PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

---vs--Ladao, Guzman, Ponseca, Panganiban, Eugenio, accused. Ponseca appealing.

Rule 130 Section 33 Confessions
FACTS:
1. Accused herein are found guilty of robbery with homicide following the death of a
jeepney driver who drowned after being tied and dumped in an estero, and the robbery
of the victim and his passengers.
2. Records show that the accused herein are part of the group arrested by Caloocan police
in a crackdown with the rampant robbery and hold-up.
3. In his extra-judicial confession, Ponseca revealed that he and his other co-accused
escaped [custody] and held up a passenger jeepney driven by the victim in this case.
Posecas testimony detailed how the crime was committed, including his participation of
being the one who collected the passengers belongings and the one who dumped the
victim into the estero.
a. The extrajudicial confession also details how the accused was assisted by Atty.
Crisostomo, and was properly apprised of their rights.
4. Prosecution also presented witnesses, one of which is the passenger and the other is the
widow of the jeepney driver.
a. The passenger positively identified the accused as the persons who robbed them
b. The widow testified that her husband is missing and upon reporting it to the
police, her husbands cadaver was found in an estero, an autopsy of which
revealed that the cause of death is drowning.
5. On the basis of the foregoing, RTC found them GUILTY of robbery with homicide.
6. Hence, this petition by Ponseca, alleging primarily that the trial court erred in
considering the validity of the extrajudicial statement, claiming that he was tortured into
it.
ISSUE: W/N the extrajudicial confession is valid
HELD: 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 one who claims that it is not has the burden of proof to show that the
confession as involuntary and untrue.
To this end, Petitioner claims that rarely is a man compelled to admit his liability and even if he
does so, he would try to limit his liability.
SC does not agree with Petitioner. The language of the confession and the details thereof could
only come from a participant in the commission of a crime. Every aspect of his confession is

corroborated by the testimony of the other accused, and even describes the manner in which the
jeepney driver was thrown away.
It is also shown that the Petitioner even tried to limit his liability by saying that he did not know
that the estero was filled with water, that he did not know that the jeepney driver would drown.
Further, the confession was supported by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. They were
positively identified by the passenger, and the passenger even supported the confession in its
details. Further, the testimony of the widow finding the cadaver of her husband in an estero
further corroborates the testimony.
WHEREFORE, the finding of guilt is AFFIRMED.