PEOPLE V.
MUNOZ
J. Cruz, Feb 9, 1989
DDL
DOCTRINE:
The enactment of Article III, Section 19(1) of the Constitution did not abolish the death penalty, as the
provision merely says that the death penalty will not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes as provided for by the Congress
FACTS:
● Munoz and 11 other armed men, who were members of a private army, went to a farm in Balite
Sur, Pangasinan
○ They went to the house of cattle rustler Mauro Bulatao, and shot him in the mouth with a
long firearm
○ They then went and dragged out Mauro’s son, Aquilino, who they proceeded to kick in
the head several times, and they eventually shot him while he was lying down
defenseless
○ Lastly, they went to the house of Alejandro Bulatao who was ordered to lie down by
Munoz et al. While he was lying down, Alejandro was also shot in front of his 12-y.o. son
● Munoz et al.’s defenses were that (1) the accused only filed cases months after the supposed
killings, and (2) alibi, particularly that accused Millora was in Dagupan City at the time of the
killings, while accused Tayaba and Mislang were in the latter’s house at the time of the killings
● Trial court held that the defenses of the accused cannot be believed since (1) the families of the
victims obviously would be deterred from filing the case immediately, fearing for their own lives,
and (2) the defense of alibi cannot be sustained, since the defendants did not show how it was
impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime, which is required for the defense of alibi to
prosper
● Trial court finally found Millora guilty of murder as principal, and Munoz, Tayaba, and Mislang
as accomplices
ISSUE:
W/N the trial court erred in the appreciation of the participation of the accused Munoz, Tayaba, and
Mislang
[MAIN] W/N Article III, Sec. 19 of the 1987 Constitution had the effect of abolishing the death penalty
RULING:
YES, MUNOZ, TAYABA, AND MISLANG SHOULD BE SENTENCED AS PRINCIPALS UNDER THE
DOCTRINE OF CONSPIRACY
GR: The principle of conspiracy provides that the act of one is the act of all. When a group moves in
concert, pursuing a common design previously agreed upon, all of those who act in pursuance of such
design are considered as part of a conspiracy, and therefore are guilty as co-principals.
● ITCAB, there is no question that all 11 of the men went to look for the cattle rustlers, therefore
evidencing a common design to ferret out the victims in this case
○ They already have agreed beforehand to kill these cattle rustlers
○ This is evidenced by the fact that when they went there, they already had drawn and
loaded weapons
○ They also assumed strategic positions when they got to the house of the cattle rustlers
■ Nobody moved to stop those who actually pulled the trigger, as they only stood
by with their weapons
NO, THE DEATH PENALTY WAS NOT ABOLISHED
GR: The enactment of Article III, Section 19(1) of the Constitution did not abolish the death penalty, as
the provision merely says that the death penalty will not be imposed unless for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes as provided for by the Congress
● ITCAB, the SC was debating what the proper penalty was for the accused in this case
● It is clear that the act is considered to be murder with the aggravating circumstance of treachery,
given that the victims were helpless when they were killed
○ The penalty for murder as per Art. 248; RPC is reclusion temporal, in its maximum to
death
■ Given the enactment of Article III, Section 19, a new school of
jurisprudence has emerged
● People v. Gavarra & People v. Masangkay - the abolition of the death
penalty has reduced the penalty for murder to reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua
○ Basically, these cases divided the penalty for murder into 3
periods, minimum period is the lower half of reclusion temporal
maximum, the medium period is the upper half of reclusion
temporal maximum, and the maximum period is reclusion
perpetua
■ Court said that this should not be the case, as the proper interpretation would be
that the penalty for murder remains to be reclusion perpetua to death, insofar
as the death penalties which are imposed are reduced to reclusion perpetua
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is MODIFIED and all the accused-appellants are hereby declared
guilty as principals in Criminal Case Nos. 0176, 0177 and 0178. Each of them is sentenced to suffer
three (3) penalties of reclusion perpetua, and to pay solidarily to the heirs of their victims civil
indemnity in the sum of P30,000.00 for each of the deceased, or a total indemnity of P90,000.00, with
costs.
