Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1623, MTJ-06-1624, MTJ-06-1625, MTJ-06-1627, P-09-2693, MTJ-06-1638)
Background of the Incident
On the morning of April 2, 1967, a group of individuals, including Juanito Minas, visited Telesforo Bunsol. Following initial visits, Agripino Bunsol invited the group to his home for coffee. A heated argument between Agripino Bunsol and Minas regarding politics ensued. After the argument, while Minas and Apolinario Punzalan were departing, Minas was shot by Roman de Castro, who was allegedly armed with a .45 caliber firearm. Agripino Bunsol then joined in the shooting with a carbine, leading to the death of Minas from multiple gunshot wounds.
Post-Incident Actions
After the shooting, Agripino Bunsol and Roman de Castro approached the local barrio captain and expressed their desire to surrender. Subsequently, they were turned over to the police in Tiaong. Investigators found multiple empty shells and live ammunition at the scene, indicative of the violent confrontation that had taken place.
Examination of Evidence
A medical examination by Dr. Juan Cedeno revealed that the victim sustained nine gunshot wounds, two of which were fatal. The wounds indicated the use of both a carbine and a .45 caliber pistol, supporting the prosecution's assertion that both defendants participated in the act of murder. Witnesses testified that Roman de Castro fired the initial shot, followed by Agripino Bunsol firing from a window.
Appellants' Arguments
The appellants raised several arguments in their appeal, the primary of which was a claimed variance between the information filed and the evidence presented. They contended that the prosecution failed to prove the exact circumstances as alleged, specifically the type of firearms used in the killing. However, the court found that minor discrepancies regarding the type of weapon did not negate the nature of the offense.
Assessment of Credibility
The court meticulously evaluated the credibility of the defense testimonies, highlighting inconsistencies in the suggestions of self-defense and alibi presented by Agripino Bunsol and Roman de Castro. Bunsol's claims of being fired upon first were not corroborated by physical evidence or witness testimony. The testimony from police investigator Manuel Legaspi further undermined their claims, as no weapon belonging to Minas was found and Legaspi corroborated the prosecution's findings regarding the shell casings discovered at the scene.
Conclusion on Guilt
The evidence presented, particularly the testimonies of eyewitnesses and forensic findings, led the court to conclude that both Agripino Bunsol and Roman de Castro acted in concert and were collectively responsible for the murder of Juanito Minas. The court observed the mitigating circumsta
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1623, MTJ-06-1624, MTJ-06-1625, MTJ-06-1627, P-09-2693, MTJ-06-1638)
Case Overview
- This case is an appeal by defendants-appellants Agripino Bunsol and Roman de Castro against the decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch II, dated December 29, 1970.
- The lower court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with additional penalties including indemnification of the victim's widow and costs.
Facts of the Case
- On April 2, 1967, at approximately 5:30 AM, Juanito Minas and several companions were visiting Telesforo Bunsol’s house in Candelaria, Quezon.
- Agripino Bunsol and his son-in-law, Roman de Castro, were also visiting at the same time.
- A heated political argument ensued between Agripino and Minas, leading to an escalating confrontation.
- After Minas and his companions decided to leave, a shot was fired from the direction of Agripino’s house, hitting Minas in the leg and prompting further gunfire.
- Witness Apolinario Punzalan testified that he saw Roman de Castro firing a .45 caliber firearm at Minas, followed by Agripino firing a carbine from a window until Minas collapsed and died.
- Agripino and Roman subsequently attempted to surrender to local authorities, indicating their awareness of the severity of the incident.
Medical Examination
- A p