G.R. No. L-69346 - People vs. Nulla

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

Factual Background

On or about March 20, 1981, merchant Agustin Mecaral loaded fifty-six sacks of rice on his pump boat “Two Brothers,” with four crew members aboard: Prudencio Nulla, Bembo Cunag, Efren Velasco, and William Sanchez. The rice was sold at P160.00 per sack at islands in Leyte and Samar, leaving one and one-half sacks. On the evening of March 22, 1981, while near Maripipi Island, Mecaral was struck twice on the head with a bolo wielded by Prudencio Nulla, fell unconscious to the deck, was tied with an anchor and a trailer, and was thrown overboard, thereafter sinking and not being seen again. The killers took Mecaral’s money, the proceeds of the rice sales, and the remaining crew returned to Naval, Leyte, where Nulla and companions embarked on travels and were later arrested in Cebu and brought back to Leyte.

Procedural History

The Provincial Fiscal filed an information in early December 1981 charging Nulla, Cunag, Jimenez, and Velasco with robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, alleging aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, outrage of the corpse, nocturnity, uninhabited place, and deliberate augmentation of wrong by weighing down and dumping the body. Nulla pleaded guilty at arraignment but later testified claiming self-defense. Cunag and Jimenez pleaded not guilty. Velasco was never arraigned and remained at large. Separate trials were held. On September 12, 1984, the RTC convicted Nulla, Cunag, and Jimenez of robbery with homicide and imposed varying penalties, which appeals brought to the Supreme Court.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

The appellants principally challenged credibility findings. They urged that: (1) the extra-judicial confessions of Nulla and Cunag were inadmissible because they were procured in violation of constitutional rights; (2) the testimony of the State’s principal witness, William Sanchez, was unreliable and should be disregarded; and (3) Nulla acted in justifying self-defense and the taking of money was an afterthought. The Solicitor General, among other positions, recommended acquittal for Jimenez.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC found Nulla, Cunag, and Jimenez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1). It appreciated against Nulla the aggravating circumstances of treachery, nocturnity, uninhabited place, and cruelty, offset only by his voluntary plea of guilt; sentenced him to death and to indemnify heirs P20,000.00; sentenced Cunag as accomplice to reclusion perpetua and indemnity of P10,000.00; and sentenced Jimenez as accessory to imprisonment ranging from six years of prision correccional to ten years of prision mayor and indemnity of P2,000.00. The RTC credited preventive detention as indicated.

Evidentiary Record and Witness Testimony

The record includes written statements of Cunag, Nulla, and Sanchez signed before Municipal Trial Court Judge Jose Patino and testimony from Sanchez who described the murder as a planned and unprovoked attack. Sanchez testified that Nulla approached the victim on the cabin roof carrying an eighteen-inch bolo, suddenly raised it and hacked Mecaral twice in the head; that Nulla ordered Velasco to get the money and Cunag to fetch the anchor and trailer; that the trio tied the iron anchor and trailer, weighing about 65 kilos, to Mecaral and dumped him into the sea; and that they thereafter used the boat and money for travel. Nulla and Cunag gave versions denying treachery and asserting that the killing occurred in the course of a struggle and that the taking of money was to prevent its loss.

Admissibility of Extra-Judicial Confessions

The Supreme Court accepted that the written statements of Nulla and Cunag were made during custodial interrogation without counsel. The Court therefore rejected and disregarded those extra-judicial confessions in conformity with precedent, citing People v. Galit and subsequent cases. The Court noted the Trial Court’s rejection of the appellants’ allegations that the confessions were extorted by violence, as Judge Patino had testified that he informed them of their constitutional rights and translated the contents.

Credibility and Sanchez’s Testimony

With the extrajudicial confessions excluded, the prosecution’s case rested substantially on Sanchez’s testimony. The Court emphasized that a single credible witness may sustain conviction. The Court found Sanchez’s account trustworthy and reliable. It rejected attempts to impugn Sanchez as biased or improperly rewarded; the Court observed nothing in the record indicating promises of immunity or other motives for false testimony, and noted that Sanchez had no part in the commission of the offense that would justify an immunity promise.

Rejection of Self-Defense and Characterization of the Killing

The Court rejected Nulla’s plea of justifiable self-defense. It reasoned that by Nulla’s own account he preempted the victim’s access to the bolo by seizing it, eliminating any need to use it for protection; that there was no unlawful aggression at the time to justify the blows; and that the nature and target of the blows — two strikes to the head — evidenced use of lethal force inconsistent with mere self-protection. The Court further relied on appellants’ subsequent conduct: failure to render aid, immediate weighing down and dumping of the victim’s body, appropriation and expenditure of the victim’s money, and use of the victim’s boat. Those actions evidenced a common intention to ensure the victim’s death and to profit from the taking. The Court concluded that the evidence established that Nulla killed Mecaral by reason or on occasion of the taking of his money, satisfying the definition of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1).

