G.R. No. L-22187 - People vs. Maisug

On February 17, 1962, at about 9:00 p.m., a card game called “pares-pares” was held in a gambling house located in the barrio of Tungasan, municipality of Mandawe, Cebu.
The game involved several participants, including the accused Herminigildo Tado (also the owner of the cards, acting as shuffler, banker, and dealer), co-accused Anastacio Maisug (who later pleaded guilty), and other persons such as Regino Gala, Alberto Belle, Rodolfo Bregente, and Federico Alcuizar.

At approximately 10:00 p.m., during the course of the game, losses occurred by several players including Maisug and Regino Gala.
An incident occurred when Regino Gala, apparently in frustration, tore one of the playing cards.
The torn card incited anger in Tado, leading to a verbal altercation between him, Gala, and other game participants.
Alberto Belle suggested using a joker in lieu of the torn card, further intensifying the situation.
Subsequently, amidst the commotion, Anastacio Maisug suddenly stabbed Regino Gala from behind with his knife.
Later that evening, the corpse of Regino Gala was found approximately 15 meters from the gambling house.

On February 18, 1962, Maisug surrendered to the police and executed an extrajudicial statement (Exhibit A) in which he recounted:

His admission of stabbing Gala.
An allegation that earlier that evening Tado had instructed him to stab anyone causing trouble during the game.

Affidavits from other witnesses (Rodolfo Bregente and Alberto Belle) corroborated certain aspects of the incident but did not mention any specific signal allegedly given by Tado.
The trial record reveals differences between Maisug’s extrajudicial confession and his later open court testimony where he denied Tado’s involvement in signaling him to stab.
Testimony by witness Alberto Balle was ambivalent regarding the nature and meaning of the alleged signal; his statements showed uncertainty and lack of clarity concerning Tado’s actions.
Additional evidence included the weapon (Exhibit C) and its scabbard (Exhibit C-1) recovered from Tado, which were ordered to be confiscated and forfeited to the government.

An information for the murder of Regino Gala was filed on March 12, 1962, charging both Maisug and Tado with murder under allegations of conspiracy, deliberate intent, premeditation, and treachery.
At arraignment, Maisug pleaded guilty, eliciting a trial based on mitigating circumstances such as voluntary surrender, guilty plea, and drunkenness; he was sentenced to a lesser penalty.
Tado, on the other hand, pleaded not guilty and subsequently underwent a trial in which he was found to have participated as principal by induction by allegedly signaling Maisug to stab Gala.
The trial court convicted Tado and sentenced him to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua), imposing additional financial penalties and ordering the forfeiture of the weapon evidence.

The counsel argued that the lower court erred by not holding that there was no proven conspiracy between Maisug and Tado, contending that each should be held solely for their individual acts.
It was also asserted that Maisug’s extrajudicial confession should not be admissible against Tado to prove any alleged conspiracy.
Counsel further contended that only Maisug was responsible for the death of Gala, given his later testimony.
The counsel maintained that when the evidence was given its appropriate weight, there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt establishing Tado’s culpability.
Lastly, it was argued that there was a legal error in holding Tado guilty of murder by inducement, given the lack of clear, corroborated proof of any such signal or conspiracy.

Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Tado instructed or signaled Maisug to stab Regino Gala.
Whether the extrajudicial confession of Maisug, with its subsequent recantation in open court, can serve as dependable and corroborative evidence implicating Tado.
Whether the ambiguous and inconclusive testimonies regarding the alleged signal suffice to support a conviction of murder by inducement.
Whether the lower court erred by conflating the acts of conspiracy and inducement in convicting Tado under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether Tado’s participation as principal by induction was sufficiently proven based on the collective evidence.