G.R. No. L-20894 December 29, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGER PERETO Y MANLAPAS, ET AL., defendants. VICTORIO SAJORDA Y CAMPUS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Victorio Sajorda y Campus and Roger Pereto y Manlapas were charged with murder for the killing of fellow prisoner Receval Langlañagan on March 25, 1959, inside the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa, Rizal. The information alleged they were quasi-recidivists. Pereto pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death (later commuted to life imprisonment). Sajorda pleaded not guilty. During trial, prosecution evidence included: the testimony of prison guard Deogracias Salvador, who apprehended the accused and recovered the sharp-pointed instruments (Exhibits E and E-1); the autopsy report (Exhibit A) by Dr. Gervacio Acosta showing the victim sustained 43 wounds, 38 of which were stab wounds; and an extrajudicial confession (Exhibit B) given by Sajorda to prison inspector Gaudencio Jimenez. In Exhibit B, Sajorda admitted stabbing the victim first, detailed the planning of the killing over a month, and cited as motive a previous beating by the victim because Sajorda was a Visayan and was thought to be an “OXO.” Jimenez testified the confession was voluntary, taken in question-and-answer form in Tagalog, read back to Sajorda, and sworn to before Acting Assistant Director of Prisons Pedro S. Paje. Sajorda repudiated this confession at trial, testifying that only Pereto committed the murder, that he was forced to go to Jimenez’s office because he refused a tattoo, that Exhibit B was prepared without his input, and that he signed it because Jimenez told him it was only temporary. He claimed his educational attainment was only grade three.

ISSUE

Whether the extrajudicial confession (Exhibit B) of accused-appellant Victorio Sajorda is admissible and credible, and whether his bare denial at trial can overcome it, thereby establishing his guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision finding Sajorda guilty of murder. The Court held that the extrajudicial confession was voluntarily given and credible. It detailed facts only the accused could know, was given spontaneously, and was properly obtained with all legal formalities observed. The presumption that the investigating officers regularly performed their duty was not overcome, as no evidence of motive to fabricate was shown. The accused’s repudiation, made over three years later, was a bare denial uncorroborated by any evidence and could not prevail over his detailed prior confession. The crime was murder qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and quasi-recidivism (Article 160, Revised Penal Code) duly established. The penalty of death imposed by the lower court was affirmed.