UP Law F2021 011 People v Jara

Evidence Constitution Art. III, Secs. 17 & 12 1986 Guttierez, Jr.

SUMMARY

Automatic review of the conviction of the accused appellants on two cases (robbery with homicide and
parricide). The lower court upon its conviction of the three accused, admitted as evidence the extrajudicial
confession of two of the accused. However, the Supreme Court ruled that such extrajudicial confession could
not be admitted because of lack of voluntariness on the part of the accused when they gave the same. The SC
modified the lower court decision and acquitted two of the accused (those who gave the extrajudicial
confession) for existence of reasonable doubt.

FACTS

 This is an automatic Review of the consolidated cases of People v. Jara for Robbery with Homicide
(Criminal Case No. 2564) and People v. Jara for Parricide (Criminal Case No. 2565);
 The victims Amparo Vda. De Bantigue and Luisa Jara were killed while they were soundly sleeping
inside their room, their piggy bank and buddha bank stolen by the perpetrators;
 Two of the accused-appelants (Reymundo Vergara and Roberto Bernadas) executed extra-judicial
confessions when apprehended by the police. They confessed to the killing of the victims and stated
that the mastermind was one Felicisimo Jara, the husband of Luisa Jara. They reenacted the crime
before the authorities;
 They all pleaded not guilty during their arraignment: Jara interposed the alibi that he was at his step-
daughter’s house and could not have committed the murder;
 The other two accused retracted their respective extra-judicial confessions. Further, they contested
the admissibility of the extra-judicial confessions and the subsequent re-enactment of the crime on
the ground that their participations in these occasions were not free and voluntary and were without
the benefit of counsel;
 The lower court considered the extra-judicial admission together with the corpus delicti and convicted
the appellants, hence this automatic review.

RATIO

W/N the extra-judicial confession must be admitted as evidence

No.

There was no question that the confession was obtained in the absence of a counsel. Although the records
show that there was a waiver of the right to counsel, the same could not be held as valid. When read, the
confession sounded tired, punctilious, fixed, and artificially stately style which did not create an impression
of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the accused. The showing of a spontaneous, free, and
unconstrained giving up of a right is missing.

Whenever a protection given by the Constitution is waived by the person entitled to that protection,
the presumption is always against the waiver. Consequently, the prosecution must prove with
strongly convincing evidence to the satisfaction of this Court that indeed the accused willingly and
voluntarily submitted his confession and knowingly and deliberately manifested that he was not
interested in having a lawyer assist him during the taking of that confession. That proof is missing
in this case.

The prosecution cited People v. Castaneda, stating that the presumption that "no one would declare
anything against himself unless such declarations were true" assumes that such declarations are given
freely and voluntarily. However, the Court pointed out that the case was decided before the 1973
Constitution explicitly include in Section 20 on the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed
of such right. The Constitution then in expressly adopting the so-called Miranda v. Arizona rule, has
 reversed the presumption. The prosecution must now prove that an extra-judicial confession was
voluntarily given, instead of relying on a presumption and requiring the accused to offset it.

The Court considered the following in determining absence of voluntariness of the confession: (1) records
show that the interrogations were conducted incommunicado in a police-dominated atmosphere; (2)
Bernadas gave his confession, his companions in the room were five police officers. The only people with
Vergara when he confessed were also police investigators; (3) Vergara and Barnadas had been detained
for more than two (2) weeks before they decided to give "voluntary" confessions; (4) probability of lighted
cigarettes and other means of persuasion which leave physical marks were also utilized to secure the
confessions.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court is MODIFIED as follows:

In Crim. Case No. 2564, the accused Bernadas and Vergara are ACQUITTED of the crime of ROBBERY
with HOMICIDE on the ground of reasonable doubt. Accused Jara is CONVICTED of the crime of MURDER and
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.
In Crim. Case No. 2565, the accused Bernadas and Vergara are likewise ACQUITTED of the crime of
HOMICIDE on the ground of reasonable doubt. Accused Jara is CONVICTED of the crime of PARRICIDE and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.
Considering, however, that the accused Jara is now over 70 years of age, the penalty of death is lowered
to reclusion perpetua.
In both cases, accused Jara is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Amparo Bantigue and
Luisa Jara in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00), respectively.
SO ORDERED.