her. Many died and seriously injured in the
confirmed that Elmer is his first cousin and he did not said explosion incident.42
know any reason why he would accuse him with such a Violeta also explained that it took her more than two
grave offense.39 years after the incident happened to come out and testify
Other defense witnesses, Roger, Jimmy and Gloria because she was afraid. Her conscience, however, kept
corroborated appellant’s testimony. bothering her so she decided to divulge what she knew
Wilfredo Echague (Wilfredo), a radio broadcaster at about the incident.43 Later in her testimony, Violeta
Radio Filipino, DWRL, since 19 February 1991, testified admitted that she saw Eddie outside the dancing place and
that on 11 August 2001 while conducting series of it was appellant and Jimmy, whom she saw sitting inside
interviews in relation to the explosion incident that the dancing place at the far end of the fence.44
happened on 15 April 1999 at Sitio Sto. Niño, Liguan, Finding the defense of appellant and Jimmy
Rapu-Rapu, Albay, he met Violeta Buemia (Violeta) at the unmeritorious vis-a-vis the evidence proffered by the
latter’s residence in Cabangan, Villa Hermosa, Rapu-Rapu, prosecution, the trial court rendered its Decision on 29
Albay, who claimed personal knowledge about the January 2005 finding appellant guilty of the complex crime
explosion incident. Wilfredo’s interview on Violeta was of multiple murder with multiple frustrated murder and
recorded by the former. On 17 August 2001, he imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He
accompanied Violeta to the National Bureau of was also ordered to pay the legal heirs of each of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

deceased victims the amount of P50,000.00 as civil _______________

indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P5,000.00 as
46 Records, pp. 625-630.
temperate damages, as well as each of the surviving
47 CA Rollo, pp. 66-67.
victims, Purisima and Ligaya, the amount of P20,000.00 as
48  “An Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection as the Method of
moral damages and P5,000.00 as temperate/actual
Carrying Out Capital Punishment Amending for the Purpose of Article 81
damages. Jimmy, on the other hand, was acquitted of the
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 24 of Republic Act No.
crime charged for the prosecution’s failure to prove
7659.”
conspiracy and for insufficiency of evidence. No civil
49  “An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes,
liability was adjudged against him there being no
amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as amended, other
preponderance of evidence to prove the same.45
Special Penal Laws and for Other Purposes.”

_______________ 208

42 TSN, 10 April 2002, pp. 6-17.

43 TSN, 16 May 2002, pp. 6-8. 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
44 TSN, 10 July 2001, pp. 5-6. People vs. Barde
45 CA Rollo, pp. 46-49

207
amount of P25,000.00 and exemplary damages in the
amount of P25,000.00.”50 [Emphasis supplied].

VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 207 Appellant moved for the reconsideration of the aforesaid
Court of Appeals Decision, but to no avail.51
People vs. Barde
Unable to accept his conviction, appellant appeals to this
Court reiterating the same assignment of error he raised
Aggrieved, appellant moved for the reconsideration of before the Court of Appeals, to wit: the trial court gravely
the aforesaid RTC Decision but it was denied in an Order46 erred in finding appellant guilty of the crime charged
dated 15 June 2005 for lack of merit. despite failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt
Accordingly, appellant elevated the 29 January 2005 beyond reasonable doubt.
RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals with the lone Appellant asserts that his guilt was not proven beyond
assignment of error, thus: reasonable doubt because the evidence presented by the
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING prosecution was not sufficient to overcome his
[APPELLANT] GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent.
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HIS He casts doubts on the credibility of prosecution witness
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.47 Elmer because his statements were replete with
inconsistencies. According to appellant, Elmer, at first,
On 24 September 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered declared that after the explosion, lights went off and he
its Decision, disposing: saw appellant leave the dancing place but Elmer later
stated that immediately after appellant threw the grenade,
“WHEREFORE, the Appeal is Denied. The Decision dated [29 the latter went out and upon reaching the gate, the
January 2005] of the [RTC] of Lega[z]pi City, Branch 1, in Criminal Case explosion occurred. These inconsistent statements of Elmer
No. 8661, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that: allegedly created doubts as to what actually transpired and
1. The [appellant] shall suffer the penalty of Death. However, in who the real culprit was. Appellant then claims that there
view of the subsequent passage of R.A. No. 9346, which was is a possibility that Elmer is a rehearsed witness as such
approved on [24 June 2006], which repealed R.A. No. 817748 and inconsistencies relate to material points.
R.A. No. 7659,49 the penalty of Death is REDUCED to Appellant’s contentions are not well-founded, thus, his
RECLUSION PERPETUA. conviction must stand.
2. The [appellant] is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of the Primarily, it has been jurisprudentially acknowledged
deceased the amount of P50,000.00, as moral damages, that when the issues revolve on matters of credibility of
P25,000.00, as temperate damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary witnesses, the findings of fact of the trial court, its
damages. [Appellant] is also ordered to pay each Purisima Dado calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its
and Ligaya Dado temperate damages in the assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its
conclusions anchored on
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

