G.R. No. 169431 Case Digest

G.R. No. 169431, April 3, 2007

People of the Philippines, appellee

vs Jerry Rapeza y Francisco, appellant

Ponente: Tinga

Facts:

This is an appeal from the decision of the court of appeals affirming the consolidated judgment of the RTC of Palawan where Jerry Rapeza was found guilty of 2 counts of murder sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, plus indemnity for the heirs of the 2 victims.

In 2 separate information, Rapeza together with Regino was charged with the murder of the spouses Cesar Ganzon and Priscilla Libas.

Information narrates that on October 21, 1995 around 4pm at Culion, Palawan the accused conspired, confiderating together and mutually helped each other, with evident premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength and feloniously attacked and killed with bladed weapons the victims.

Regino was at large, so Rapeza was the only one arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The RTC held that the accused is guilty with conspiracy. Case was elevated to the CA for review but RTC was affirmed.

Prosecution: October 21, 1995 unidentified woman went to Culion and reported a killing that took place in Sitio Cawa-Cawa, Culion. the officer in charge sent to the victims' house, the investigating team saw two blooded bodies, which was later identified as Libas and Ganzon. The autopsy reports show that the common cause of death was hypovolemic shock secondary to massive bleeding from multiple stab wounds and both bodies were in the early stage of decomposition. Upon information supplied, appellant had wanted to confess to the crimes. The appellant was found fishing in Asinan Island and invited the latter for questioning. Appellant expressed his willingness to make confession in the presence of a lawyer. The appellant was brought to the police station and later brought to the house of the only available lawyer in the municipality- Atty. Reyes. Because Atty. Reyes is suffering from rheumatism and the typewriter in the police station was out of order, the custodial investigation took place at the house of atty. Reyes in the presence of VM Marasigan of cULION, 2 SB officials, interpreter and SPO2 Gapas (officer in charge).

Rapeza narrated the crime and was signed and was notarized. Thereafter, a complaint for multiple murder was files against Regino who was likewise arrested. MTC of Culion conducted preliminary investigation. Finding probable cause only against Rapeza, Regino was ordered released. Provincial prosecutor however reversed the finding of the TC by including Regino in the information, but then the latter had left Culion already.

Defense: Rapeza testified that he did not know the victims and that he has nothing to do with their deaths. Rapeza is a native of Samar, illiterate and was staying with Regino in Regino's house, 40 meters away from the victims' house.Several days after Rapeza's arrival, the killings took place. Rapeza,, along with Regino and Macabili was asked by the police officer to help load the bodies of the victims kn a banca. Shortly, Rapeza was arrested and brought to the municipal hall. Regino too was arrested with him. While in detention, Rapeza told the police that it was Regino who did the killing but the police did not believe him. Rapeza was told to sign a certain document for his release. Because Rapeza cannot sign, the officer took his thumb, dipped it in ink and marked it on the document. Rapeza denied going to the house of Atty. Reyes or meeting the alleged interpreter. When he was brought to the MTC, the counsel did not assist him, he was later brought to a hut in the mountain where he was told to go farther, which he refused for fear of being shot.

On the basis of appellant's extrajudicial confession, the RTc found him guilty.

Issues: (1) Whether his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt and (2) whether the qualifying circumstance of evident premediation was likewise proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

(1) There is no direct evidence of appellant’s guilt except for the alleged confession and the corpus delicti. Upon careful examination of the alleged confession and the testimony of the witnesses, we hold that the alleged confession is inadmissible and must perforce be discarded.

Thus, the Court has consistently held that an extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must conform to the following requisites: 1) the confession must be voluntary; 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, preferably of the confessant’s choice; 3) the confession must be express; and 4) the confession must be in writing.

We note that appellant did not voluntarily surrender to the police but was "invited" by SPO2 Gapas to the police station. There he was detained from 11 o’clock in the morning of 22 October 1995 up to the morning of 23 October 1995 before his extrajudicial statement was allegedly taken. At this juncture, appellant should have been informed of his constitutional rights as he was already considered a suspect, contrary to the finding of the trial court that the mandatory constitutional guidelines only attached when the investigators started to propound questions to appellant on 23 October 1995 in the house of Atty. Reyes.

Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect. According to PO3 Palmero, right after appellant’s arrest, the latter already insinuated to him that he would confess his participation in the killing. 

In order to comply with the constitutional mandates, there should likewise be meaningful communication to and understanding of his rights by the appellant, as opposed to a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital thereof. Since comprehension is the objective, the degree of explanation required will necessarily depend on the education, intelligence, and other relevant personal circumstances of the person undergoing investigation.

In this case, it was established that at the time of the investigation appellant was illiterate and was not well versed in Tagalog. This fact should engender a higher degree of scrutiny in determining whether he understood his rights as allegedly communicated to him, as well as the contents of his alleged confession.

The prosecution underscores the presence of an interpreter in the person of Abad to buttress its claim that appellant was informed of his rights in the dialect known to him. However, the presence of an interpreter during the interrogation was not sufficiently established. Although the confession bears the signature of Abad, it is uncertain whether he was indeed present to assist appellant in making the alleged confession.

For another, the prosecution did not present Abad as witness. Abad would have been in the best position to prove that he indeed made the translation from Tagalog to Waray for appellant to understand what was going on. This significant circumstance lends credence to appellant’s claim that he had never met Abad.

The extra-judicial confession was allegedly made in Tagalog when accused-appellant is admittedly not well versed in said language. Even if the confession was made in the presence of an interpreter, there is no showing that the rights of a person under investigation were effectively explained and/or interpreted to accused-appellant. The interpreter was not even presented in Court to prove that said rights were translated in a language understood by accused-appellant. 

(2) The constitutional requirement obviously had not been observed. Settled is the rule that the moment a police officer tries to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a suspect, the latter should, at that juncture, be assisted by counsel, unless he waives this right in writing and in the presence of counsel. Appellant did not make any such waiver.

Assuming that Atty. Reyes did assist appellant, still there would be grave doubts as to his competence and independence as appellant’s counsel for purposes of the custodial investigation. 

(3) It is settled that a confession is presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved and the confessant bears the burden of proving the contrary. The trial court found that appellant’s bare denials failed to overcome this presumption. However, several factors constrain us to hold that the confession was not given under conditions that conduce to its admissibility.

First, the confession contains facts and details which appear to have been supplied by the investigators themselves.Second, the prosecution failed to establish the actual date of the killings. The actual date of the commission of the crimes is material in assessing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and of the admissibility of the alleged confession.

(4) Confession was not sufficiently corroborated.

Courts are slow to accept extrajudicial confessions when they are subsequently disputed unless they are corroborated. There must be such corroboration so that when considered in connection with the confession, it will show the guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a general rule, a confession must be corroborated by those to whom the witness who testified thereto refers as having been present at the time the confession was made or by any other evidence.

The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers as well as any lingering doubt as to the credibility of appellant’s statement could have been laid to rest by the testimonies of Atty. Reyes, of Abad, and of those allegedly present during the custodial investigation. However, they were not presented in court.

Consequently, the non-production of these material witnesses raises a doubt which must be resolved in favor of appellant and the confession should be disregarded as evidence. Verily, we are left with the unconvincing testimony of two police officers against whose abuse of authority the Constitution protects the appellant. As their respective testimonies are sated with inconsistencies and hearsay evidence, we find the same insufficient bases to hold appellant’s extrajudicial confession admissible against him.