G.R. No. L-11063; August 22, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO BRIZ, ET AL., defendants; EUSEBIO HERNANDEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Santiago Briz, Ricardo Reyes, Marciano Bondad, and Eusebio Hernandez were jointly accused of murder for the death of Toribio Sungcaya. After trial, the lower court absolved Santiago Briz and Marciano Bondad for insufficiency of evidence but convicted Ricardo Reyes and Eusebio Hernandez, sentencing each to life imprisonment, indemnity, and costs. Only Eusebio Hernandez appealed.
On the afternoon of April 13, 1955, witnesses Doroteo Escueta and Eleuterio Victoria met Ricardo Reyes and Eusebio Hernandez, both armed, at the Apasan bridge in Calauan, Laguna. Another armed group, including Marciano Bondad and Santiago Briz, was nearby. Reyes inquired about the whereabouts of Toribio Sungcaya. Later that evening, a serenading group heard gunshots and, upon reaching the bridge, found Sungcaya’s lifeless body. They met Reyes, Hernandez, and their companions walking briskly away from the scene. The autopsy revealed four mortal gunshot wounds.
The motive stemmed from the deceased’s role as barrio lieutenant in assisting police recover a stolen carabao, leading to the apprehension and resentment of the accused. Appellant admitted that were it not for the deceased, he would not have been implicated in the theft case.
Appellant set up an alibi, claiming he was at Tranquilino Ulan’s house in barrio Linao from 5:00 to 7:00 PM to consult a carpenter about a window frame. His testimony was corroborated by Anacleto de Cano and Daniel Belga. However, eyewitnesses identified him as part of the armed group seen at the bridge before the shooting and fleeing afterward. Appellant and co-accused Ricardo Reyes also gave written confessions to police authorities admitting their participation in the killing, motivated by their belief that the deceased reported them for the carabao theft. Appellant later claimed these confessions were obtained through torture.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the appellant and his extrajudicial confession.
2. Whether conspiracy was established to hold appellant liable as a co-conspirator.
3. Whether appellant’s extrajudicial confession was admissible or obtained through duress.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding appellant guilty.
1. On the Defense of Alibi: The defense of alibi cannot be sustained. Appellant’s claim of being elsewhere for two hours for a simple errand was deemed suspicious. His presence at the crime scene was positively established by eyewitnesses who saw him armed at the bridge shortly before the shooting and fleeing afterward. His identity and guilt were further corroborated by his extrajudicial confession. The well-established rule is that alibi cannot prevail when the accused’s identity is established by convincing evidence.
2. On Conspiracy: Conspiracy was established between appellant and Ricardo Reyes. The trial court’s observation that there was no evidence of conspiracy pertained only to the absolved accused (Bondad and Briz). For appellant and Reyes, conspiracy was proven by their own written confessions, wherein they admitted planning and executing the killing together. Even if appellant did not fire a shot, as a conspirator, he is equally responsible for the acts of his co-accused in furtherance of the conspiracy.
3. On the Admissibility of the Confession: Appellant’s claim that his confession was obtained through torture and threat is not credible. It is belied by the testimonies of the justice of the peace and municipal judge before whom he voluntarily signed the statements without protest. The injuries he sustained were from an attempted escape, not from coercion during interrogation. The Court found it unlikely torture would occur in the presence of his relatives as he claimed.
The decision of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against appellant.