_______________ People vs. Barde

50 CA Rollo, pp. 21-22.

testimonies on who and how the crime was committed
51 Id., at p. 211.
remained unshaken and undisturbed.55
209 With certainty, these prosecution witnesses positively
identified appellant as the person who rolled a rounded
object, which was later confirmed as an M26-A1
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 209 fragmentation grenade, towards the people who were
People vs. Barde dancing, the explosion killing and causing injuries to many.
The identity of appellant was clear to the prosecution
said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive witnesses because the dancing place where the explosion
effect. This is because the trial court has the unique occurred was well lighted. Besides, Elmer and Antonio
opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in knew the appellant well. Elmer is appellant’s first cousin.
the best position to discern whether they are telling the Antonio met appellant prior to the explosion incident at a
truth.52 In this case, it is notable that the Court of Appeals dance in Mancao, Rapu-Rapu, Albay, where they engaged
affirmed the factual findings of the trial court, according in some conversations. Given these circumstances, the
credence and great weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses could not have been mistaken as to
prosecution witnesses. Settled is the rule that when the appellant’s identity.
trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate The records were also wanting in evidence that would
court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding show that these witnesses were impelled by improper
upon this Court,53 unless the trial court had overlooked, motive to impute such a grave offense against the
disregarded, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or appellant. Even appellant himself admitted that he did not
circumstance of weight and significance which if considered know any reason why Elmer would accuse him with such
would have altered the result of the case.54 None of these an offense with pernicious consequences on his life and
circumstances is attendant in this case. This Court, thus, liberty, considering the fact that they are relatives.
finds no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings It bears stressing that Elmer’s brother, Nicanor, died,
arrived at by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of his other brother, Luis, was seriously injured and almost
Appeals. died and his two other siblings were also injured because of
Prosecution witnesses, Elmer and Antonio, actually the explosion. Elmer had more than enough reason to
witnessed the explosion incident. Both of them narrated in identify the appellant.56 Indeed, his relationship to the
detail the events that transpired prior, during and after the victims cannot be taken against him and it does not
explosion. They had a vivid recollection of how appellant automatically impair his credibility and render his
entered the dancing place, walked towards the people who testimony less worthy of credence since that no improper
were dancing, got a rounded object from the belt bag tied motive can be ascribed to him for testi-
on his waist, pulled something from it, rolled it to the
ground towards the people who were dancing and left the _______________
place rapidly. Immediately thereafter, the explosion
55 CA Rollo, p. 40.
occurred. The trial court characterized their testimonies as
candid, spontaneous and straightforward that despite rigid 56 People v. Gaviola, 384 Phil. 314, 319; 327 SCRA 580, 585 (2000).

cross-examination their
211

_______________
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 211
52 People v. Lalongisip, G.R. No. 188331, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 169.
People vs. Barde
53  People v. Beltran, Jr., G.R. No. 168051, 27 September 2006, 503
SCRA 715, 730.
fying.57 It would be unnatural for a relative who is
54 People v. Cahindo, 334 Phil. 507, 512; 266 SCRA 554, 559 (1997).
interested in seeking justice for the victims to testify
210 against an innocent person and allow the guilty one to go
unpunished.58 Rather, his inherent desire to bring to
justice those whom he personally knew committed a crime
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/33

