G.R. No.

169431 April 3, 2007

[Formerly G.R. Nos. 149891-92]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
JERRY RAPEZA y FRANCISCO, Appellant.

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, confederating 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.

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.

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 or not the accused guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt

(2)Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was likewise proven
beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

(1)There is no direct evidence of appellants 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
confessants 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 oclock 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 appellants 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
appellants 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 appellants counsel for purposes of the custodial investigation.

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 appellants 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.

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 appellants 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 appellants
extrajudicial confession admissible against him.