People v. Bunsol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 2, 1967, Juanito Miñas was visiting a neighbor's house where Agripino Bunsol and his son-in-law Roman de Castro were also present. A heated argument ensued between Agripino and Miñas. While Miñas was on the balcony preparing to leave, Roman de Castro, who had gone downstairs, fired a .45 caliber firearm at Miñas, hitting him in the leg. As Miñas slid down the stairs, Agripino Bunsol, from a window, fired a carbine at Miñas until he fell dead. Agripino and Roman then surrendered to the barrio captain and subsequently to the police. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Quezon found Agripino Bunsol and Roman de Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, indemnifying the widow, and paying costs, finding no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in convicting them despite a variance between the Information and the proof regarding the firearms used, and in giving more credence to prosecution witnesses over defense witnesses, thereby rejecting claims of self-defense and alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether there was a fatal variance between the Information alleging Agripino Bunsol used a caliber .45 and Roman de Castro used a carbine, and the proof showing the reverse. Whether the trial court erred in giving more credence to prosecution witnesses and disregarding defense witnesses, thus rejecting Agripino Bunsol's claim of self-defense and Roman de Castro's alibi. Whether treachery was present as a qualifying circumstance. Whether voluntary surrender should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
Ruling
The appealed decision is affirmed with modification. The penalty is reduced from reclusion perpetua to an indeterminate penalty of eleven (11) years of prision mayor, as the minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum, due to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The conviction for murder is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the variance between the Information and the proof: The Court held that minor variances between the Information and the evidence concerning the kind or caliber of firearms used do not alter the nature of the offense. The description of the firearm is not an essential ingredient of the crime of murder. The crucial fact is that the accused, acting in concert, caused the death of the victim through the use of firearms. On the credibility of witnesses and the claim of self-defense and alibi: The Court found no merit in the appellants' contention that the trial court erred in giving credence to prosecution witnesses. The trial court's reasons for disbelieving Agripino Bunsol's claim of self-defense were well-founded. Bunsol's claim was unsubstantiated by satisfactory evidence, relying solely on his co-accused's testimony, which was considered self-serving. The defense failed to present the alleged firearm used by the victim, and the widow testified that the deceased did not own a gun. Furthermore, Bunsol's failure to mention self-defense to the police investigator and his waiver of preliminary investigation cast doubt on his testimony. Roman de Castro's alibi was also uncorroborated and contradicted by eyewitnesses. The presence of gunshot wounds on the victim, particularly on the posterior side of the leg, indicated he was shot from behind, contradicting the claim of self-defense. The fact that the victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds from two types of firearms also argued against the self-defense claim. On the presence of treachery: The Court found that both appellants confederated and acted in concert in the commission of the crime. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was established, making them equally criminally responsible for the offense of murder. The prosecution's theory was buttressed by undisputed facts, including the eyewitness testimony that Roman de Castro initiated the shooting with a Cal. .45 pistol at Miñas, who was descending the stairs and was hit on the leg, indicating he was shot from behind. On the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender: The Court noted that the lower court failed to consider the voluntary surrender of both appellants to the authorities. This fact was sufficiently established by the record and warranted the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the lower court was modified to reflect this mitigating circumstance.
Main Doctrine
Minor variance between the Information and the evidence regarding the kind or caliber of firearms used does not alter the nature of the offense, as the description of the firearm is not an essential ingredient of the crime. Self-defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, relying on the strength of the accused's own evidence, not the weakness of the prosecution's. The surrender of the accused to the authorities, even if not considered by the trial court, should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.