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

against his close relative makes his identification of the happened, and she failed to offer any convincing evidence
appellant all the more credible.59 to justify such delay. Records do not show that there was
In comparison with the clear and straightforward any threat on Violeta’s life that might have prevented from
testimony of prosecution witnesses, all that appellant could coming out to testify. She herself admitted that after the
muster is the defense of denial and alibi. It is well- explosion incident she did not see Eddie anymore. Eddie
entrenched that alibi and denial are inherently weak and then could not have possibly threatened her. She could
have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to freely testify on what she knew about the explosion
the facility with which they can be concocted. They warrant incident had she wanted to. Her alleged fear is unfounded.
the least credibility or none at all and cannot prevail over It cannot justify her long delay in disclosing it before the
the positive identification of the appellant by the court a quo. Moreover, if she was, indeed, afraid, she would
prosecution witnesses.60 For alibi to prosper, it is not not have allowed herself to be interviewed by a radio
enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else when broadcaster and would not have divulged to him all that
the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate that it she knew about the incident. Instead of directly disclosing
was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene it to the proper authorities, she had chosen to tell it first to
of the crime at the time of its commission. Unless a radio broadcaster. Further, the only reason she gave the
substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense court for her silence of more than two years was that she
is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in began to be bothered by her conscience as she recently kept
law.61 Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification is on dreaming of those who died in the explosion incident
inherently weak and if uncorroborated regresses to blatant especially during “All Souls Day.” Violeta, in other words,
impotence. Like alibi, it also constitutes self-serving cannot rely on the doctrine that delay of witnesses in
negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater revealing what they know about a crime is attributable to
evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible their natural reticence against involvement therein.63
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.62 More telling is Violeta’s categorical admission that
Eddie was outside the dancing place and it was appellant
_______________ whom she

57 People v. Batidor, 362 Phil. 673, 685; 303 SCRA 335, 349 (1999).
_______________
58 People v. Gaviola, supra note 56; People v. Batidor, id.
59 People v. Gaviola, id., at pp. 319-320; p. 585. 63 People v. Berja, 331 Phil. 514, 526; 263 SCRA 206, 217 (1996).
60 People v. Estepano, 367 Phil. 209, 217-218; 307 SCRA 701, 708-709
213
(1999).
61 People v. Berdin, 462 Phil. 290, 304; 416 SCRA 582, 593 (2003).
62  People v. Francisco, 397 Phil. 973, 985; 344 SCRA 110, 120-121 VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 213
(2000). People vs. Barde
212
saw inside the dancing place prior to the explosion
incident. With this testimony, Violeta made appellant’s
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED defense of denial even weaker.
People vs. Barde In light of the categorical and positive identification of
the appellant by prosecution witnesses, without any
In this case, appellant himself and all his witnesses showing of ill-motive on the part of the latter testifying on
admitted that appellant was at the scene of the crime until the matter, appellant’s defense of bare denial and alibi
the explosion occurred. With that, the defense ultimately cannot prosper.64
failed to meet the necessary requisites for the proper As regards the alleged inconsistencies on Elmer’s
invocation of alibi as a defense. narration of events, this Court considers the same trivial,
Appellant’s defense of denial cannot also be given any inconsequential and do not affect the credibility of the
considerable weight as it was unsubstantiated. The statement that it was appellant who rolled the hand
testimony of Violeta pointing at Eddie as the real culprit is grenade towards the people dancing inside the dancing
intended to bolster appellant’s defense of denial. However, place, the explosion killing and injuring scores of victims.
it cannot be given credence. Her testimony was given only Furthermore, the alleged inconsistencies pointed to by
after more than two years from the time the incident appellant have been properly clarified in the course of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

Elmer’s testimony. As the Court of Appeals stated in its relatives. The defense similarly admitted that these victims
Decision, thus: died as a result of the explosion incident.
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
“Records reveal that during the direct examination, Elmer
testified that immediately after the [appellant] rolled the grenade, “ART. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the
he went out and when he was about to reach the gate the grenade provisions of article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
exploded, while on cross-examination, Elmer testified that he saw murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if
[appellant] leave the [dancing place] after the explosion. However, committed with any of the following attendant
when the trial court and [appellant’s counsel] asked him about circumstances:
the inconsistency, Elmer clarified and confirmed that [appellant] 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
left the dance place before the explosion.”65 with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which xxxx
refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
credibility. They, instead, manifest truthfulness and candor shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a
and erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.66 railroad,

215
_______________

64 People v. Ondalok, 339 Phil. 17, 26; 272 SCRA 631, 639 (1997). VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 215
65 Rollo, p. 18.
People vs. Barde
66 People v. Mallari, 369 Phil. 872, 884-885; 310 SCRA 621, 634 (1999).

