Title
People vs. Munoz
Case
G.R. No. L-38016
Decision Date
Sep 10, 1983
Two men, armed and conspiring, shot an unarmed victim in the head, loaded his body into a jeep, and fled. One convicted of murder, the other, a minor, committed to custody.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17958)

Applicable Law

The primary legal basis for the proceedings is the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 248 concerning murder. The decision on this case is informed by the legal standards in effect, including the relevant articles concerning minors and the imposition of the death penalty.

Facts of the Case

On August 22, 1972, Munoz and Millora, both security personnel for the Mayor of San Carlos City, approached Ricardo Depacina while armed. Eyewitnesses testified that Munoz shot Depacina in the forehead while Millora stood by, brandishing a gun. Following the shooting, the defendants loaded Depacina's body into their police patrol jeep and transported it to Calasiao, where it was subsequently discovered.

Trial Court's Rulings

The trial court found Munoz guilty of murder and sentenced him to death, citing the aggravating circumstance of treachery. In contrast, Millora, because of his young age—only fourteen years—had his judgment suspended, being placed under the custody of Brigadier General Tomas P. Diaz.

Appellants' Arguments

Feliciano Munoz raised several errors regarding the trial court's findings. He contended:

  1. Error in Determining Guilt: He argued that the prosecution witnesses failed to convincingly identify him as the shooter.
  2. Admission of Confession: He claimed his confession was coerced and therefore should not have been considered.
  3. Insufficiency of Evidence: He asserted that the defense's evidence was not overcome by the prosecution's case.

Justo Millora contested the trial's failure to accept his alibi and the absence of conspiracy evidence linking him to Munoz’s alleged crime.

Evaluation of Evidence

Testimonies and Confession

The court evaluated witness testimonies. Munoz's challenge on the credibility of witnesses was rebutted effectively by the prosecution, maintaining that the minor discrepancies in their accounts did not detract from their overall reliability. Furthermore, Munoz's confession, although contested, was admissible under the prevailing presumption of voluntariness, as he failed to substantiate claims of coercion.

Alibi Defense

Munoz's alibi was undermined by witness testimonies establishing that the shooting occurred promptly after their arrival at the scene. The court emphasized that an alibi must be substantiated by evidence demonstrating physical impossibility to commit the crime, a standard not met by Munoz. Millora's alibi similarly lacked corroboration from named witnesses.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

The court upheld the conclusion of treachery, noting that the defendants utilized surprise in attacking an unarmed victim, thereby ensuring his inability to defend himself. The defense’s claim regarding the incidental use of a police vehicle was dismissed. The court concluded that the use of the police patrol jeep facilitated the crime and subsequent concealment of evidence, which constituted an aggravating circumstance.

Final Judgement

The Supreme Court amended the lower court's ruling, converting Munoz's sentence from death to reclusion perpetua, on the basis that treachery was the only established aggravating

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.