It is notable that in this case, the fiscal dispensed with the

presentation of the justice of the peace before whom the defendant

allegedly swore his confession, since it is not even definite from
the testimony of the chief of police whether the defendant signed
the same before him alone or before the justice of the peace in his
presence.

742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Same; Same; Where appellant should be acquitted of the crime
charged.—The moral conviction that may serve as basis of a
People vs. Maisug
finding of guilt in criminal case is only that which is the logical
and inevitable result of the evidence on record, exclusive of any
No. L-22187. March 28, 1969. other consideration. Short of this, it is not only the right of the
accused to be freed, it is, even more, a constitutional duty to
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, acquit him.
vs. ANASTACIO MAISUG, ET AL., defendants,
HERMINIGILDO TADO, defendant-appellant. APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Cebu. Ramolete, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Criminal law; Evidence; Conviction on mere vague testimony
     Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Acting Assistant
about a- signal is conviction on mere inference.—To convict
Solicitor General Isidro C. Borromeo and Solicitor Teodulo
appellant on mere vague testimony about a signal, allegedly to
R. Dino for plaintiff-appellee.
kill the deceased, when (1) such supposed signal does not appear
          Ernesto P. Pangalangan (Counsel de Oficio) for
to be even intimated in the circumstances related in the
defendant-appellant.
743
BARREDO, J.:

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of

Cebu in its Criminal Case No. V-8884, convicting the
VOL. 27, MARCH 28, 1969 743
appellant Herminigildo Tado of the crime of murder.
People vs. Maisug It appears that at about nine o’clock in the evening
744
extrajudicial statement of the government witness; (2) the fiscal
was never made aware of it; (3) where said witness himself
admitted at the trial, x x x would be basing conviction on mere 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
inference which can hardly be said to be reasonable, much less People vs. Maisug
inescapable.
Same; Same; Confession; Confession requiring translation of February 17, 1962, a card game known as “pares-pares”
may be unsafe as basis of conviction for a capital offense.—To be was held at a certain gambling house in the barrio of
borne in mind is the important consideration that since the Tungasan, municipality of Mandawe, Cebu. Among those
defendant is an unschooled farmer who does not know how to present therein were the appellant Herminigildo Tado, the
read and can write only his name because he was taught to do so other accused, Anastacio Maisug, who pleaded guilty,
by his mother, his said confession which is in English had to be Regino Gala, Alberto Balle, Rodolfo Bregente and Federico
read and translated to him allegedly by the Chief of Police of Alcuizar. Appellant who owned the cards being used in the
Mandawe, Cebu. Such multiple process of reading and translating game, was the shuffler, banker and dealer. At about 10:00
the questions and translating and typing the answers and reading o’clock, several players had already lost their money,
and translating again the said aswers is naturally pregnant with among them Anastacio Maisug and Regino Gala. In
possibilities of human, if unintentional, inadequacies and apparent disgust, Gala tore one of the cards. This angered
incompleteness which render the said confession unsafe as basis appellant who immediately asked him why he did it.
of conviction for capital offense, unless sufficiently corroborated. Verbal altercations followed among appellant, Gala and the
other players. Alberto Balle suggested to appellant the use After due trial, on June 28, 1963 the lower Court
of the joker in lieu of the torn card. At this juncture, rendered the appealed decision. Said the court:
Anastacio Maisug suddenly stabbed Gala on the back from
behind with his knife. Commotion ensued. Later that same “Based on what appears on record, the Court is convinced that the
evening, Gala was found already dead at a distance of criminal participation of the accused Herminigildo Tado in the
about 15 meters from the gambling house. commission of the offense charged in the information against him
The following day, February 18, 1962, Anastacio Maisug and his co-accused, Anastacio Maisug, has been clearly and
surrendered to the police authorities of Mandawe, Cebu. positively established. The evidence shows that it was the said
He executed a statement (Exhibit A) admitting having accused, Herminigildo Tado, who owned the torn playing card;
stabbed the deceased Regino Gala in the back from behind that the said accused was mad at the deceased Regino Gala when
and implicating appellant thus: Earlier that evening of the he tore the said card for no justifiable reason known to said
incident, appellant instructed him to stab anyone who accused; and that due to the act of said deceased, the game was
would make trouble during the card game, and so, when stopped. The evidence further shows that he (Herminigildo) was
the deceased Gala tore one of the cards and appellant the dealer who shuffled and distributed the gaming cards.
signalled him, he immediately drew his knife and drove it According to his own admission, he and the manager or owner of
into the body of said deceased. On the same day, Rodolfo the game, Emilio Matura, had the understanding that whatever
Bregente and Alberto Balle executed also affidavits tong was collected in the game played that night would be divided
narrating the incident which led to the killing of the between them equally; and that when the game was stopped no
deceased. Their narration, however, mentioned nothing more tong was collected. The Court, finds and declares that the
about any signal allegedly given by appellant to Maisug. accused Hermmigildo Tado participated as principal by induction
On March 12, 1962, an information for the murder of because he was the one who instructed and signalled his co-
Regino Gala was filed against Anastacio Maisug and accused Anastacio to stab the deceased (Art. 248, par. 1, Revised
appellant. It was alleged therein that on February 17, Penal Code).
1962, both accused “with deliberate intent to kill, evident “The allegation of conspiracy and confabulation made in the
premeditation and treachery, conspiring and confabulating information against both has been clearly shown and established
with each other”, stabbed from behind the deceased Regino by the coordinated acts of both accused such as the fact that, in
Gala, ‘thereby inflicting upon the latter a stab wound at the early hour of that evening of the incident, there was an
understanding between both accused that the accused Anastacio
745 Maisug would stab anyone making trouble in the course of the
card game; and that after the deceased Regino Gala tore the card
belonging to the dealer Herminigildo Tado, the
VOL. 27, MARCH 28, 1969 745
People vs. Maisug 746