214 fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of

any other means involving great waste and ruin.” [Emphasis
supplied].
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
From the afore-quoted provision of law, the killing of the
People vs. Barde
aforesaid deceased victims with the use of explosive, i.e.,
hand grenade particularly M26-A1 fragmentation grenade,
All told, this Court affirms the findings of the trial court certainly qualifies the crime to murder.
and the appellate court that, indeed, appellant was the Treachery, which was alleged in the Information, also
author of the explosion incident that happened on 15 April attended the commission of the crime. Time and again, this
1999 inside the dancing place at Sitio Sto. Niño, Liguan, Court, in a plethora of cases, has consistently held that
Rapu-Rapu, Albay, which took away the lives and caused there is treachery when the offender commits any of the
injuries to the people thereat. crimes against persons, employing means, methods or
As to the crime committed. The trial court and the forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and
appellate court convicted appellant of the complex crime of specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself
multiple murder with multiple frustrated murder. This arising from the defense that the offended party might
Court believes, however, that appellant should only make. There are two (2) conditions that must concur for
be convicted of the complex crime of multiple treachery to exist, to wit: (a) the employment of means of
murder with double attempted murder. execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to
Appellant’s act of detonating a hand grenade, defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method
particularly an M26-A1 fragmentation grenade, inside the of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.67
dancing place at Sitio Sto. Niño, Liguan, Rapu-Rapu, “The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate
Albay, resulted in the death of 15 people, namely: and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected
Francisco Biago, Jr., Roger Siso, Nicanor Oloroso, Margie manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
Bañadera, Victor Bañadera, Bienvenido Bañadera, victim no chance to resist or escape.”68
Diosdado Bañadera, William Butial, Maryjane Bechayda, As elucidated by the trial court in its Decision:
Richard Blansa, Efren Yasul, Jose Bombales, Deony
Balidoy, Daisy Olorozo and Rolly Belga. The fact of death of “The victims were completely unaware of the danger
these deceased victims was evidenced by their respective forthcoming to them as they were in the midst of enjoying a
certificates of death and testimonies of their respective dance. The [appellant] who caused the rolling of the hand grenade
was at a complete advantage knowing that no risk to his life was
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

involved as he can immediately fled [and] run away from the 69 CA Rollo, pp. 37-38.
scene of the crime before any explosion could occur. There was no 70 Malana v. People, G.R. No. 173612, 26 March 2008, 549 SCRA 451,
defense so to speak of that may came from the victims because 470-471.
they were completely unaware of the danger about to happen in 71 People v. Caballes, G.R. Nos. 102723-24, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA
their midst resulting as it 83, 97-98.

_______________
217

67 People v. Mokammad, G.R. No. 180594, 19 August 2009, 596 SCRA 497, 509.
68 People v. Lansang, 436 Phil. 71, 78; 387 SCRA 294, 299 (2002).
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 217
People vs. Barde
216

Appellant’s act of detonating a hand grenade,

216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED particularly M26-A1 fragmentation grenade, inside the
People vs. Barde dancing place at Sitio Sto. Niño, Liguan, Rapu-Rapu,
Albay, likewise resulted in the wounding of several
did to deaths and injuries to many people among the crowd persons. But, out of the 76 injured victims named in the
dancing. The act of rolling the hand grenade is unpardonable. It is Information, only Purisima and Ligaya, both surnamed
a treacherous heinous act of the highest order. The victims can do Dado, appeared personally in court to testify on the injuries
nothing but to cry to high heavens for vengeance. and damages sustained by them by reason thereof.
xxxx Purisima affirmed that after the explosion she was
As supported by the evidence adduced at the trial, [it] is fully brought to the hospital because she suffered punctured
convinced that the crime charge was committed under a cloak of wounds on her legs and forehead by reason thereof. Also,
treachery, and there is no doubt about it. The attacker suddenly she was not able to walk for two (2) weeks. She was not
came armed with a live fragmentation grenade, removed its pin confined though.72 She was issued medical certificate73
and threw it towards the crowd who were enjoying a dance, dated 23 April 1999 in relation thereto stating that her
unsuspecting of any danger that larks in their midst, thereby injuries will incapacitate her or will require medical
depriving them of any real opportunity to defend themselves. The assistance for one to two weeks. Her testimony, as well as
attacker has employed a swift and unexpected attack to insure its her medical certificate, however, never mentioned that the
execution without risk to himself x x x.”69 wounds or injuries sustained by her were fatal or mortal
and had it not for the timely medical assistance accorded to
As the killing, in this case, is perpetrated with both her she would have died. In the same way, Ligaya stated
treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall be that because of the explosion she suffered blasting injuries
considered as a qualifying circumstance since it is the on her chest and right forearm. She was confined and
principal mode of attack. Reason dictates that this treated for five days at BRTTH, Legazpi City,74 as
attendant circumstance should qualify the offense while evidenced by her medical certificate75 dated 26 April 1999.
treachery will be considered merely as a generic There was also no mention that her injuries and wounds
aggravating circumstance.70 were mortal or fatal.
The Information also alleged that evident premeditation Despite the fact that the injuries sustained by Purisima
attended the commission of the crime. For evident and Ligaya were not mortal or fatal, it does not necessarily
premeditation to be appreciated, the prosecution must follow that the crimes committed against them were simply
prove the following elements: (1) the time when the accused less serious physical injuries,76 because appellant was
decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that moti-
the accused clung to their determination to commit the
crime; and (3) the lapse of a period of time between the
_______________
decision and the execution of the crime sufficient to allow
the accused to reflect upon the consequences of the act.71 72 TSN, 11 January 2001, pp. 9-10.
However, none of these elements could be gathered from 73 Records, p. 381.
the evidence on record. 74 TSN, 11 January 2001, pp. 12-14.
75 Records, p. 382.
_______________ 76  ART. 265. Less serious physical injuries.—Any person who shall
inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the preceding

