G.R. No. L-67813. January 29, 1988.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO TUNDAY y CANOMAY, JAROLAN LAWRE y DATARTO, accused, JAROLAN LAWRE y DATARTO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that in the early evening of November 3, 1983, accused-appellant Jarolan Lawre, with two companions, stole an Isuzu truck loaded with iron rods parked in Balut, Tondo. While being driven by Lawre, the truck later collided with a jeep at another intersection. His companions fled, and when questioned by a barangay aide, Lawre merely scratched his head before running away. The truck owner reported the theft, leading to Lawre’s arrest based on the aide’s identification. During custodial investigation, Lawre executed an extrajudicial confession admitting the crime. At trial, his co-accused was acquitted for insufficient evidence.
Lawre repudiated his confession, claiming it was extracted through force and intimidation, including being hit with handcuffs and electrocuted. He also interposed an alibi. The prosecution presented the investigating officer who denied the allegations of coercion. The trial court convicted Lawre of qualified theft and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, relying heavily on the detailed extrajudicial confession as evidence of guilt.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of accused-appellant Jarolan Lawre for qualified theft can be sustained.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed, but not on the basis of the extrajudicial confession. The Court ruled the confession inadmissible for violating constitutional rights during custodial investigation. Applying People v. Galit and Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution , the Court found the waiver of the right to counsel defective. The standard recital of rights without adequate explanation and the mere perfunctory “Opo” from the suspect do not constitute a valid, knowing, and intelligent waiver. The requirement that a waiver must be in writing and made in the presence of counsel was not met. Consequently, the confession, obtained in violation of the Bill of Rights, was excluded from evidence.
Nevertheless, the conviction stands based on other conclusive evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Lawre was caught in actual possession and control of the recently stolen truck, driving it at the collision scene. When apprehended, he offered no explanation for his possession and instead fled. His defense of alibi was feeble and unsubstantiated. The Court applied the doctrine from United States v. Espia, which holds that proof of possession of stolen property, coupled with the accused’s inability to give a satisfactory explanation for such possession, justifies conviction for theft. The truck, worth a substantial amount, was indisputably stolen and found in Lawre’s exclusive possession without any credible justification. This circumstantial evidence, independent of the invalid confession, sufficiently proves his guilt.