Participation of Cunag and Legal Characterization

The Court found Cunag’s participation proved beyond reasonable doubt by his contemporaneous acts: fetching and assisting to fasten the anchor and trailer to the victim, aiding in throwing the victim into the sea, and sharing in the use of the boat and proceeds. The Court held that, lacking proof of prior agreement or declaration of intent to participate, Cunag could not properly be convicted as a co-principal under Article 17 but was properly adjudged an accomplice under Article 18, as one who cooperated by simultaneous acts.

Treatment of Jimenez

The evidence against Jimenez consisted of his presence at the beach with a flashlight and bolo when the boat ran aground, his asking whether “it is through,” his question “Where is my share?” his giving of a gallon of gasoline, and his following the pump boat only up to Higatangan. The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s recommendation and held that these facts were susceptible of two interpretations, one consistent with innocence and one with guilt. Applying the rule that if inculpatory facts admit of reasonable doubt the accused must be acquitted, the Court reversed the conviction of Jimenez and acquitted him on reasonable doubt.

Aggravating Circumstances, Penalties, and Modification

The Court agreed with the RTC’s appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of treachery, nocturnity, and uninhabited place as to Nulla, but declined to appreciate cruelty because the record did not adequately prove whether Mecaral was alive when thrown into the sea. The Court sustained the conviction of Nulla for robbery with homicide and, in view of the abolition of the death penalty by the 1987 Constitution, reduced his punishment to reclusion perpetua. For Cunag, the Court accepted the Solicitor General’s application of Article 52 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, modifying his punishment from reclusion perpetua to an indeterminate term with a minimum of ten years and one day of prision ma

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

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted the appellants for robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Prudencio Nulla, Bembo Cunag, and Alberto Jimenez were arraigned, tried, convicted by the Regional Trial Court, and appealed to the Court.
Efren Velasco was never arraigned and remained at large throughout the proceedings described in the record.
The Trial Court, Branch XVI, RTC at Naval, Subprovince of Biliran, Leyte, rendered judgment on September 12, 1984, and the case came before the Supreme Court on appeal.

Key Factual Allegations

The victim, Agustin Mecaral, owned the pump boat “Two Brothers” and loaded fifty-six sacks of rice which he sold in nearby islands, retaining proceeds amounting to P10,000.00.
On the evening of March 22, 1981, near Maripipi Island, Mecaral was struck twice on the head with a bolo by Prudencio Nulla, rendered senseless, tied with an anchor and trailer, and thrown into the sea where he sank and was not seen again.
The accused thereafter took Mecaral’s money, used the victim’s pump boat for travel, sojourned in various places for about a month, and were later arrested upon return to Cebu except for Efren Velasco who separated earlier.

Investigations and Evidence

Cunag, Nulla, and Sanchez gave written statements on September 24, 1981, identified at trial as Exhibits C, D, and 1, respectively, which were signed and sworn before Municipal Trial Court Judge Jose Patino.
The prosecution’s case rested principally on the testimony of William Sanchez, a crew member of the pump boat, whose testimony described a deliberate attack by Nulla, the taking of money, the fastening of a heavy anchor and trailer to the victim, and the dumping of the body into the sea.
The appellants excepted to the admissibility and weight of extrajudicial confessions and to the credibility of Sanchez as the State’s principal witness.

Trial Court Judgment

The Trial Court convicted Prudencio Nulla as principal for the special complex felony of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to death, ordered indemnity of P20,000.00, and costs.
The Trial Court convicted Bembo Cunag as accomplice and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with indemnity of P10,000.00 and costs.
The Trial Court sentenced Alberto Jimenez as accessory to imprisonment of six to ten years and ordered indemnity of P2,000.00.
The Trial Court credited preventive detention as reflected in its disposition and appreciated several aggravating circumstances against Nulla.

Issues on Appeal

The appellants principally contested the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, urging that their own version of events demonstrating self-defense should have been accepted.
The appellants argued that the extrajudicial confessions of Nulla and Cunag should have been excluded for violation of constitutional rights.
The appellants challenged the credibility and impartiality of prosecution witness William Sanchez.
The Solicitor General recommended acquittal of Alberto Jimenez on reasonable doubt.

Appellants’ Contentions

Nulla maintained a plea of guilty at arraignment but later testified that the killing occurred in legitimate self-defense after a physical quarrel and an attempt by the victim to seize a bolo.
Cunag and Jimenez pleaded not guilty and asserted versions inconsistent with Sanchez’s testimony.
The appellants contended that the written statements were coerced and that Sanchez had motive or inducement to be biased as a witness.

Legal Analysis — Confessions

The Court determined that the extrajudicial confessions of Nulla and Cunag were made during custodial interrogation without the assistance of counsel and therefore were inadmissible.
The Court cited and applied the rule in People