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/33

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended party VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 219

218 People vs. Barde

Given the foregoing, it is clear that this case falls under

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the first clause of Article 4880 of the Revised Penal Code
People vs. Barde because by a single act, that of detonating an explosive
device inside the dancing place, appellant committed two
vated by the same intent to kill when he detonated the grave felonies, namely, (1) murder as to the 15 persons
explosive device inside the dancing place.77 Since the named in the Information; and (2) attempted murder as to
injuries inflicted upon them were not fatal and there Purisima and Ligaya.
was no showing that they would have died if not for Therefore, this Court holds appellant guilty beyond
the timely medical assistance accorded to them, the reasonable doubt of the complex crime of multiple
crime committed against them is merely attempted murder with double attempted murder.
murder. As to penalty. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
As this Court has previously stated, the rest of the explicitly states:
injured victims named in the Information failed to testify.
“ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.—When a single act
Though their medical certificates were attached in the
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an
records, they were not marked as exhibits and were not
offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
formally offered as evidence by the prosecution.
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
Consequently, this Court cannot consider the same to hold
same to be applied in its maximum period. [Emphasis
that the crime committed as to them is frustrated murder
supplied].
and to grant damages in their favor. This Court has held in
People v. Franco,78 thus: A complex crime is committed when a single act
“We thus reiterate the rule that the court shall consider no constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.
evidence which has not been formally offered. So Appellant’s single act of detonating an explosive device
fundamental is this injunction that litigants alike are corollarily may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate
enjoined to formally offer any evidence which they desire the and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal
court to consider. Mr. Chief Justice Moran explained the rationale offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law
behind the rule in this wise: on which a single penalty is imposed because the offender
The offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge to was impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows his
rest his findings of facts and his judgment only and strictly lesser degree of perversity.81 Thus, applying the aforesaid
upon the evidence offered by the parties to the suit.”79 provision of law, the maximum penalty for the most serious
[Emphasis supplied]. crime, which is murder, is death. Pursuant, however, to
Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition of the
Without the testimonies of the other injured victims or death penalty, the appellate court properly
their medical certificates, the court will have no basis to
hold that appellant committed the crime of frustrated _______________
murder as to them.
80  ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.—When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is
_______________
a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall period. (As amended by Act No. 4000).
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. [Revised Penal Code]. 81 Malana v. People, supra note 70 at p. 468.

