G.R. No. 114385 January 29, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFREN JEREZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Efren Jerez, along with others, was charged with robbery with double homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte. The information alleged that on May 23, 1990, in Basit Compound, barangay Sta. Rosa, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, the accused, conspiring and armed, took cash and personal properties valued at P52,000.00 from Reynaldo Ochoa and Joselito Balbastro, and on the occasion thereof, killed both victims. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence established that appellant, posing as a seller of carabaos, approached tricycle driver Gil Villafranca, who led him to victim Reynaldo Ochoa. Appellant, Ochoa, and another buyer, Joselito Balbastro, then proceeded on a motorcycle to Barangay Teddy to inspect the carabaos and were later found dead in the Basit Compound, having been stabbed and robbed. Upon appellant’s arrest, he gave an extra-judicial confession in the presence of Atty. August Schneider, which was sworn to before Mayor Arnie Arenal. Appellant defended himself with an alibi, claiming he was drinking at a friend’s house during the incident, and alleged his confession was obtained through coercion and intimidation. The trial court convicted appellant of robbery with double homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay indemnities to the victims’ heirs. Appellant appealed, contesting the admissibility of his extra-judicial confession and the rejection of his alibi.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether appellant’s extra-judicial confession is admissible as evidence, having been allegedly obtained without the effective assistance of competent and independent counsel and through coercion; and (2) Whether the trial court erred in rejecting appellant’s defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s conviction but modified the damages awarded. The Court held that the extra-judicial confession was admissible. It satisfied the four fundamental requirements: it was voluntary, made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel (Atty. August Schneider), express, and in writing. The records showed appellant was informed of his constitutional rights, agreed to Atty. Schneider’s assistance, and swore to the confession before Mayor Arenal without reporting any coercion. The presumption of voluntariness stands unless disproven by the defense, which failed to provide evidence of duress. The detailed nature of the confession, containing facts only the accused could know, indicated its voluntariness. Regarding the defense of alibi, the Court found it unavailing. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible to be at the crime scene. Appellant’s claim of being at a drinking session was contradicted by prosecution witnesses who positively identified him as the person who solicited the carabao buyers on the day of the crime. Alibi established solely by the accused and his acquaintances cannot prevail over credible prosecution testimony. The Court modified the trial court’s computation of damages for loss of earning capacity, applying the formula: (2/3 x [80 – age at death]) x gross annual income. For Joselito Balbastro (age 35), the award was P1,080,000.00. For Reynaldo Ochoa (age 49), the award was P756,000.00. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed with this modification.