the left side of the back portion of his body which produced 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
his death.” Upon arraignment, accused Maisug pleaded
People vs. Maisug
guilty to the charge and asked permission to prove
mitigating circumstances which he claimed attended the
commission of the offense or his liability. The permission latter immediately gave the ‘go signal’ to the other accused to stab
granted, he proved and the court considered three the trouble maker who happened to be the said deceased, Regino
mitigating circumstances, namely, voluntary surrender, Gala. The act of stabbing the deceased was characterized by
plea of guilty and drunkenness. Accordingly, the lower treachery because it was done from behind when the victim was
court sentenced him on April 16, 1962, to a penalty of four unaware and not in a position to defend himself while the
(4) years prisión correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) attacker was behind without exposing himself to any risk arising
years prisión mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify the from the defense that the victim may put up. Hence the charge of
heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000 and to pay the the fiscal against both accused is murder.
costs. Appellant, on the other hand, pleaded not guilty,
x                     x                     x                     x
hence trial was held as to him.
 “WHEREFORE, based on all the foregoing considerations, the
Court finds and declares the accused Herminigildo Tado guilty, THERE IS NO PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
beyond reasonable doubt, as principal by induction, of the offense DOUBT AS AGAINST APPELLANT;
of murder charged in the information, and said offense is the
same crime defined and penalized under Article 248 of the V
Revised Penal Code and, considering the absence of any modifying
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING APPELLANT AS
circumstance, the said accused is hereby sentenced to serve the
GUILTY OF INDUCEMENT IN THE KILLING OF THE
penalty of life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) to indemnify the
DECEASED, AND ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT IN TRUTH
heirs of the deceased Regino Gala in the sum of P6,000.00; and to
AND IN FACT THERE IS NO PROOF OF MURDER BY
pay one-half of the costs. It appearing that said accused
INDUCEMENT, BY APPELLANT, TO SATISFY THE
Herminigildo Tado has been confined in jail since his arrest on
REQUIREMENT OF LAW OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE
February 18, 1962, up to the present time, he is entitled to be
DOUBT."
credited with one-half of his total preventive confinement, and to
pay the costs. The weapon, Exhibit C, and its scabbard, Exhibit C- On the whole, the appeal should be sustained and
1 recovered from the accused are ordered confiscated and forfeited appellant given the benefit of reasonable doubt.
in favor of the government.” It is clear from a careful perusal of the record that the
only inculpatory evidence against appellant Tado are: (1)
Against this judgment, counsel de officio assigns the
the statement of Anastacio Maisug in his extrajudicial
following errors:
confession (Exhibit A) that early that evening of February
“ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS 17, 1962, appellant instructed him to stab anyone who
would make trouble during the card game; that when the
I deceased tore one playing card, the appellant got angry and
signalled him to stab said deceased; and that in compliance
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT with such signal, he immediately drew his knife and drove
THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY PROVED BETWEEN MAISUG it into the body of the said deceased; and (2) the testimony
AND APPELLANT, AND, HENCE, THEY COULD BE HELD of Alberto Balle to the effect that after the deceased tore
ONLY FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL ACTS; one of the cards, he saw the appellant give a signal to
Maisug to stab said deceased. The trial court considered
II
these as sufficient proof of conspiracy and/or inducement,
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE and consequently, held appellant liable for the confessed
ALLEGED CONFESSION OF MAISUG, IS NOT ADMISSIBLE criminal act of Maisug.
AS AGAINST APPELLANT TO PROVE THE ALLEGED This Court sees appellant’s case differently.
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THEM; As the record stands, Maisug’s confession which was
relied upon by the trial court cannot be considered as
III sufficiently dependable evidence to convict appellant, as
the trial court did, of such a grave offense as murder and
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT IN
deprive him of liberty for life. To begin with, Maisug
TRUTH AND IN FACT MAISUG ALONE WAS RESPONSIBLE
himself repudiated in open court the portions of his
FOR THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED;
confession incriminating appellant. And We are satisfied
IV that his testimony in open court when he declared at the
separate hearing for the presentation of his evidence to
1
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT prove mitigating circumstances, after pleading guilty, was
GIVING THE EVIDENCE THE APPROPRIATE WEIGHT,
________________
747
1 This testimony was expressly adopted by appellant’s counsel as part
of the defense evidence. (TSN, p. 51, Perez)
VOL. 27, MARCH 28, 1969 747
People vs. Maisug 748
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED   Witness may answer.
People vs. Maisug A. I kill him because I did not like his attitude in tearing
— the cards.” (TSN, p. 7, Sabarre)
more candid and natural than his confession. He
straightforwardly owned the killing of the deceased and Besides, the alleged signalling of appellant to Maisug f or
denied having been signalled by appellant to do it. “I killed him to stab the deceased does not appear to be clearly
him by my own volition, x x x It was my own volition to kill proven in the prosecution’s evidence. Nowhere in the
him”, he told the court. To quote further from the confession of Maisug is this fact satisfactorily clarified. All
transcript of his testimony: that appears therein relative to this point is the follo wing:

