Contrary to Law.

"[1]

Supreme Court of the Philippines

The prosecution established that on February 19, 1994 at about 4:00 P.M., in xxx, AAA,
twenty years of age and a second-year student at the xxx, left her home for her school
dormitory in xxx. She was to prepare for her final examinations on February 21, 1994. AAA
wore a striped blouse and faded denim pants and brought with her two bags containing her
336 Phil. 91
school uniforms, some personal effects and more than P2,000.00 in cash.

AAA was walking along the subdivision when appellant invited her inside his house. He used
the pretext that the blood pressure of his wife's grandmother should be taken. AAA agreed to
take her blood pressure as the old woman was her distant relative. She did not know that
EN BANC nobody was inside the house. Appellant then punched her in the abdomen, brought her to
the kitchen and raped her. His lust sated, appellant dragged the unconscious girl to an old
toilet at the back of the house and left her there until dark. Night came and appellant pulled
G.R. No. 116437, March 03, 1997 AAA, who was still unconscious, to their backyard. The yard had a pigpen bordered on one
side by a six-foot high concrete fence. On the other side was a vacant lot. Appellant stood on
a bench beside the pigpen and then lifted and draped the girl's body over the fence to
transfer it to the vacant lot. When the girl moved, he hit her head with a piece of concrete
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.PABLITO ANDAN Y HERNANDEZ @ block. He heard her moan and hit her again on the face. After silence reigned, he pulled her
BOBBY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. body to the other side of the fence, dragged it towards a shallow portion of the lot and
abandoned it.[2]

DECISION
At 11:00 A.M. of the following day, February 20, 1994, the body of AAA was discovered. She
was naked from the chest down with her brassiere and T-shirt pulled toward her neck.
PER CURIAM: Nearby was found a panty with a sanitary napkin.

The autopsy conducted by Dr. xxx revealed that AAA died of "traumatic injuries" sustained as
follows:
Accused-appellant Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias "Bobby" was accused of the crime of rape
with homicide committed as follows:
"1. Abrasions:

"That on or about the 19th day of February 1994, in the municipality of xxx, province of xxx,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
1.1 chest and abdomen, multiple, superficial, linear, generally oblique from right to left.
with lewd design, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one AAA against her will and without
her consent; and the above-named accused in order to suppress evidence against him and
delay (sic) the identity of the victim, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, 2. Abrasions/contusions:
with intent to kill the said AAA, attack, assault and hit said victim with concrete hollow blocks
in her face and in different parts of her body, thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds
which directly caused her death. 2.1 temple, right.
2.2 cheek, right. 7.2 no signs of recent physical injuries noted on both labia, introitus and exposed vaginal
wall.
2.3 upper and lower jaws, right.

2.4 breast, upper inner quadrant, right.

8. Laboratory examination of smear samples from the vaginal cavity showed negative for
2.5 breast, upper outer quadrant, left. spermatozoa (Bulacan Provincial Hospital, February 22, 1994, by Dr. Wilfredo S. de Vera).
2.6 abdomen, just above the umbilicus, rectangular, approximate 3 inches in width, from
right MCL to left AAL.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Cardiorespiratory Arrest due to Cerebral Contusions due to Traumatic
2.7. elbow joint, posterior, bilateral. Injuries, Face."[3]

3. Hematoma: AAA's gruesome death drew public attention and prompted Mayor xxx of xxx to form a crack
team of police officers to look for the criminal. Searching the place where AAA's body was
found, the policemen recovered a broken piece of concrete block stained with what
3.1 upper and lower eyelids, bilateral. appeared to be blood. They also found a pair of denim pants and a pair of shoes which were
identified as AAA's.[4]
3.2 temple, lateral to the outer edge of eyebrow, right.

3.3 upper and lower jaws, right.

