Title
People vs. Nulla
Case
G.R. No. L-69346
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1987
Crew members killed merchant Agustin Mecaral, stole rice sale proceeds, and disposed of his body. Convicted of robbery with homicide; Nulla and Cunag sentenced, Jimenez acquitted.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-69346)

Procedural History

In December 1981, the Provincial Fiscal charged the four respondents with robbery with homicide, alleging robbery of P 10,000 aggravated by treachery, premeditation, corpse-outraging, nocturnity, uninhabited place, and enhancement by weighing down the victim to prevent discovery. Nulla pleaded guilty but later invoked self-defense; Cunag and Jimenez pleaded not guilty; Velasco remained at large. The RTC, Branch XVI, Naval, Leyte, convicted Nulla, Cunag, and Jimenez on September 12, 1984, for robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) and imposed the death penalty on Nulla, reclusion perpetua on Cunag, and prision correccional to prision mayor on Jimenez. All three appealed.

Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions

Nulla’s and Cunag’s written statements, taken by PC officers without counsel during custodial interrogation, violated their constitutional rights under the 1973 Constitution and the safeguards articulated in People v. Galit. The Supreme Court rejected these confessions as inadmissible, leaving Sanchez’s testimony as the sole basis for guilt.

Sole Prosecution Witness: William Sanchez

Sanchez, one of the boat crew, testified that Nulla surprised Mecaral on the cabin roof, hacked him twice, then ordered Velasco to retrieve the money and Cunag to fetch the anchor and trailer. Nulla and Cunag tied these heavy objects to Mecaral’s body, and ordered disposal overboard. Sanchez’s account negated any self-defense theory.

Claim of Self-Defense

Nulla asserted he preemptively struck Mecaral during a supper scuffle in self-defense. The Court found this implausible: Mecaral had not posed imminent deadly danger after missing a single bolo thrust; there was no necessity to use lethal force; the immediate weighing-down and disposal of the body, and subsequent use of the victim’s money and boat, demonstrated intent to kill and conceal. The RTC’s credibility findings were accorded deference and sustained.

Criminal Liability of Respondents

– Prudencio Nulla: Principal in robbery with homicide, having killed Mecaral to facilitate taking of money.
– Bembo Cunag: Accomplice (Article 18), providing contemporaneous assistance by fetching and using the anchor and trailer, and sharing in the proceeds.
– Alberto Jimenez: Acquitted on reasonable doubt. His presence at the beach and exchanges with Nulla were potentially innocent (inquiring about rice sale rather than homicide), and the evidence admitted two interpretations.
– Efren Velasco: At large; not tried on appeal.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

Aggravating (Nulla):
– Treachery (sudden and unexpected attack)
– Nocturnity (nighttime commission)
– Uninhabited place (open sea)
Mitigating (Nulla): Plea of guilt

No cruelty finding (uncertainty whether Mecaral was alive when drowned).

Penalties and Their Modification

– Nulla:




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.