Q. Did he make any provocation on you? “Q. Will you state if there was any unusual happening
— — during the time you were at the game of paris-paris?
A. Yes, sir.
749
—
Q What was the provocation?
— VOL. 27, MARCH 28, 1969 749
A. As he tore the cards, he uttered these words: ‘Who People vs. Maisug
— among you here is brave enough to challenge me?’
Q. Because of that provocation, you immediately stabbed A. While I was there many people were playing the
— him? — gameof cards commonly known as paris-paris. I also
made some bets and I lost Fifty Centavos (P.50).
A. Yes, sir.” (TSN, p. 4, Sabarre)
Another person named Regino Gala also lost in the
—
betting and the latter tore out one playing card. The
  x                     x                     x                     x owner of the cards who is Hildo a very close friend of
mine was angered by this incident and he signalled to
“Q. So when you said that when the deceased Regino
me to stab Regino Gala.
— Galatore the cards, it was Herminigildo Tado who was
angered of the act of the deceased, is that correct? Q. Did this Hildo know that you had a dagger at that
— time?
A. Yes, sir.
— A. Yes, sir, as we were close friends he knew that I carry
— my dagger all the time.
Q. Because Herminigildo Tado was angered. you were
— signalled by him to stab the deceased according to your Q. Did you then comply with the signal made by your
affidavit? — friend Hildo to strike at Regino Gala with your dagger?
A. He did not, instead I killed him by my own volition.” A. Yes, sir, as I had taken in a certain amount of liquor, I
— (TSN, p. 6, Sabarre) — did not need much coaxing, I draw my dagger and with
both hands, I drove my dagger into the body of Regino
  x                     x                     x                     x
Gala from behind, hitting him on the left side of his
“Q. Having already seen the owner, Mr. Herminigildo back.
— Tado, who was angered of the tearing of the cards,
Q. What did Regino Gala do after hitting him on the back
what brought or what motivated you to stab the
— with your dagger?
deceased when there is the owner of the card who was
already angered? A. He ran towards the lower ground.
—
ATTY. DAKAY:
Q. Do you know this person which you call Regino Gala?
  It was already answered by the witness in the direct
—
examination that he was provoked by the deceased.
A. No, sir, I saw him for the first time only last night.
COURT:
—
Q. Did you have any quarrel with this fellow Regino Gala? Further, during the cross-examination, this witness
— admitted that when his statement was first taken by the
A. No, sir, I did not have any quarrel with him. police after the incident, he made no reference to the
— alleged signalling by appellant to Maisug altho he
explained that this was because he was not asked about it.
Q. Did you have previous instruction or understanding
Indeed, there is nothing in said statement which in anyway
— with Hildo, to stab Regino Gala?
implicated appellant, as there was not even any mention of
A. I was instructed by Hildo early that evening to stab him therein. As a matter of fact, Balle did not even say in
— anyone who make trouble in his card games and as it said statement that Maisug was the one who stabbed the
was Regino Gala who made trouble by tearing into deceased. The only reference to Maisug therein was as
pieces a playing card and as Hildo made the signal I follows:
immediately complied and drove my dagger into the
body of Regino Gala.” (Exhibit A) “That I asked my companions to go with me home, and when I
stood up to go, I saw Rodolfo Bregente run and stumbled, then I
It can thus be noted that Maisug gave no indications saw one man now known to me to be Anastacio Maisug
whatsoever as to what was the particular signal to be given brandishing his dagger.” (par. 6, Affidavit of Alberto Balle, p. 3,
to him by appellant as well as the one which was actually Trial Court’s Record)
given later. Much less did he do this during his testimony,
because, as already stated, he categorically denied having Adding weakness to his evidence, was his admission that it
been given any signal by appellant. was only in court that he first told anyone about such fact.
In an obvious attempt to have a corroboration of If this were true, how come that the fiscal presented him as
Maisug’s confession on this point, the prosecution witness against appellant? A witness who denies having
presented the witness Alberto Balle who testified thereon revealed to the counsel presenting him at the trial the
as follows: matter he would testify on is not worthy of credence, for
such testimony is unnatural and contrary to ordinary
750 experience. Lawyers do not usually present witnesses
without informing themselves regarding the facts that they
would prove in the testimonies they would give in court.
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
This is specially true in this case because, without that
People vs. Maisug detail about the signal in question, Balle’s tes-

