G.R. No. 169431; April 3, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JERRY RAPEZA y FRANCISCO, Appellant.
FACTS
Jerry Rapeza was charged with two counts of murder for the killing of spouses Cesar Ganzon and Priscilla Libas in Culion, Palawan, on October 21, 1995. The prosecution’s case hinged primarily on an extrajudicial confession. After being invited for questioning, Rapeza expressed willingness to confess in the presence of a lawyer. He was brought to the house of Atty. Roberto Reyes, the only available lawyer in the municipality, due to a non-functional typewriter at the police station and the lawyer’s illness. There, in the presence of local officials and police, a “Sinumpaang Salaysay” was taken where Rapeza admitted involvement in the crimes.
During trial, Rapeza recanted his confession, claiming it was coerced and that he did not understand the Tagalog language used during the custodial investigation, as he was a Cuyunon speaker. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of two counts of murder, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the extrajudicial confession of Jerry Rapeza is admissible as evidence, considering the alleged violations of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation, particularly the right to competent and independent counsel and the right to be informed in a language he understands.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Jerry Rapeza. The extrajudicial confession was declared inadmissible for being obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The legal logic is anchored on the stringent requirements for a valid waiver of rights during custodial investigation under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution.
First, the right to counsel was not properly observed. While a lawyer, Atty. Roberto Reyes, was present, the circumstances cast doubt on his independence and the voluntariness of the waiver. The investigation was conducted at the lawyer’s house due to his rheumatism, not at the police station. More critically, the lawyer was provided by the police through a barangay kagawad, not chosen by the accused himself. The Court has consistently ruled that the counsel must be of the accused’s own choice to ensure effective and independent assistance. Counsel procured by the police is presumed to be “tainted,” failing the test of competence and independence.
Second, the right to be informed of these rights in a language he understands was violated. The confession and the rights were explained in Tagalog. Rapeza, a Cuyunon speaker with only a Grade 2 education, testified he did not comprehend Tagalog at the time. The prosecution failed to rebut this claim with positive evidence showing he understood the language during the investigation in 1995. An interpreter was present, but the record does not show he translated the constitutional warnings or the confession itself into Cuyunon. A waiver must be made with full knowledge and intelligence; it cannot be valid if the accused does not comprehend the language used.
With the confession invalidated, the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to present any other direct evidence, like an eyewitness, linking Rapeza to the crime. The Court emphasized that the Bill of Rights demands a strict and unwavering compliance with procedural safeguards during custodial investigation to protect the presumption of innocence.
