THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODRIGO DASIG @ KA RUBIN DAKU @ ARMAND; EDWIN NUÑEZ Y TABANAS @ MABI; ALVIN DOE @ AL @ KA ALVIN; ROGER DOE @ KA JAMES @ KA…

Appellant, Rodrigo Dasig
is now before Us to plead the reversal of his conviction by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 28, Mandaue City, finding him guilty of Murder with Direct
Assault.

He was charged together
with Edwin Nuñez and 6 others who are still at large, in an Information which
reads:

“That on or about the 4th
day of August, 1987, in the City of Mandaue, of this Honorable Court,
the aforenamed accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, with intent to kill,
treachery, evident premeditation abuse of superior strength and use of motor
vehicle, all armed with unlicensed firearms, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Redempto Manatad, a
police officer on traffic duty, at his vital portion which caused his death
soon thereafter, knowing beforehand that the victim was a policeman who was
then in the performance of his official duties.”^[1]

Upon arraignment,
appellant and Edwin Nuñez entered a plea of “not guilty.” However,
after the prosecution had presented its first witness, accused Nunez
changed his plea of “not guilty” to
“guilty.” Hence, the lower court held, in abeyance the promulgation
of a judgment against said accused until the prosecution had finished
presenting its evidence. While trial
was still ongoing, Nuñez died on March 10, 1989, thereby extinguishing his
criminal liability.

The facts surrounding
this case show that in the afternoon of August 4, 1987. Pfc. Redempto Manatad, Pfc. Ninah Tizon and Pfc. Rene Catamora were tasked by their commanding officer to assist in manning the traffic at M.N.
Briones and Bonifacio Streets in Mandaue City. Pfc. Tizon controlled the traffic lighting facility; Pfc..
Manatad manned the traffic; while Pfc. Catamora acted as back-up and posted
himself at Norkis Trading building.

At about 4:00 o’clock in
the afternoon, Pfc. Catamora noticed eight (8) persons, one of whom he
identified as Edwin Nunez, acting suspiciously. He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of the men to approach Pfc. Manatad. He followed the two, but sensing that
they were being followed, they immediately proceeded to the middle of the road and engaged Pfc. Catamora to
a gun battle. At that instant, Pfc.
Catamora heard a series of shots from the other group and thereafter saw Pfc.
Manatad sprawled on the ground. Being
out-numbered and to save his own life. Pat. Catamora sought refuge at the nearby BIR Office from where he saw
two (2) persons take Pfc. Manatad’s gun and
again fired at him to make sure that he is dead while the rest of the group
including Nuñez acted as back up. Thereafter, the Nunez group commandeered a vehicle and fled from
the scene of the shooting. Pfc. Rene Catamora testified that he can identify accused?appellant
Nunez because of a mole at the bridge of his nose near the left, eye which he
noticed when the accused passed 2 or
3 meters in front of him together with his companions.

On August 16, 1987, two
teams of police officers were tasked to conduct surveillance on a suspected
safehouse of members of the sparrow unit located in Peace Valley, Cebu
City. Upon reaching the place, the
group saw Rodrigo Dasig and
Edwin Nuñez trying to escape. The team of Capt. Antonio Gorre captured
Nuñez and confiscated a .45 caliber revolver with 3 magazines and ammunitions,
while the group of Sgt. Ronald Arnejo pursued Dasig, who threw a grenade at his
pursuers, but was shot on his left upper arm and
subsequently apprehended. A .38 caliber revolver with 17 live
ammunitions were confiscated from him.

Thereafter, Dasig was brought to the hospital for treatment,
while Nuñez was turned over to the Metro
discom for investigation. Meanwhile, Dasig was interrogated by
M/Sgt. Ariston Ira of the PC Criminal Investigation Service on August 19, 1987
at his hospital bed at the Lapulapu Army Hospital in Cebu City. Assisting Dasig during the interrogation was
Atty. Fortunato Parawan of the Creer Law Office, who was requested by the military to represent appellant who did not have a lawyer. Before the start of the interrogation, Atty.
Parawan asked appellant whether he was willing to avail of his services,
to which appellant agreed. M/Sgt. Ira
then appraised Dasig of his constitutional rights. The interrogation was conducted in Cebuano upon appellant’s
request.

Dasig confessed that he and the group of Edwin Nuñez killed Pfc.
Manatad. He likewise admitted that he
and Nuñez were members of the sparrow unit and that their aliases were
“Armand” and “Mabi.” respectively. The extra-judicial confession of appellant
marked as Exhibit “J”^[2] was signed by him on every page
thereof with the first page containing a certification likewise signed by him,
which states: “I hereby certify that the herein statement is free and
voluntary, and that I am assisted by my counsel in the course of this
investigation” followed by the signed conformity of Atty. Parawan. The extra-judicial confession was subscribed
and sworn to before Cebu City Asst. Fiscal Salvador Solima.

In the present appeal, Dasig contends that the Procedure by which
his extra-judicial confession was taken was legally defective, and contrary to
his Constitutional rights. He further
contends that assuming he conspired in the killing of Pfc. Manatad, he should
be convicted at most of simple rebellion and not murder with direct assault.

