G.R. No. L-3391; May 23, 1952
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGUSTIN HERNANDEZ, RUPERTO DINGLASAN, and EUFRACIO DINGLASAN, defendants; AGUSTIN HERNANDEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On March 30, 1947, Paulino Lozada, an electrical engineer, invited his intimate friend Agustin Hernandez and Teofilo Cedeno to ride in his jeep from San Pablo, Laguna, to Candelaria, Quezon. After stopping in Candelaria, Lozada, Hernandez, and Cedeno proceeded towards Lucena. Lozada disappeared thereafter. On April 2, 1947, his corpse was found in Sto. Cristo, Sariaya, with four wounds in the abdomen and a head wound, and marks on his wrists indicating he had been tied. An investigation commenced. On May 24, 1947, Teofilo Cedeno executed an affidavit implicating Hernandez, Fernando Malaborbor, and Ruperto Dinglasan in Lozada’s death. On the same day, Agustin Hernandez made a detailed confession (Exhibit I) admitting to the killing, stating he agreed to murder Lozada upon the request of Ruperto Dinglasan, brother of Lozada’s girlfriend Remedios Dinglasan, for a price of P2,000. A second confession (Exhibit J) provided further details. At the preliminary investigation, Hernandez pleaded guilty. After trial in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Ruperto Dinglasan and Eufracio Dinglasan were acquitted, but Agustin Hernandez was found guilty of murder. The trial court based its conviction on the confessions of Hernandez and the eyewitness testimony of Teofilo Cedeno. Cedeno testified that during the trip to Lucena, Hernandez and Malaborbor bound Lozada, took him to a roadside in Sto. Cristo, Sariaya, where Malaborbor killed him while he was tied. Hernandez appealed the judgment, which sentenced him to life imprisonment and an indemnity of P2,000, finding the crime qualified by treachery and with the mitigating circumstance of non-habitual drunkenness.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting Agustin Hernandez of murder based on his confessions and the testimony of Teofilo Cedeno, and in rejecting his defense of alibi. Subsidiary issues include the voluntariness of the confessions, the presence of treachery, the applicability of the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness, and the adequacy of the indemnity.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court held that the trial court was justified in finding Hernandez guilty based on the testimonial evidence of Cedeno, supported by Hernandez’s confessions (Exhibits I and J) and his plea of guilty at the preliminary investigation. The defense of alibi was properly rejected. The Court found that the confessions were voluntary, as Hernandez failed to prove they were extracted through force or intimidation. The crime was qualified by treachery because Lozada was first bound with a cord before being stabbed and hit on the head, rendering him defenseless. The alleged mitigating circumstance of drunkenness was not appreciated, as the Court believed Hernandez drank to embolden himself to carry out the premeditated murder. The indemnity was increased from P2,000 to P6,000, considering Lozada’s youth and professional standing. A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (an affidavit from a fellow prisoner) was denied for lack of credibility. The judgment was affirmed with the modified indemnity.