751
“Q. Why do you say he agreed with an angry mood?
—
A. He agreed with a nodding sign, but with a signal to VOL. 27, MARCH 28, 1969 751
— Anastacio Maisug. People vs. Maisug
Q. What signal?
— timony was of no particular consequence in the
A. With a sign doing this. (INTERPRETER: Witness government’s case and if the fiscal did not know about said
— holding his right, standing, with fist closed and signal, it is difficult to understand why he would still
making astabbing motion, thrusting forward.)" (TSN, present said witness as, in fact, he did present him.
p. 4, Perez) only to admit in the next breath that: Moreover, later in the same cross-examination, Balle
reiterated that he did not understand the signal and gave
“Q. You mentioned Anastacio Maisug being signalled by
— Herminigildo Tado with a stabbing motion. What did
the following vague explanation:
you understand by that?
“Q. When you said Mr. Tado made a forward motion of his
A. I do not know the meaning of it.” (TSN, pp. 4–5, Perez) — hand you did not know what that meant. Is that not
— right?
A. You are right,
— 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Q. As a matter of fact, you did not even know that that People vs. Maisug
— was a signal?
A. When he made a sign in this manner A. I did not know the cause of the commotion. When I
— (INTERPRETER: Witness made a thrust) immediately — noted somebody running I ran after Rodolfo Bregente.
Rodolfo Bregente ran away. ATTY. FERNANDEZ:
Q. But you did not know for a fact that that was a signal? Q. Do you wish this Court to understand that the moment
— (Later) Please answer my question. — you became aware of the commotion was when you saw
A. I do not know. In that sense. Rodolfo Bregente running away already in the direction
— you indicated in this Exhibit “D"?
Q. And the next thing that you saw was Mr. Rodolfo A. According to Rodolfo Bregente, he was the one who
— Bregente running in this direction as indicated by you — actually saw the stabbing, that is why he ran away.
in this Exhibit “D". Is that right? Upon his running away I ran after him on my belief
that he was the one stabbed.
A. Right.
— Q. When you ran after Mr. Rodolfo Bregente you did not
— know for a fact that there was already somebody
Q. And, of course, you were surprised why Rodolfo
stabbed, Is that right?
— Bregente was running in that direction?
A. You are right.” (TSN, pp. 16–17, Perez)
A. That is why I turned to one side.
—
—
Q. And when you turned your head you saw Mr. The ambiguity and inconclusiveness of the proof as to the
— Anastacio Maisug standing on the spot indicated by
alleged signalling by appellant to Maisug is pivotal. Such
you in this Exhibit “D" holding his knife?
evidence, without more, except the repudiated confession of
A. Yes, sir. That is right. Maisug, cannot make proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
— case would ,have been otherwise, had there been clear
Q In other words, you did not actually see Mr. Anastacio proof that the corroborating witness Balle knew what
— Maisug stab Regino Gala? exactly the signal was and this coincided with the signal
conf essed by Maisug. To convict appellant on mere vague
A. I did not see. You are right.
testimony about a signal, allegedly to kill the deceased,
—
when (1) such supposed signal does not appear to be even
Q. As a matter of fact, you do not know for a fact that intimated in the circumstances related in the extrajudicial
— Anastacio Maisug stabbed Regino Gala in response to statement of the government witness; (2) the fiscal was
the supposed signal of Mr. Herminigildo Tado? never made aware of it; and (3) where said witness himself
A. What I know for a fact is that when the signal was admitted at the trial thus:
— made there was a commotion at once and that means
there must be a stabbing. “Q. When you said Mr. Tado made a forward motion of his
— hand you did not know what that meant. Is that not
Q. But you did not actually see the exact moment when
right?
— Anastacio Maisug stabbed Regino Gala?
A. You are right.
COURT:
—
  Already answered. He did not see.
Q. As a matter of fact, you did not even know that that
Q. What happened? You said there was a commotion? — was a signal?
— What was the commotion about?
A. When he made a sign in this manner
— (INTERPRETER: witness made a thrust) immediately
752 Rodolfo Bregente ran away.
Q. But you did not know for a fact that that was a signal?
— (Later) Please answer my question. immediately at liberty unless he Is held for another legal
A. I do not know. In that sense.” (TSN, p. 16, Perez) cause, with costs de officio.
— would be basing conviction on mere inference which 754
can hardly be said to be reasonable, much less
inescapable.
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
753 Lai vs. Republic

