G.R. No. L-10219; August 29, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. BENJAMIN GOMEZ Y SANGA, et al., defendants, and RICARDO DE JESUS Y GATOS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, including appellant Ricardo de Jesus y Gatos, were charged with robbery with homicide for an incident on September 29, 1954, at a house in Manila where the owner, Pablo Lim, was stabbed and killed. Initially, all pleaded not guilty. Before and during trial, three co-accused (Romualdo Lobrio, Benjamin Gomez, and Alejandro Ramos) changed their pleas to guilty. After trial, the court acquitted one accused, Dominador Senio, but convicted Ricardo de Jesus. De Jesus appealed. The prosecution’s evidence to connect him to the crime was primarily his signed confession (Exhibit “A”). The appellant contested the confession’s admissibility, claiming it was not voluntary as he was forced to sign it after being beaten by the police and his co-accused. He presented an alibi, corroborated by witnesses, that he was drunk and asleep at home during the crime. The trial court rejected his claims and relied on the confession. On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the confession and found it inconsistent with the prosecution’s own evidence from witnesses, who identified co-accused Alejandro Ramos as inside the house and Romualdo Lobrio as the stabber. The Court noted that the confessions of the three co-accused who pleaded guilty were parallel, all shifting blame to de Jesus and Senio, but their trial testimony and guilty pleas contradicted this. The co-accused also testified that de Jesus was forced to sign the confession.

ISSUE

Whether the confession of appellant Ricardo de Jesus is admissible as evidence and whether his guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant. The Court ruled that the confession (Exhibit “A”) was not voluntary. It was prepared under the direction of his co-accused to shift blame and was signed by the appellant under compulsion from beatings by both police and his co-accused. The contents of the confession were contradicted by the prosecution’s own evidence, which identified his co-accused as the perpetrators inside the house. The parallel nature of the confessions of the three co-accused indicated a concerted effort to implicate the appellant. Given these circumstances, the charge against the appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. He was declared innocent and absolved of the charge.