G.R. No. L-65165 June 29, 1984
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FIDEL MATEO, RENE AMBROCIO, EDWIN AGLUGOB, FLORANTE MARTINEZ and ELMER DAJUGAR, accused. ELMER DAJUGAR, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the murder of tricycle driver Manuel Pascual on October 8, 1981, in Laoag City. His body, bearing multiple stab wounds, was discovered the following morning. Five accused, including appellant Elmer Dajugar, were arrested. They executed extrajudicial confessions detailing a plan to kill Pascual, allegedly due to a prior grudge, culminating in a group assault where Dajugar boxed the victim and a co-accused stabbed him. Eyewitness Froilan Ramirez testified to seeing three persons, including two identified co-accused, chase and stab Pascual. During trial, three juvenile co-accused changed their pleas to guilty; two were convicted with suspended sentences, while one retracted his plea. The trial court convicted Dajugar and a co-accused of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua based on the confessions and eyewitness account. Dajugar appealed, contesting the admissibility of his confession, alleging maltreatment and a lack of proper constitutional warnings regarding his right to silence and counsel.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the extrajudicial confession of appellant Dajugar is admissible as evidence against him, given his allegations of coercion and a violation of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed Dajugar’s conviction as a co-principal but modified the penalty. The Court held that Dajugar’s confession was indeed inadmissible because it was obtained in violation of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, which mandates that a person under investigation must be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel. The Solicitor General correctly recommended its exclusion. However, Dajugar’s guilt was established by other competent evidence. The extrajudicial confessions of his four co-accused, which were not contested in this appeal, were admissible as circumstantial evidence against Dajugar under the doctrine that the confession of a co-conspirator, made after the crime and corroborated, can indicate the probability of another’s participation. These confessions implicated Dajugar. Furthermore, eyewitness Ramirez partially corroborated the event by testifying to the pursuit and stabbing, though he did not identify Dajugar specifically. The collective evidence proved Dajugar’s involvement. The qualifying circumstance was abuse of superior strength, not treachery or evident premeditation. Considering Dajugar was a minor (17 years, 11 months, and 28 days old) at the time of the crime, he was entitled to a one-degree penalty reduction under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court modified his sentence to an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum to ten years and one day of prision mayor as maximum.