PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

RUFO LLENARESAS
248 SCRA 629 |. September 29, 1995
Feliciano, J.

Doctrine: Statements made in extrajudicial confessions affirming that the accused had been
informed of his constitutional rights are afforded great weight by the Court.

FACTS
Accused-appellant Rufo Llenaresas, together with several others were charged with the
crime of robbery with homicide. The facts would show that the Intergrated National Police of
Lucena City received a telephone call that an unidentified person was found dead at a certain
subdivision in Lucena. Upon responding to the scene, the authorities found the cadaver of the
victim surrounded by one black cap and a blue and white cap. Some of the by-standers identified
the victim as Antonio Maligaya, a jeepney driver. The following day, the Lucena police was
informed of an abandoned jeep recovered in one subdivision in Cainta and it was confirmed to be
the one owned by the victim. However, in the course of their investigation, the police came to
know of one Alice Jabil who identified the black cap belonging to his husband Jamil, one of the
suspects and also learned about the participation of Herminio de Ramos and herein accused-
appellant. Several days after, a man came to the police station and informed the police about the
whereabouts of Llenaresas, Jabil and Depusoy. The police then arrested them and brought them
to the police station where they issued their extrajudicial confessions in the presence of Atty.
Meliton Angeles and after being duly informed of their constitutional rights.
The trial court then convicted accused-appellant for the crime charged. On appeal,
accused-appellant faults the trial court for giving credence to his extrajudicial confession despite
the same being allegedly obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the trial court erred in giving credence to the extrajudicial confession– NO.
Accused-appellants asserts that his extrajudicial confession was obtained through
coercion and without the assistance of counsel. He also denies any participation in the
crime and was surprised when he was suddenly arrested and mauled by the police to own
the said crime. After receiving several beatings, he was asked to sign a document and on
consideration that the beatings would stop, he affixed his signature on said document. He
also contends that the police began to investigate him, he was not informed of his
constitutional rights and that there was no lawyer around when he signed his confession.
However, the facts of the case would show otherwise. First, the extrajudicial
statement signed by himself affirms that he had been informed of his constitutional rights
and that the same was explained to him. Second, when asked by the City Prosecutor
regarding the veracity of the statements made in the extrajudicial confession, accused-
appellant affirmed the contents of the statement and manifested that he was assisted by a
counsel. Furthermore, the police who took the written statement of accused-appellant also
testified that he informed him of his constitutional rights and that Atty. Angeles was
present and rendered his assistance to the accused-appellant. Moreover, the fact that Atty
Angeles was not presented to confirm his presence during the custodial investigation is
not fatal to the case since the testimonies and the statements found in the extrajudicial

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 confession were already adequate to sustain the findings of the trial court. Lastly, the
statements issued were full of replete details which is an indication of voluntariness.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court dated 15 May 1991 is
hereby AFFIRMED, except the indemnity for the death of Antonio Maligaya which is hereby
INCREASED to P50,000.00 in accordance with the current case law of the Court.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2