Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    People vs. Rapeza: Issue

    Uploaded by

    Gabe Bedana
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the extrajudicial confession of Jerry Rapeza was inadmissible as evidence against him. [1] Rapeza claimed his confession was obtained through violence and intimidation without the presence of a lawyer. [2] The police did not properly inform Rapeza of his constitutional rights or ensure he had competent legal counsel, as they selected the lawyer without his consent. [3] As such, Rapeza's confession did not meet standards for a voluntary admission of guilt, and he was acquitted due to insufficient evidence leading to reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Rapeza: Issue

    Uploaded by

    Gabe Bedana
    52 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the extrajudicial confession of Jerry Rapeza was inadmissible as evidence against him. [1] Rapeza claimed his confession was obtained through violence and intimidation without the presence of a lawyer. [2] The police did not properly inform Rapeza of his constitutional rights or ensure he had competent legal counsel, as they selected the lawyer without his consent. [3] As such, Rapeza's confession did not meet standards for a voluntary admission of guilt, and he was acquitted due to insufficient evidence leading to reasonable doubt.

    Original Description:

    hvvjjh

    Original Title

    r

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the extrajudicial confession of Jerry Rapeza was inadmissible as evidence against him. [1] Rapeza claimed his confession was obtained through violence and intimidation without the presence of a lawyer. [2] The police did not properly inform Rapeza of his constitutional rights or ensure he had competent legal counsel, as they selected the lawyer without his consent. [3] As such, Rapeza's confession did not meet standards for a voluntary admission of guilt, and he was acquitted due to insufficient evidence leading to reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views1 page

    People vs. Rapeza: Issue

    Uploaded by

    Gabe Bedana
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the extrajudicial confession of Jerry Rapeza was inadmissible as evidence against him. [1] Rapeza claimed his confession was obtained through violence and intimidation without the presence of a lawyer. [2] The police did not properly inform Rapeza of his constitutional rights or ensure he had competent legal counsel, as they selected the lawyer without his consent. [3] As such, Rapeza's confession did not meet standards for a voluntary admission of guilt, and he was acquitted due to insufficient evidence leading to reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People vs.

    Rapeza
    (G.R. No. 169431 April 3, 2007)

    Issue:

    Whether appellant’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence to warrant the verdict of guilt.

    Facts:

    Appellant Jerry Rapeza was convicted of murder for killing the spouses Cesar Ganzon and Priscilla Libas by virtue
    of an extrajudicial confession allegedly made by him. However, Rapeza claims that such confession was obtained
    through violence and intimidation. He further stresses that he was not informed of his rights during the time of his
    detention when he was already considered a suspect as the police had already received information of his alleged
    involvement in the crimes. Neither did a competent and independent counsel assist him from the time he was
    detained until trial began. Appellant likewise maintains that although the Sinumpaang Salaysay states that his rights
    were read to him, there was no showing that his rights were explained to him in a way that an uneducated person
    like him could understand.

    Held:

    The constitutional requirement obviously had not been observed. Settled is the rule that the moment a police officer
    tries to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a suspect, the latter should, at that juncture,
    be assisted by counsel, unless he waives this right in writing and in the presence of counsel. Appellant did not make
    any such waiver.

    x x x The competent or independent lawyer so engaged should be present from the beginning to end, i.e., at all stages of the
    interview, counseling or advising caution reasonably at every turn of the investigation, and stopping the interrogation once in a
    while either to give advice to the accused that he may either continue, choose to remain silent or terminate the interview. (people
    vs. Daniega)

    The standards of "competent counsel" were not met in this case given the deficiencies of the evidence for the
    prosecution. Although Atty. Reyes signed the confession as appellant’s counsel and he himself notarized the
    statement, there is no evidence on how he assisted appellant. The confession itself and the testimonies of SPO2
    Gapas and SPO2 Cuizon bear no indication that Atty. Reyes had explained to appellant his constitutional rights.

    Furthermore, Atty. Reyes was not appellant’s counsel of choice but was picked out by the police officers allegedly
    through the barangay officials. Appellant’s failure to interpose any objection to having Atty. Reyes as his counsel
    cannot be taken as consent under the prevailing circumstances. As discussed earlier, appellant was not properly
    informed of his rights, including the right to a counsel preferably of his own choice.

    It was made to appear in the alleged confession that appellant was informed of his right to a counsel of his own
    choice and that if he cannot afford the services of one, the police shall provide him with one, it was overlooked that
    it was not similarly made to appear in the same statement that appellant was advised that he had the option to
    reject the counsel provided for him by the police authorities.

    WHEREFORE, the Decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Palawan, Puerto Princesa City in Criminal
    Case Nos. 13064 and 13202 and the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00642 are REVERSED and SET
    ASIDE. Appellant Jerry Rapeza y Francisco is hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence leading to
    reasonable doubt.

    You might also like