G.R. No. L-15812, December 30, 1961
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pedro Racca alias Doming, Nepomuceno Mendoza alias Inoy alias Nepo and Lucio Ragadi alias Lucio, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Seismunda Lizardo was shot and killed while sleeping in her house in Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur, on the night of May 10, 1954. Investigation revealed a gunshot wound to her right eye. Witnesses Gregorio and Eleuterio Directo, children of the victim, initially identified appellant Nepomuceno Mendoza (“Inoy”) as one of the persons they saw leaving the scene and heard discussing the shooting. Another witness, Antonio Velasco, later overheard Mendoza bragging about the victim being hit in the eye. Based on these affidavits, Mendoza was charged. Upon arrest, Mendoza executed an affidavit implicating Lucio Ragadi, claiming they were together elsewhere. Subsequently, Mendoza and Ragadi executed a joint affidavit implicating two other individuals, Andres Ragil and Rodolfo Rebellon. Finally, in separate sworn statements, Ragadi and Mendoza implicated appellant Pedro Racca, alleging he hired them for a reward to kill the victim over a property dispute. The prosecution’s theory consolidated into a conspiracy where Racca, as the mastermind, provided the weapon and promise of reward, Mendoza acted as the guide, and Ragadi was the triggerman.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of appellants Pedro Racca, Nepomuceno Mendoza, and Lucio Ragadi for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to life imprisonment. The Court found the evidence sufficient to establish conspiracy among the appellants. The series of sworn statements, though conflicting initially, ultimately converged to implicate all three appellants in a plot motivated by a promised reward. The Court applied the legal principle that extrajudicial confessions, if corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, are admissible against the confessant. Here, the confessions of Ragadi and Mendoza were mutually corroborative and consistent with the physical evidence and the established motive involving a property dispute. The Court noted telling circumstances reinforcing guilt: Mendoza’s admission that witnesses overheard him discussing the crime, the established motive, and Racca’s attempted suicide, indicative of remorse. The collective evidence painted a coherent narrative: Racca masterminded the killing for a price, Mendoza guided Ragadi to the victim’s dwelling, and Ragadi fired the fatal shot with treachery as the victim was asleep. The qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, reward, and dwelling were properly appreciated. However, for lack of the necessary votes for the death penalty, the sentence was reduced to life imprisonment.