People v. Jerez | G.R. No. 114385 | January 29, 1998 | Ponente: ROMERO, J.

Doctrine: While the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford
the services of a lawyer or (where the preferred lawyer is unavailable as in the case at bar) is naturally lodged in the
police investigators, the accused has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for
another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any
objection against the formers appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter
subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. Thus, 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 is involuntary and
untrue. The burden is on the accused to destroy this presumption.

FACTS:
 Respondent, along with three co-accused, were charged with the crime of robbery with double homicide.
- Alleged to have killed and stolen from the seller of carabaos they posed to be interested in
purchasing.
- They were arrested wherein the respondent confessed.
o Appellant’s defense:
1) the extra-judicial confession was allegedly obtained through the use of physical violence,
coercion and intimidation
2) at the time of the taking thereof, he was assisted by an ineffectual counsel who could not
safeguard his constitutional rights and interests
 Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty.
 Trial court convicted appellant. While his co-accused were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.

ISSUE + RULING:
1. WON appellant’s confession was sufficient to convict appellant? YES. All requisites were present.
 For a confession to be admissible, it must satisfy all four fundamental requirements:
(1) the confession must be voluntary;
(2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;
o when appellant executed the extrajudicial confession, it was done in the presence of his counsel,
Atty. Schneider, and sworn to before Mayor Arenal
(3) the confession must be express; and
(4) the confession must be in writing
 The presumption, therefore, of spontaneity and voluntariness stands unless the defense proves otherwise

2. WON the trial court erred when it denied his right to have an independent counsel of his own choice? NO. He
agreed to the substitute.
 At the time the extrajudicial confession was executed, appellant disclosed to the police officers his counsel
of choice (Atty. Freddie Venida) but that the latter would not be available as he is due to depart for Manila
on the same day
o Major Rosales suggested that Atty. Schneider, supposedly the only lawyer available in Jose
Panganiban, appear as the counsel of appellant during investigation and the latter answered in the
affirmative
 Shown in the excerpt of his extrajudicial confession
 A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any
objection against the formers appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter
subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer.
o Final choice of lawyer is on accused’s

DISPOSITION: Appeal is DISMISSED and the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant EFREN JEREZ guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant shall
indemnify Joselito Balbastro and Reynaldo Ochoa in the amount of P1,080,000.00 and P756,000.00, respectively, for
losses of their respective earning capacity. Costs against appellant.