G.R. No. 146511 - Ang vs. Associated Bank

Occurrence took place in the early morning of April 2, 1967, in barrio Buenavista, Candelaria, Quezon.
Key persons involved include the deceased Juanito Minas, witnesses (Apolinario Punzalan, Ignacio Visco, Claro Mia), and the accused Agripino Bunsol and Roman de Castro.
The accused were connected by familial ties; Roman de Castro was Agripino Bunsol’s son-in-law.

At approximately 5:30 a.m., Juanito Minas, together with Apolinario Punzalan, Ignacio Visco, and Claro Mia, visited the house of Telesforo Bunsol to see his wife who had just given birth.
Agripino Bunsol and Roman de Castro were also present at the same location, having come as visitors.
After most of the visitors departed by around 6:00 a.m., Agripino Bunsol invited the remaining group to his house for coffee, which is situated about 200 meters from Telesforo Bunsol’s residence.

During the gathering at Agripino Bunsol’s house, a heated argument broke out between Agripino and Juanito Minas concerning politics.
Roman de Castro was noted to have exited through the kitchen door, coinciding with the tension; meanwhile, Claro Mia and Ignacio Visco left the premises via the kitchen.
As Juanito Minas attempted to leave by walking over the balcony, accompanied briefly by Apolinario Punzalan, a sudden shot was fired from the western direction, striking Minas on the back of his right leg.
Witnesses, including Apolinario Punzalan, testified that they saw Roman de Castro pointing a .45 caliber handgun at the victim as he fired a shot causing a wound.
After the first shot by de Castro, Minas managed to stand, prompting further shots: Roman de Castro fired two additional successive shots, and Agripino Bunsol later discharged numerous shots from a carbine through a window near the stairs until Minas collapsed and later died.

Immediately after the shooting, Agripino Bunsol approached Roman de Castro and proposed that they report the incident to the barrio captain.
They proceeded together to the barrio of Cabay, Tiaong, and eventually surrendered to the police when accompanied by Captain Moises Castillo and a local policeman.
On the scene, police discovered empty shells of .45 caliber and .30 caliber ammunition near and under the house, as well as live ammunition strewn in the vicinity.
A post-mortem examination conducted on April 2 by Dr. Juan Cedeno revealed that Juanito Minas had sustained nine gunshot wounds, with precise details of each wound provided, including indications that wounds from different firearms (calibers .45 and .30) were present.

Prosecution witnesses—including Apolinario Punzalan, Ignacio Visco, and others—provided detailed accounts linking the defendants to the shooting, describing the positions and actions of the accused during the incident.
The forensic report highlighted that the fatal wounds (particularly those inflicted to the head region) were beyond medical intervention, thereby confirming the lethality of the attack.
Affidavits executed on April 6, 1967, by Apolinario Punzalan and Ignacio Visco further identified Agripino Bunsol and Roman de Castro as the perpetrators.

Agripino Bunsol asserted that he acted in self-defense, claiming he was first fired upon by Juanito Minas using a .45 caliber pistol while Minas was in the act of descending the stairs.
Roman de Castro contended that he played no active role in the shooting and maintained that he was asleep at the time, later awakening due to the sound of gunfire; he further alleged that an injury on the right side of his neck occurred under circumstances that might have been self-inflicted.
The defense also argued that there was a variance between the details in the Information (which alleged the use of a .45 caliber by Agripino and a carbine by Roman de Castro) and the evidence presented in court (which indicated the reverse).
Several inconsistencies were highlighted, including the failure of defense witnesses to support a self-defense claim and the inexplicable conduct of the accused during police investigation and preliminary inquiry.

Whether the variance in the specific identification of the caliber and type of firearms used by the accused affected the nature of the offense.
Whether such minor discrepancies could be the basis for an acquittal.

The issues surrounding Agripino Bunsol’s claim of self-defense based on his own inconsistent testimony and the lack of supportive evidence.
The credibility of Roman de Castro’s alibi, especially given the conflicting testimonies regarding his whereabouts and injury at the time of the incident.

The weight to be given to the forensic evidence (post-mortem findings) corroborating the presence of wounds inflicted by two types of firearms.
The reliance on eyewitness accounts that placed the accused at the scene and contradicting the defense's narrative.

Whether the voluntary surrender of the accused should be considered in modifying the penalty, despite their joint responsibility in the commission of the crime.