Appellant's nearby house was also searched by the police who found bloodstains on the wall
of the pigpen in the backyard. They interviewed the occupants of the house and learned from
Romano Calma, the stepbrother of appellant's wife, that accused-appellant also lived there
4. Lacerated wounds: but that he, his wife and son left without a word. Calma surrendered to the police several
articles consisting of pornographic pictures, a pair of wet short pants with some reddish
brown stain, a towel also with the stain, and a wet T-shirt. The clothes were found in the
4.1 eyebrow, lateral border, right, 1/2 inch. laundry hamper inside the house and allegedly belonged to appellant.[5]

4.2 face, from right cheek below the zygoma to midline lower jaw, 4 inches.

The police tried to locate appellant and learned that his parents live in xxx. On February 24 at
11:00 P.M., a police team led by Mayor xxx traced appellant in his parents' house. They took
5. Fractures: him aboard the patrol jeep and brought him to the police headquarters where he was
interrogated. Initially, appellant denied any knowledge of AAA's death. However, when the
police confronted him with the concrete block, the victim's clothes and the bloodstains found
5.1 maxillary bone, right. in the pigpen, appellant relented and said that his neighbors, Gilbert Larin and Reynaldo
Dizon, killed AAA and that he was merely a lookout. He also said that he knew where Larin
5.2 mandible, multiple, complete, right, with avulsion of 1st and 2nd incisors. and Dizon hid the two bags of AAA.[6] Immediately, the police took appellant to his house.
Larin and Dizon, who were rounded up earlier, were likewise brought there by the police.
Appellant went to an old toilet at the back of the house, leaned over a flower pot and
retrieved from a canal under the pot, two bags which were later identified as belonging to
6. Cerebral contusions, inferior surface, temporal and frontal lobes, right.
AAA. Thereafter, photographs were taken of appellant and the two other suspects holding
the bags.[7]

7. External genitalia
Appellant and the two suspects were brought back to the police headquarters. The following
day, February 25, a physical examination was conducted on the suspects by the Municipal
7.1 minimal blood present. Health Officer, Dr. xxx.[8] Appellant was found to sustain:
"HEENT: with multiple scratches on the neck Rt side. Chest and back: with abrasions In a decision dated August 4, 1994, the trial court convicted appellant and sentenced him to
(scratches at the back). Extremities: freshly-healed wound along index finger 1.5 cm. in size death pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659. The trial court also ordered appellant to pay the
Lt."[9] victim's heirs P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P71,000.00 as actual burial expenses and
P100,000.00 as moral damages, thus:

By this time, people and media representatives were already gathered at the police
headquarters awaiting the results of the investigation. Mayor xxx arrived and proceeded to "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias "Bobby" is found
the investigation room. Upon seeing the mayor, appellant approached him and whispered a guilty by proof beyond a scintilla of doubt of the crime charged in the Information (Rape with
request that they talk privately. The mayor led appellant to the office of the Chief of Police Homicide) and penalized in accordance with R.A. No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) Sec. 11, Par.
and there, appellant broke down and said "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I will tell you the truth. 8, classifying this offense as one of the heinous crimes and hereby sentences him to suffer
I am the one who killed AAA." The mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and the penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the family of AAA the amount of P50,000.00 for the
media representatives witness the confession. The mayor first asked for a lawyer to assist death of AAA and P71,000.00 as actual burial and incidental expenses and P100,000.00 as
appellant but since no lawyer was available he ordered the proceedings photographed and moral damages. After automatic review of this case and the decision becomes final and
videotaped.[10] In the presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media and executory, the sentence be carried out.
appellant's own wife and son, appellant confessed his guilt. He disclosed how he killed AAA
and volunteered to show them the place where he hid her bags. He asked for forgiveness
from Larin and Dizon whom he falsely implicated saying he did it because of ill-feelings
SO ORDERED."[18]
against them.[11] He also said that the devil entered his mind because of the pornographic
magazines and tabloid he read almost everyday.[12] After his confession, appellant hugged
his wife and son and asked the mayor to help him.[13] His confession was captured on
videotape and covered by the media nationwide.[14] This case is before us on automatic review in accordance with Section 22 of Republic Act No.
7659 amending Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code.

