G.R. No. L-38016 - People vs. Munoz

On August 22, 1972, in San Carlos City, Pangasinan, two security men—Feliciano “Tony” Munoz and Justo “Tito” Millora—were charged with the murder of Ricardo Depacina, alleged to be a cattle rustler.
The crime allegedly occurred when the accused, armed with firearms and acting in concert, approached Depacina in front of a store (purportedly owned by Catalino Sayson) near Bolingit Elementary School, where Munoz shot Depacina in the head.
The prosecution’s information stated that the killing was committed with evident premeditation, treachery, and the use of a motor vehicle, as they transported the body away and eventually dumped it in Barrio Duyong, Calasiao.

The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Third Judicial District, Branch XI rendered a decision on November 26, 1973.
Feliciano Munoz was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced to the death penalty, accompanied by an order to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay court costs.
Due to his age—being 14 years, 5 months, and 24 days old at the time—Justo Millora’s judgment was suspended in compliance with Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, and he was ordered to be committed to the care and custody of Brig. General Tomas P. Diaz at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, with periodic reports on his conduct.

Prosecution witnesses included Narciso Rosal, Patrolman Eduardo Agbuya, Dr. Silverio Petrasanta (the Rural Health Physician who performed the post-mortem examination), and rebuttal witnesses like Jose Macaraeg and Catalino Sayson.
Testimonies detailed the arrival of the accused in a police patrol jeep, their armed presence, and the subsequent shooting of Depacina.
Notable discrepancies among testimonies involved minor details such as the exact time of death and the number of firearms observed, but these were held as collateral matters not affecting the overall credibility of the witnesses.
In addition, Exhibits labeled “B,” “B-1,” and “B-2” formed part of a confession by Munoz, detailing a series of similar criminal acts and providing insight into the modus operandi of the accused.

Feliciano Munoz alleged multiple errors, including the improper exclusion of his allegedly coerced confession and inconsistencies in witness testimonies—particularly between the statements of Narciso Rosal and Dr. Petrasanta.
Munoz further contended that the lack of seemingly expected effects of gunfire (such as loud explosion) and the apparent improbability of the events (carrying the victim’s body away openly) should mitigate his culpability.
As a defense, an alibi was advanced, asserting that Munoz was at the Office of the City Mayor until 5 o’clock in the afternoon on the day of the crime, allegedly corroborated by a janitor and his co-accused.
Justo Millora also argued that there was no evidence of a conspiracy between him and Munoz, and that his minor age should favor acquittal or, at most, a conviction as an accomplice.

Witnesses admitted reluctance to come forward initially, a common phenomenon in criminal investigations where fear of retaliation prevailed.
The credibility of the witnesses was strongly defended by the prosecution, emphasizing that minor discrepancies in time and observation did not detract from their overall reliability.
The record also noted that Munoz had escaped from the New Bilibid Prison on October 11, 1975, reflecting on his criminal history and credibility.

Whether the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, such as the slight differences in the time of death as stated by Narciso Rosal and Dr. Petrasanta, sufficiently undermine their overall credibility.
Whether the alleged personal conflicts and prior incidents (e.g., Munoz’s alleged slapping of Rosal) could have induced bias in the witness accounts.

Whether the trial court erred in admitting Munoz’s confession (Exhibits “B”, “B-1”, and “B-2”), which was claimed to have been extracted under duress, threat, and intimidation.
Whether the spontaneous nature of the statement, as argued by the prosecution, adequately negated the allegations of coercion.

Whether the alibi evidence presented by Munoz (and indirectly by Millora) regarding Munoz’s presence in the Mayor’s Office can effectively raise reasonable doubt given the temporal proximity between the alibi location and the crime scene.
Whether the established distance and time factors support or weaken the defense’s claim of his absence from the scene during the commission of the murder.

Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy between Munoz and Millora, thereby holding Millora criminally liable beyond mere association as an accomplice.
Whether the absence of direct evidence of premeditated conspiracy negates the inference of a concerted plan to commit the murder.

Whether the use of a motor vehicle during the commission of the crime should be considered as an aggravating circumstance, despite it being only incidental to the murder.
Whether the personal circumstances of Millora (his age) should lead to a more lenient treatment or a reduction in criminal liability.