PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JERRY RAPEZA y FRANCISCO, Appellant.
G.R. No. 169431, April 3, 2007 [Formerly G.R. Nos. 149891-92]. TINGA, J.
FACTS: An unidentified woman went to the Culion Municipal Station and reported a killing that
had taken place, alleging that she saw two bloodied bodies. Upon information supplied by a
certain Mr. Dela Cruz that appellant-accused Jerry Rapeza had wanted to confess to the crimes,
SPO2 Gapas set out to look for appellant; and when found, Rapeza expressed his willingness to
make a confession in the presence of a lawyer. Rapeza was then brought to the police station
after which SPO2 Gapas requested Kagawad Alcantara to provide Rapeza with a lawyer. The
following day, Rapeza was brought to the house of Atty. Reyes, the only available lawyer in the
municipality. There, he made an extrajudicial confession (alongside an interpreter since he was
illiterate and not well versed in Tagalog) admitting the crime charged against him, which he
allegedly committed because he was told to do so by and with Regino. As he was illiterate, the
documents he signed were through his thumb print, likewise signed by Atty. Reyes and the
interpreter. A complaint for multiple murder was filed against him and Regino. The MTC judge
conducted a preliminary investigation, finding probable cause against Rapeza only. The
Provincial Prosecutor reversed the MTC findings by including Regino in the Informations, but he
already left the municipality.
Rapeza testified in his own defense, presenting a different story during trial. He said he, along
with Regino and Benny Macabili, were asked by a police officer to help load the bodies of the
victims in a banca. Shortly thereafter, he and Regino were arrested. While detained, Rapeza
initially told the police that Regino was responsible for killing the victims, but later testified that
he implicated Regino only in retaliation upon learning that Regino pointed to him as the
perpetrator. Rapeza said he did not resist from signing the documents as he was afraid of being
mauled again. Rapeza said he did not go to the house of Atty. Reyes, nor meet the interpreter
as he never left the jail since he was arrested, except to attend the hearing. Rapeza said
nobody talked to him during the hearing, nor was assisted by counsel.
On the basis of Rapeza’s extrajudicial confession, the RTC found him guilty. The CA upheld the
trial court.
Rapeza argues that his extrajudicial confession suffers constitutional infirmity as it was extracted
in violation of the due process guidelines. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends
that the constitutional guidelines on custodial investigation were observed.
ISSUE: W/N Rapeza’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence. (NO)
RULING: The confession is inadmissible and must be discarded. 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.
● Sec. 12, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution = (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have 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 the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
● Republic Act No. 7438, Sec. 2 Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial
Investigation; Duties of Public Officers = a. Any person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel. b. Any public officer or
employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or
investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a
language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times
be allowed to confer private with the person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be
provided by with a competent and independent counsel.
In the present case, although Rapeza was informed of his constitutional rights in
custodial investigation (i.e. right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice, and the Constitution requires that he be informed of such
rights), Rapeza had not actually understood his rights. He was not even informed that he
may waive such rights only in writing and in the presence of counsel.
● In order to comply with the constitutional mandates, there should be meaningful
communication to and understanding of his rights, 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.
Although the prosecution underscores the presence of an interpreter, the evidence does not
show that the interpreter was actually present.
Confession was not made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel of
appellant’s choice.
● People v. Deniega = the competent or independent lawyer so engaged should be
present from the beginning to end, i.e., at all stages of the interview, counseling or
advising caution reasonably at every turn of the investigation, and stopping the
interrogation once in a while either to give advice to the accused that he may either
continue, choose to remain silent or terminate the interview.
Rapeza’s confession is not voluntary, nor sufficiently corroborated.
● First, the confession contains facts and details which appear to have been supplied by
the investigators themselves. Second, again appellant was not assisted by counsel.
No motive could be ascribed to Rapeza.
● For the purpose of meeting the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, motive is
essential for conviction when there is doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator. In view
of the inadmissibility of the confession, there is no other evidence that directly points to
Rapeza as the culprit.
● Furthermore, Rapeza’s conduct after the killings was not that of a guilty person. He
never attempted to flee even if he knew that the police authorities were already
investigating the incident as he was summoned to help load the bodies in a banca.
Being a transient in the place, he could have easily disappeared and left the island but
he remained there to continue looking for work.
Taken together, these circumstances generate serious doubts that must be resolved in Rapeza’s
favor, congruently with the constitutional presumption of innocence.
