PEOPLE v. RODRIGO DASIG

FACTS:

Rodrigo Dasig, along with Edwin Nuñez and six others, was convicted for the murder of Redempto Manatad, a police officer. During the trial, Nuñez changed his plea to guilty but later died. Witnesses testified that on August 4, 1987, the police officers noticed eight suspicious persons, including Nuñez. Two of them approached Manatad and when another officer followed, a gun battle erupted. Manatad was fatally shot and his gun was taken before the group fled. Dasig and Nuñez were apprehended after a surveillance operation. Dasig confessed his involvement during custodial interrogation, arguing that his confession was illegally obtained and that he should only be convicted of simple rebellion, not murder with direct assault.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the extra-judicial confession of the appellant was voluntarily made.

  2. Whether the appellant had the right to choose his own counsel during the investigation.

  3. Whether the extra-judicial confession of the accused was legally obtained.

  4. Whether the crime committed was murder with direct assault or simple rebellion.

RULING:

  1. The court found no reason to doubt the factual findings of the trial court that the extra-judicial confession of the appellant was voluntarily made. The appellant was properly informed of his constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and to have counsel, preferably of his own choice. He was also provided with a lawyer, Atty. Fortunato Parawan, who was present during the entire investigation. The certification made by Assistant City Fiscal Salvador O. Solima confirmed that the appellant executed the sworn statement voluntarily and after understanding its contents.

  2. The appellant claimed that Atty. Fuentes was not his choice of counsel. However, the court held that under the 1987 Constitution, a person under investigation may choose his own counsel, but if he cannot afford one, he must be provided with counsel. The initial choice of counsel is given to the police investigators, but the accused ultimately has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another. In this case, the appellant did not voice any objection to the choice of Atty. Parawan during the investigation and only raised the issue during trial, which the court deemed too late.

  3. The extra-judicial confession of the accused was legally obtained as it was voluntary and assisted by a lawyer. The alleged use of force and intimidation was not substantiated by evidence other than the self-serving testimony of the accused.

  4. The crime committed was simple rebellion and not murder with direct assault. The killing of the police officer was committed as an act in furtherance of the subversive ends of the New People's Army (NPA). Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion, though crimes in themselves, are deemed absorbed in the single crime of rebellion. The accused, being a confessed member of the liquidation squad of the NPA, should be convicted of rebellion and not murder.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A confession is admissible unless the accused can successfully prove that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat, or promise of reward or leniency.

  • A person under investigation for the commission of an offense has 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 counsel, he must be provided with one. The initial choice of counsel is with the police investigators, but the accused has the final choice and may reject the counsel chosen for him.

  • Extra-judicial confessions may be deemed legally obtained if they are voluntary and assisted by legal counsel.

  • Allegations of force and intimidation in obtaining a confession must be substantiated by evidence other than the self-serving testimony of the accused.

  • Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion, though crimes in themselves, are deemed absorbed in the single crime of rebellion.

  • The penalty for rebellion is imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor, and the accused may also be ordered to pay civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim.