474. People v. RuelanG.R. No. 106152April 19, 1994Sec. 12, Art. 3 – Waiver of rights

Facts: Fordito Ruelan was convicted of the crime of murder, after having hacked to death the victim Rosa Jardiel, which is now being appealed, contending that the sworn statement admitting his guilt is inadmissible as evidence. The facts of the case narrate thus that a few days after killing his employer Jardiel, Ruelan was brought to the police station. However, they could not conduct any investigation because he wanted to seek the help of a lawyer. Thus, he was brought to Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office in which they met Atty. Cortez who was assigned to assist Ruelan. Prior to and in the course of the investigation, Ruelan was informed of his right against self-incrimination yet he proceeded to deliver his account of the incident. Atty. Cortez would affirm the terms used by the typewriter-police who was conducting the investigation, to ensure that the right words were used. After the investigation, Atty. Cortez made clear to Ruelan that signing the declaration would constitute as admission of guilt, yet Ruelan affirmed this and proceeded to sign the same. Thus, he was convicted of murder. He appeals.

Issue: whether he can be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged based on the established facts, without the alleged written extrajudicial confession

Held: It is the contention of appellant that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because he was never apprised of his constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel, and to be informed of such rights. He claims that contents of his confession were fabricated and that he signed the document on the insistence of policeman that it would be beneficial to him. He further alleges that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were false and were only made to cure the defects of his extrajudicial confession.

The contention of appellant that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible is untenable. Wellsettled is the rule that a confession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is

proved and the burden of proof is upon the person making the confession. In this case, the

presumption has not been overcome. Not only is the appellant’s confession replete with details only he could have supplied, but the circumstances surrounding its execution belie his claim.

The lawyer who assisted the appellant testified that before the investigation was conducted, she informed the appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel and to be

informed of such rights. In fact, Atty. Cortez even advised the appellant that any statement

given by him in the investigation could be used against him in any proceeding in court. Despite being informed of these rights, appellant executed the sworn statement admitting that he struck the victim, Rosa Jardiel, with an axe behind her right ear.

Decision was affirmed.