77 Malana v. People, supra note 70. 220

78 336 Phil. 206; 269 SCRA 211 (1997).
79 Id., at p. 210; pp. 215-216.
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
219 People vs. Barde

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/33

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

reduced the penalty of death, which it previously imposed Ordinary human experience and common sense dictate
upon the appellant, to reclusion perpetua. that the wounds inflicted upon the surviving victims,
As to damages. Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides Purisima and Ligaya would naturally cause physical
that when death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of suffering, fright, serious anxiety, moral shock, and similar
the deceased are entitled to be indemnified for the death of injuries. It is only justifiable to grant them moral damages
the victim without need of any evidence or proof thereof.82 in the amount of P40,000.00 each in conformity with this
Moral damages like civil indemnity, is also mandatory Court’s ruling in People v. Mokammad.88
upon the finding of the fact of murder.83 To conform with This Court affirms the appellate court’s award of
recent jurisprudence on heinous crimes where the proper P25,000.00 as temperate damages to each of the surviving
imposable penalty is death, if not for Republic Act No. victims, Purisima and Ligaya. It is beyond doubt that these
9346, the award of civil indemnity and moral damages to two surviving victims were hospitalized and spent money
the heirs of each of the deceased victims are both increased for their medication. However, Purisima failed to present
to P75,000.00 each.84 any receipt for her hospitalization and medication.
It is settled that exemplary damages may be awarded in Nevertheless, it could not be denied that she suffered
criminal cases as part of civil liability if the crime was pecuniary loss; thus, it is only prudent to award P25,000.00
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.85 to her as temperate damages.89 Ligaya, on the other hand,
In this case, the generic aggravating circumstance of presented receipts for her hospitalization and medication
treachery attended the commission of the crime. The award but the receipts were less than P25,000.00. In People v.
of exemplary damages, therefore, is in order. To conform to Magdaraog90 citing People v. Andres, Jr.,91 when actual
current jurisprudence, this Court likewise increased the damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less
award of exemplary damages given by the appellate court than P25,000.00 as in this case, the award of temperate
to the heirs of each of the deceased victims to P30,000.00 damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual
each.86 damages of a lesser amount.
Actual damages cannot be awarded for failure to present Finally, the award of exemplary damages is also in order
the receipts covering the expenditures for the wake, coffin, considering that the crime was attended by the qualifying
burial and other expenses for the death of the victims. In
lieu thereof, temperate damages may be recovered where it _______________
has been shown that the victim’s family suffered some
pecuniary loss but the amount thereof cannot be proved 87 Nueva España v. People, G.R. No. 163351, 21 June 2005, 460 SCRA
with certainty 547, 557.
88 Supra note 67 at p. 513.

_______________ 89 People v. Mokammad, supra note 67.

90 G.R. No. 151251, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 529, 543.
82 People v. Galladan, 376 Phil. 682, 687; 318 SCRA 569, 574 (1999). 91 456 Phil. 355; 409 SCRA 141 (2003).
83 People v. Catian, 425 Phil. 364, 380; 374 SCRA 514, 528 (2002).
84 People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 188610, 29 July 2010, 622 SCRA 548, 222

569, citing People v. Regalario, G.R. No. 174483, March 31, 2009, 582
SCRA 738. 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
85 People v. Alajay, 456 Phil. 83, 96; 408 SCRA 629, 640 (2003).
People vs. Barde
86 People v. Sanchez, supra note 84.

221 circumstance of treachery.92 The award of exemplary

damages to Purisima and Ligaya is increased to P30,000.00
to conform to current jurisprudence.
VOL. 631, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 221
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the
People vs. Barde Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01245 dated 24
September 2007 is hereby AFFIRMED with
as provided for under Article 2224 of the Civil Code.87 This MODIFICATIONS. Appellant is found guilty of the
Court finds the award of P25,000.00 each to the heirs of complex crime of multiple murder with double attempted
each of the deceased victims proper. murder. In view, however, of Republic Act No. 9346
The surviving victims, Purisima and Ligaya, are also prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, appellant
entitled to moral, temperate and exemplary damages. is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/33 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/33
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 631

perpetua without the benefit of parole. The award of civil

indemnity, moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of
each of the deceased victims are hereby increased to
P75,000.00, P75,000.00, and P30,000.00, respectively. The
surviving victims, Purisima and Ligaya, are also awarded
moral damages of P40,000.00 each. The award of
exemplary damages to these surviving victims is likewise
increased to P30,000.00 each.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Carpio-Morales,** Velasco,

Jr. and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

Notes.—Where the accused owns up to killing the

victim, the burden of evidence shifts to him, showing by
clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-
defense or in defense of a relative or a stranger. (People vs.
Gutual, 254 SCRA 37 [1996]) 

_______________

92 People v. Mokammad, supra note 67 at p. 513.

** Per Special Order No. 884, Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-
Morales is designated as an additional member of the First Division in
place of Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, who is on
Official Leave.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f245508f648d4eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/33