G.R. No. L-4565; May 20, 1953
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLONIO RAIZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the night of May 13, 1948, accused Apolonio Raiz (a special policeman) and Patricio Rebillos went to the house of Alfredo de la Cruz in barrio Villafuerte, San Mateo, Isabela. They woke de la Cruz and took him from his house. Shortly after, his wife Fortunata Fabros heard a gunshot. De la Cruz did not return. That same night, Raiz and Rebillos summoned seven residents (including Gabriel Achuela, Gabino Rigor, Pedro Achuela, and Paulino Mañgapit) and ordered them to help bury de la Cruz’s body, admitting they had killed him. The witnesses were led to barrio Dappig, found de la Cruz’s hogtied body with a jaw injury, buried it as ordered, and were threatened not to reveal the incident. Later, constabulary soldiers on patrol were informed by these witnesses about the burial and the identities of the killers. The body was exhumed on November 25, 1948, and the remains, along with clothing and a belt, were identified by Fortunata as her husband’s. The defense claimed that a certain Florentino Verzosa shot de la Cruz when he attempted to escape, and that Raiz and Rebillos merely learned of it afterward. Rebillos corroborated this story in his testimony. However, Raiz, while in jail, wrote letters attempting to influence prosecution witnesses and only later raised the claim about Verzosa.

ISSUE

Whether Apolonio Raiz (and Patricio Rebillos) killed Alfredo de la Cruz, as prosecuted, or whether Florentino Verzosa was the killer, as claimed by the defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, finding Apolonio Raiz guilty of murder. The Court held that the prosecution evidence was overwhelming and conclusive. The straightforward testimonies of the witnesses (Gabriel Achuela, Gabino Rigor, Pedro Achuela, and Paulino Mañgapit) who were ordered by Raiz and Rebillos to bury the body, and to whom the accused admitted the killing, were given full credit. The testimony of the victim’s wife, Fortunata Fabros, corroborated the events. The defense’s claim that Verzosa was the killer was deemed an afterthought, unsupported and weakened by Raiz’s jailhouse letters attempting to influence witnesses and his failure to initially mention Verzosa. The Court also noted that the confession of co-accused Rebillos, while not directly admissible against Raiz, could be considered in assessing witness credibility. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.