G.R. No. L-33344 March 25, 1975
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGRIPINO BUNSOL and ROMAN DE CASTRO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The case stems from the killing of Juanito Miñas on April 2, 1967, in Barrio Buenavista, Candelaria, Quezon. Earlier that morning, Miñas, along with Apolinario Punzalan, Ignacio Visco, and Claro Mia, visited a neighbor. They were later invited by accused Agripino Bunsol to his house for coffee. A heated political argument ensued between Bunsol and Miñas. During this, Bunsol’s son-in-law, co-accused Roman de Castro, went downstairs. Witnesses Visco and Mia left the house. As Miñas prepared to leave, standing on the balcony, a shot from a .45 caliber firearm, fired by de Castro from the western side of the house, hit Miñas in the leg, causing him to fall down the stairs. De Castro fired two more shots at the fallen victim. Subsequently, Agripino Bunsol fired multiple shots at Miñas from a window using a carbine until the victim died. The appellants then voluntarily surrendered to the barrio captain and later to the police. A post-mortem examination revealed the victim sustained nine gunshot wounds, two of which were fatal. The appellants were charged with and convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Quezon, which sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of murder based on the evidence presented, and whether any mitigating circumstances should be considered in the imposition of the penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses, particularly Apolinario Punzalan, to be credible and sufficient to establish the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Their positive identification of de Castro as the one who fired the initial shots and Bunsol as the one who fired the fatal shots from the window was consistent and corroborated by physical evidence, including the recovery of empty shells matching the described firearms. The defense of alibi and de Castro’s claim of being a wounded bystander were rejected as inherently weak and uncorroborated. The Court agreed with the finding of treachery, as the attack was sudden and deliberate, rendering the victim defenseless. However, the Court found the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was duly proven by the appellants’ immediate act of reporting to authorities. Consequently, with the presence of this mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty was reduced from reclusion perpetua to an indeterminate penalty ranging from eleven years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The civil indemnity was affirmed.