G.R. No. L-7973; April 27, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CENON SERRANO alias PIPING, ET AL., defendants. DOMINGO CADIANG, SANTIAGO YUMUL and FILEMON CENZON, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In the evening of October 16, 1950, Eulogio Serrano disclosed to defendants Cenon Serrano alias Piping, Domingo Cadiang, Santiago Yumul, Filemon Cenzon, and Anastacio Reyes his plan to kill Pablo Navarro for allegedly prompting people to testify before Senator Pablo Angeles David about the Maliwalu massacre. He instructed them to wait for Navarro in Bacolor, lure him to barrio Dolores, and kill him. From October 17 to 20, the group waited for Navarro at his usual haunts. On October 20, they successfully invited Navarro for drinks at a gambling casino. After a drinking spree, they persuaded Navarro to go to San Fernando for a “good time,” using a hired jeep. En route, they changed destination to Angeles, then diverted to barrio Dolores. There, Navarro was tied up on Cenon Serrano’s orders, brought to a stockade, beaten by Cadiang and Cenzon with a piece of bamboo, and kicked by Cenon Serrano. Simplicio Manguerra, who accompanied Navarro, was also beaten by Yumul with a pestle on Cenon Serrano’s orders and later shot and buried by others. The group (Cenon Serrano, Cadiang, Yumul, Cenzon, and Reyes) then reported to Eulogio Serrano. Later that same afternoon, Eulogio Serrano, with others including Atilano Gopez, Benjamin Tolentino, and Melchor Esguerra, took Navarro from the stockade to sitio Castilang Malati, where Esguerra and Tolentino shot him dead on Eulogio’s orders. Navarro’s body was buried in a pre-dug pit. After the November 1951 elections, his bones were exhumed and disposed of. Appellants Domingo Cadiang, Santiago Yumul, and Filemon Cenzon were convicted of murder along with their co-defendants and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the lone testimony of their co-conspirator, Anastacio Reyes, and in finding that conspiracy was established.

RULING

The trial court did not err. The appellants’ contention that conspiracy cannot be established solely by the extra-judicial act or declaration of a co-conspirator is inapplicable. The rule requiring evidence of conspiracy independent of an extra-judicial declaration (Section 12, Rule 123) applies only to extra-judicial acts or declarations, not to testimony given in court under oath where the defendant has the opportunity for cross-examination. While the testimony of accomplices is subject to grave suspicion and must be received with caution, it is nevertheless admissible and competent evidence. The conviction based on such testimony is valid. For lack of sufficient votes to impose the death penalty, the judgment of conviction and the sentence of reclusion perpetua are AFFIRMED.