People vs. Ladao Digest

People v. Ladao

G.R. No. 100940-41 November 27, 2001

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.:

Confession

Facts:

1. The accused-appellant Ladao was among those apprehended by the Caloocan Police on the night of February 9, 1990, in connection with the rampant robbery and hold-up incidents in Caloocan. In the ensuing investigation conducted by Police Inspector Antonio Paras and Ricardo Concepcion, accused-appellant and his co-accused executed, with the assistance of Atty. Juanito R. Crisostomo of the Public Attorney's Office, Caloocan City, their extra-judicial confession admitting authorship of the crime of robbery with homicide.

2. In his extra-judicial confession, accused-appellant declared that he and his four co-accused, together with three others who were able to escape, held up the passenger jeepney driven by the victim. He further stated that they tied the hands and feet of the victim and threw him into the estero not knowing that the place was filled with water. Using the jeepney of the victim, they plied the Recto-Caloocan route and picked up passengers whom they likewise robbed. Thereafter, they abandoned the jeepney somewhere.

3. Accused-appellant Henry Soriano appeals from the lower court's decision convicting him and his four co-accused of the crime of robbery with homicide.

Issue: W/N the extrajudicial confession is admissible against the accused

YES. Settled is the rule that once the prosecution has shown that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession was involuntary and untrue. The burden is on the accused to destroy this presumption.  A confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat, or promise of reward or leniency. The exculpatory tone of accused-appellant’s confession is demonstrative of its voluntariness rather than compulsion.

Accused-appellant failed to present any proof that force and violence were employed to coerce him to sign the extra-judicial confession.  He did not submit himself to an examination by a physician to bolster his claim.  Neither did he complain of the alleged torture to his relatives or to Prosecutor Neptali Aliposa when he swore to the truth of his statement.  Likewise, he filed no criminal complaint or administrative charge against the police officers concerned. 

Moreover, the language of the confession and the details in it could only come from a participant in the commission of the crime.  Every aspect thereof jibes with the sworn statements given by his co-accused.  His confession reflects the manner in which the crime was committed; the kind of weapon used; the place where they boarded the victim’s jeepney; the role of each accused; and their relative positions inside the jeep.  Furthermore, accused-appellant's admission that they threw the victim in an estero filled with water confirms the result of the post mortem examination indicating that the victim drowned to death.

Valid confession

Accused-appellant’s allegation that he and his co-accused were not assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation is belied by the affidavit executed by Atty. Crisostomo attesting to the voluntariness of accused-appellant’s confession and the legal assistance he rendered during the investigation. Moreover, Atty. Crisostomo testified that he informed accused-appellant and his co-accused of their constitutional rights and assisted them during the custodial investigation. As such, his confession constitutes evidence of the highest order since it is backed up by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless he is prompted by truth and his conscience.

Note that apart from the extra-judicial confession, the conviction is supported by other competent evidence.  Hilda Castro’s testimony, positively identifying accused-appellant and his co-accused as the persons who robbed them between Tayuman and Blumentritt, is on all fours with the confession of accused-appellant and that of his co-accused that after dumping the victim in the estero, they used the latter’s jeepney and robbed the passengers they picked up in the Recto-Caloocan route and vice-versa.  In fact, Hilda Castro’s bag was recovered from the abandoned jeepney of the victim, which shows that accused-appellant and his companions were the same persons who took away the jeepney of the victim and killed him, and thereafter staged another hold-up where Hilda Castro happened to be one of the victims.