VOL. 27, MARCH 28, 1969 753      Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano and
People vs. Maisug
Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Neither is the proof that Maisug fully understood every Appellant acquitted and ordered that he be set
part of his so-called extrajudicial confession convincing. To immediately at liberty unless he is held for another legal
be borne in mind is the important consideration that since cause.
Maisug is an unschooled farmer who does not know how to
read and can write only his name because he was taught to Note.—See the annotation on “Conspiracy” under People
do so by his mother, his said confession which is in English vs. Ompad, L-23513, Jan. 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 750, 761–766.
had to be read and translated to him allegedly by the Chief
of Police of Mandawe, Cebu, Priscillano S. Lumapas. Such _______________
a multiple process of reading and translating the questions
and translating and typing the answers and reading and
translating again the said answers is naturally pregnant
with possibilities of human, if unintentional, inadequacies
and incompleteness which render the said conf ession
unsafe as basis of conviction for a capital offense, unless
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
sufficiently corroborated. It is notable that in this case, the
fiscal dispensed with the presentation of the justice of the
peace before whom Maisug allegedly swore his confession,
since it is not even definite from the testimony of the chief
of police whether Maisug signed the same before him alone
or before the justice of the peace in his presence.
By and large, the evidence on record does not engender
enough faith that appellant is guilty of the charge. If
somehow it is discernible that it is more the inadequacy of
details in the state’s evidence that makes it difficult for Us
to arrive at definite conclusions rather than, perhaps, the
actual facts themselves, still We cannot pin responsibility
on appellant. That moral conviction that may serve as basis
of a finding of guilt in criminal cases is only that which is
the logical and inevitable result of the evidence on record,
exclusive of any other consideration. Short of this, it is not
only the right of the accused to be freed, it is, even more,
our constitutional duty to acquit him.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of this Court is that the
guilt of appellant Herminigildo Tado of the crime charged
in this case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt;
he is hereby acquitted; and it is ordered that he be set