Appellant also claims that
the custodial interrogation was done while he was still very sick and
consequently, he could not have fully appreciated the wisdom of admitting such a serious offense. That even with the presence of counsel, his
extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence as said counsel did not
actively assist him and advise
him of his rights. In effect, his
presence was merely to give a semblance of legality to the proceedings and not
to protect appellant against possible abuses of the investigator. Dasig, likewise questions the sincerity of
Atty. Parawan in protecting his rights considering that the latter is a known anti-Communist advocate and
that the law firm to which he belongs has represented high ranking officers of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

We find the argument specious. Fiscal Salvador Solima in his certification. Exhibit “J-7-B,” stated that he had personally examined
the affiant and that he is convinced that the latter’s
statement was free and voluntary and that the affiant signed the same in his
presence and swore under oath as to the veracity of everything therein Atty.
Fortunato L. Parawan also testified that he assisted the affiant from the start
of the investigation up to its termination. Atty. Parawan testified thus:

“Q.   Who
introduced Rodrigo Dasig to you?

A.     I
inquired from the personnel of the hospital the whereabout of Rodrigo Dasig and
I introduced myself as a lawyer. So
they informed me the room of Rodrigo Dasig. At that time I introduced myself as a lawyer who came to assist the person of Rodrigo
Dasig. Once we had a confrontation with Rodrigo Dasig. I asked
him whether he was willing to get me as his lawyer in that investigation. Then he told me yes.

Q.    Did
he tell you whether he has a counsel of his own choice?

A.     No.

x x x.

Q.    In
other words he accepted your services as counsel in connection with that investigation which was about to be
made?

A.     Yes.

Q.    Who
are the persons present at that time?

A.     There
were guards outside and inside. There
was a man from the CIS in the person of, Sgt. Ira, myself and Dasig.

Q.    What happened after that?

A.     The
CIS started the investigation.

Q.    You
mean this Ariston Ira?

A.     Yes.

Q.    Before
Ariston Ira conducted the investigation was Dasig informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel and if he chooses to testify or say something, that statement of
his will be used against or in
his favor in the court of justice?

A.     Yes. He was willing to get me as counsel in that
investigation.

Q.    After
he was informed of his constitutional rights what transpired next?

A.     The
investigation started.

Q.    Were
you present at the very start of that investigation?

A.     Yes. I was present from the start until it was
finished.

Q.    Was
that reduced to writing?

A.     Yes.

x x x.

Q.    You
said you were present during the entire investigation. Were the answers of the accused, Rodrigo
Dasig, to the questions propounded by the Investigator voluntary?

A.     Yes,
they are voluntary.

Q.    After
the investigation was finished what transpired next?

A.     After
the investigation, I think that was already past 3:00 or 4:00, we proceeded to
the office of the City Fiscal at F. Ramos St., Cebu City and then we proceeded
to the Office of Fiscal Solema (sic) and then it was subscribed there before
Fiscal Solema (sic).

Q.    Were
you present during the proceeding?

A.     I
was also present.”^[3]

We do not find any reason to doubt the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court
that the extra-judicial confession of the appellant was voluntarily made. Said the trial court:

“The prosecution’s evidence clearly shows that herein accused
during his investigation was properly informed and appraised of his
constitutional right to remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice but since at that time he did
not signify his intention to
retain a lawyer of his own choice, so he was provided with a lawyer in the person of Atty. Fortunato
Parawan of the Creer Law Office who was available, at that time, to assist him
during the custodial investigation conducted by T/Sgt. Ariston L. Ira at his
hospital bed at Camp Lapulapu
Army Station Hospital, Cebu City where he was confined after being hit on his
upper left arm and in fact, Atty. Parawan only consented to assist herein
accused after the latter has answered in the affirmative to his question as to
whether he would be amenable to be assisted by him as his counsel of
his own choice.

“The prosecution’s evidence further show that Atty. Fortunato
Parawan after consenting to be his counsel was with him when his extra-judicial
confession or sworn statement was subscribed and sworn to by him before
Assistant City Fiscal Salvador O. Solima of the Cebu City Fiscal’s Office who, before accused has actually affixed his signature on each and every pages of
his extra-judicial confession, has informed him (accused) of his constitutional
rights and has explained the contents of
his extra-judicial confession.

“Moreover, per certification made by Assistant City Fiscal
Salvador O. Solima of the Cebu City Fiscal’s Office, clearly shows that accused
in executing the same has done so voluntarily and after having understood the
contents thereof which is in the visayan
language a language known to
him, found on the last page thereof now marked as Exhibit “J-7-B.”

“Furthermore, this sworn statement of accused Dasig is
collaborated by the sworn statement of his co-accused Edwin Nunez dated August 18, 1987 which is sworn and subscribed to before City Fiscal Jopelinito Pareja of
the City Fiscal’s Office of Cebu City.”^[4]

The settled jurisprudence on the matter is that a confession is
admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result
of violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency.^[5]
The case of People of the
Philippines v. Parojinog is four
square to the case at bar. In Parojing this court had this to say:

“Anent his claim that Atty. Fuentes was not his choice,
Section 12 (1) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Sec. 12(1).- Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel he must be provided
with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.’

