G.R. No. L-23202; April 30, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMARICO ELIZAGA, VENERANDO TOBIAS, CARLITO CABIERA, JAIME DE LA CRUZ, VICENTE CORTEZ and CRESENCIO ELIZAGA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

An information for murder was filed against Romarico Elizaga, Cresencio Elizaga, Venerando Tobias, Carlito Cabiera, Grevel Galindon, Jaime de la Cruz, and Vicente Cortes, alleging conspiracy, evident premeditation, and treachery in the shooting death of Rodolfo Paulino. The trial court acquitted Grevel Galindon but convicted the other accused, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. The convicted accused appealed. During the appeal, Romarico Elizaga died, leading to the dismissal of his appeal. The appellants assigned errors regarding their identification, participation, conspiracy, and the voluntariness of Cresencio Elizaga’s confession.
On the night of June 26, 1963, Antonio Singson, Rodolfo Paulino, and others were in Singson’s house in Abariuñgan Ruar, Faire, Cagayan, when the house was showered with bullets. After the first volley, Singson saw six persons approaching from about 20 meters away. PC Corporal Leon Bumagat and his soldiers, who were nearby, heard the gunshots and proceeded to the area. They heard people running towards the river, followed them, and apprehended eight persons boarding a motor banca, including the appellants (except Jaime de la Cruz) and others. Vicente Cortes was found wounded in the banca. Based on Cresencio Elizaga’s statement that firearms were thrown into the river, the PC retrieved a .45 caliber pistol, a carbine, and a homemade paltik.
Cresencio Elizaga’s sworn statement (Exhibit D) indicated that he, Romarico Elizaga, Venerando Tobias, Carlito Cabiera, Jaime de la Cruz, Grevel Galindon, and Vicente Cortes went to Abariuñgan Ruar. Upon arrival at Romarico’s house, a plan to raid Singson’s house was made. Romarico, Tobias, Cabiera, Galindon, and Cortes proceeded to the house while Cresencio and Jaime de la Cruz stayed behind. After hearing gunfire, they saw the group running back with the wounded Cortes, helped load him onto a boat, and were apprehended as PC soldiers arrived. At trial, Cresencio repudiated his statement, claiming it was extracted by force and intimidation, but the justice of the peace who administered the oath testified that he translated and explained the contents to Cresencio, who swore to and signed it voluntarily.

ISSUE

The main issues raised on appeal were: (1) whether the accused were the ones who fired at Singson’s house, causing Paulino’s death; (2) whether Carlito Cabiera and Vicente Cortes participated in the raid; (3) whether the identity of the accused was established; (4) whether there was conspiracy; and (5) whether Cresencio Elizaga’s confession was admissible or was extracted by force and intimidation.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that Cresencio Elizaga’s confession was voluntarily executed, as corroborated by the justice of the peace’s testimony and the detailed nature of the statement, which could not have been concocted by a stranger to the events. The Court found that the evidence established the criminal participation of Romarico Elizaga, Cresencio Elizaga, Jaime de la Cruz, and Vicente Cortes. Their concerted action in planning and executing the raid, which resulted in Paulino’s death, constituted conspiracy. The means employed—attacking the house at night by surprise—ensured the execution without risk to themselves, qualifying the killing as murder with treachery.
However, the Court acquitted Venerando Tobias and Carlito Cabiera on reasonable doubt, as the evidence did not sufficiently establish their participation in the shooting. The Court also denied Cresencio Elizaga’s motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence (affidavits of retraction by prosecution witnesses), as retractions are not considered newly discovered evidence and would not alter the conclusions regarding his guilt.
The modifying circumstances of evident premeditation and by a band were not appreciated for lack of clear evidence and because they were not alleged in the information. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed for Romarico Elizaga (his appeal dismissed due to death), Cresencio Elizaga, Jaime de la Cruz, and Vicente Cortes, with orders to indemnify the heirs of Rodolfo Paulino jointly and severally.