A convicted child abuser from Cabazon who killed his 7-month-old son, after which, prosecutors allege, he conspired with his wife to cover up the crime, pleaded guilty Thursday to murder and other charges.
Jake Mitchell Haro, 32, unexpectedly admitted the murder charge, along with child assault and filing a false police report, during a status hearing at the Riverside Hall of Justice Thursday morning. His spouse, 41-year-old Rebecca Rene Haro, did not join in the plea, which was made straight to the judge, without negotiations between the defense and prosecution.
“In a plea to the court … the judge in the case determines the sentence a defendant will serve,” according to a District Attorney’s Office statement. “Haro faces a potential sentence of 25 years to life in prison. Because there are still active criminal proceedings involving Rebecca Haro, the D.A.’s office will be making no additional comments regarding the case, or the guilty plea.”
Superior Court Judge Gary Polk scheduled a sentencing hearing for Jake Haro on Nov. 3 at the downtown courthouse. On that same day, a preliminary hearing is set for his wife. That hearing, if it proceeds, will determine whether that are sufficient grounds for a trial on charges of murder and filing a false police report.
Jake Haro is being held without bail at the Smith Correctional Facility in Banning. Rebecca Haro is being held on $1 million bail at the Robert Presley Jail in Riverside.
Baby Emmanuel’s body has not been located.
His parents were arrested on Aug. 22 following a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department investigation.
“There was forensic data from the crime scene,” San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus said during a news briefing in late August. “That’s how we learned the jurisdiction where this crime occurred (Riverside County). Forensically, there were a number of things we were able to prove up.”
He did not disclose specifics.
Emmanuel was reported missing in the 34000 block of Yucaipa Boulevard in Yucaipa on the evening of Aug. 14.
Rebecca Haro told deputies she’d been assaulted while standing near her vehicle, changing Emmanuel’s diaper outside a Big 5 store. The defendant suggested she was knocked out, and that the assailant fled with the tot.
On Aug. 18, San Bernardino County sheriff’s detectives served search warrants at the defendants’ Ramona Street property, and “a large amount of surveillance video” was obtained from areas of interest for review, according to the agency.
Jake Haro was arrested and charged last year in Banning with illegal possession of a loaded firearm, as well as probation violations. That case hasn’t been resolved.
Court documents also revealed that Isabel Rebecca Gonzalez, Haro’s former spouse, filed a domestic violence retraining order against him with a request to protect the couple’s son, Eli.
Rebecca Haro has no documented prior felony convictions in Riverside County.
District Attorney Mike Hestrin said Emmanuel’s death was preventable, blaming a failure in the criminal justice system for enabling Jake Haro to remain free on probation after pleading guilty in a child abuse case involving his ex-wife and another infant, Carolina.
In 2023, Haro admitted a child cruelty charge, but again pled directly to the court, avoiding negotiations with prosecutors. Hestrin said the D.A.’s office had wanted prison for the defendant’s extensive abuse of the girl, which resulted in broken ribs, a fractured skull and a brain hemorrhage, leaving her permanently bed-ridden.
“If that judge had done his job, Emmanuel would be alive today,” he said.
“Prior to any plea to the court in that case, we strongly objected to the proposed sentence,” according to the D.A.’s office. “Our objection was made based on the seriousness of the injuries Mr. Haro inflicted on his then-10-week-old daughter. When the court chose to deviate (from the prosecution’s effort to secure prison) … it was acutely aware of the heinous and permanent nature of this young victim’s injuries. We believe that granting Haro probation under these circumstances, on these facts, was an inappropriate use of (the court’s) discretion.”