“It is very
clear from the aforequoted provision that a person under investigation for the
commission of an offense may choose his own counsel but if he cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided
with one. While the initial
choice of the lawyer in the latter case is naturally lodged in the police
investigators, the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the
counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. In the instant case, the records show that no objection was voiced by the
accused throughout the entire proceedings of the investigation and afterwards
when he subscribed to its veracity before City Prosecutor Luzminda V. Uy. Thus, he apparently acquiesced
to the choice of the investigators. He
complained for the first time that Atty. Fuentes was not his choice only during
trial. Thus it was too late.”^[6]

Appellant relies on the much abused claim that his extra-judicial
confession was legally defective and hence, should not have been admitted and considered by the trial judge. This accusation is whimsical and obviously a
mere refuge for appellant’s turnabout. In an attempt to avoid criminal liability, he now questions the
integrity of the police authorities and the reputation of the lawyer who stood
by him during the investigation. Indubitably established and now a matter of record is the fact that
appellant was assisted by Atty. Parawan who even signed the former’s sworn
declarations. It is likewise a matter
of record that before appellant made his extra-judicial confession, he was
first asked if he was amenable to the services of Atty. Parawan to which query
he answered affirmatively. Finally, the
alleged use of force and intimidation has not been substantiated by evidence
other than his self-serving testimony. As has been pointed out, such allegation is another naive effort of
appellant to back track from his prior voluntary admission of guilt. Evidently, the taking of his extra-judicial
confession was done with regularity and legality.^[7]

Nevertheless, there is merit in appellant’s argument that
granting he is guilty, what he committed was a political crime of simple rebellion, and hence he should not be
convicted of murder with direct assault.

The Solicitor General agrees with the accused-appellant on this
point as manifested in the People’s brief, which We quote:

“However, as correctly pointed by appellant, the lower court erroneously convicted him of Murder with. Assault
Upon a Person in Authority, instead of Rebellion.

“Rebellion is committed
by taking up arms against
the government, among other means. (Article 135, Revised Penal Code). In this case, appellant not only confessed voluntarily his membership
with the sparrow unit but also his participation and that of his group in the killing of Pfc. Manatad while manning the traffic in
Mandaue City in the afternoon of August 4,1987. It is of judicial notice that the
sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the New People’s Army with the
objective of overthrowing the duly constituted
government. It is therefore not hard to comprehend
that the killing of Pfc. Manatad
was committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of the
NPA. Consequently, appellant
is liable for the crime of rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon
a person in authority.”^[8]

The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is
a vast movement of men and a complex
net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion
though crimes in themselves are deemed
absorbed in one single crime of rebellion.^[9] The act of killing a police officer, knowing too well that the victim
is a person in authority is a mere
component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the
rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of
a separate charge.

Moreover, in the
case of People v. Mangallan.^[10]
We held that where the accused who was charged
with murder admitted his
membership with the NPA and the killing of a suspected PC informer, the crime committed is not murder but rebeIlion punishable under
Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code.

As to the proper imposable penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence
Law is not applicable to persons convicted of rebellion (Sec. 2 R.A. 4203),
contrary to the insinuation of the Solicitor General. Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code imposes the penalty of prision mayor and
a fine not exceeding P20,000.00 to any person who promotes, maintains, or heads
a rebellion. However, in the case at
bar, there is no evidence to prove that appellant Dasig headed the crime
committed. As a matter of fact he was
not specifically pinpointed by Pfc. Catamora as the person giving instructions
to the group which attacked Pfc. Manatad.

Appellant merely participated in committing the act, or just executed the command of an unknown leader. Hence, he should be made to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor. For the resulting death, appellant is
likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Pfc. Manatad FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00) as civil indemnity.

Premises considered, We uphold the findings of the trial court
that the extra-judicial confession was legally obtained. However, appellant being a confessed member of the sparrow unit, the liquidation
squad of the New People’s Army whose objective is to overthrow the duly constituted government, the
crime committed is simple rebellion and not murder with direct assault.

WHEREFORE, accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of
participating in an act of rebellion beyond reasonabIe doubt and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor, and to pay the heirs
of Pfc. Redempto Manatad, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 5.

^[2]
Pp. 11-18,
Records.

^[3]
TSN, pp. 5-8, March 8, 1990.

^[4]
Decision, p. 12-13.

^[5]
People v. Parojinog, G.R. No.
95850, 203 SCRA 673.

^[6]
Id. at p. 680.

^[7]
People v. Quijano, G.R. No.
84361, 197 SCRA 761.

^[8]
Plaintiff-Appellee’s Brief, p. 13; Rollo,
p. 99.

^[9]
Enrile v. Amin, G.R. No. 93335,
189 SCRA 573.

^[10]
160 SCRA 116.