Appellant was detained at the police headquarters. The next two days, February 26 and 27,
more newspaper, radio and television reporters came. Appellant was again interviewed and Appellant contends that:
he affirmed his confession to the mayor and reenacted the crime.[15]

"I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AND USING AS BASIS OF JUDGMENT OF
On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." He testified that in the CONVICTION THE TESTIMONIES OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, REPORTERS AND THE
afternoon of February 19, 1994 he was at his parent's house in xxx attending the birthday MAYOR ON THE ALLEGED ADMISSION OF THE ACCUSED DURING THE CUSTODIAL
party of his nephew. He, his wife and son went home after 5:00 P.M. His wife cooked dinner INVESTIGATION, THE ACCUSED NOT BEING ASSISTED BY COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE
while he watched their one-year old son. They all slept at 8:00 P.M. and woke up the next CONSTITUTION;
day at 6:00 in the morning. His wife went to Manila to collect some debts while he and his
son went to his parents' house where he helped his father cement the floor of the house. His
wife joined them in the afternoon and they stayed there until February 24, 1994 when he II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS RAPE WHEN THERE IS NO
was picked up by the police.[16] EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND TO SUPPORT IT;

Appellant was brought by the police to a hotel at xxx. In one of the rooms, the policemen III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN MAKING A FINDING OF CONVICTION WHEN THE EVIDENCE
covered his face with a bedsheet and kicked him repeatedly. They coerced him to confess IN ITS TOTALITY SHOWS THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE
that he raped and killed AAA. When he refused, they pushed his head into a toilet bowl and DOUBT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED."[19]
injected something into his buttocks. Weakened, appellant confessed to the crime.
Thereafter, appellant was taken to his house where he saw two of his neighbors, Larin and
Dizon. He was ordered by the police to go to the old toilet at the back of the house and get
two bags from under the flower pot. Fearing for his life, appellant did as he was told.[17]
The trial court based its decision convicting appellant on the testimonies of the three suspect in connection with an alleged offense.[24] As intended by the 1971 Constitutional
policemen of the investigating team, the mayor of xxx and four news reporters to whom Convention, this covers "investigation conducted by police authorities which will include
appellant gave his extrajudicial oral confessions. It was also based on photographs and video investigations conducted by the municipal police, the PC and the NBI and such other police
footages of appellant's confessions and reenactments of the commission of the crime. agencies in our government."[25]

Accused-appellant assails the admission of the testimonies of the policemen, the mayor and When the police arrested appellant, they were no longer engaged in a general inquiry about
the news reporters because they were made during custodial investigation without the the death of AAA. Indeed, appellant was already a prime suspect even before the police
assistance of counsel. Section 12, paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution found him at his parents' house. This is clear from the testimony of SPO4 xxx, the police chief
provides: investigator of the crime, viz:

"SECTION 12.(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have "COURT How did you come about in concluding that it was accused who did this act?
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
WITNESS First, the place where AAA was last found is at the backyard of the house of the
presence of counsel.
accused. Second, there were blood stains at the pigpen, and third, when we asked Romano
Calma who were his other companions in the house, he said that, it was Pablito Andan who
cannot be found at that time and whose whereabouts were unknown, sir.
(2) x x x

Q So you had a possible suspect?

(3)Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
A Yes, sir.

(4) x x x"
Q You went looking for Pablito Andan?

Plainly, any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
(1) to remain silent; (2) to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
A Yes, sir.
choice; and (3) to be informed of such rights. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel.[20] Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this
provision is inadmissible in evidence against him.[21] The exclusionary rule is premised on
the presumption that the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs Q And then, what else did you do?
through menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion,
physical and psychological, is forcefully apparent.[22] The incommunicadocharacter of
custodial interrogation or investigation also obscures a later judicial determination of what A We tried to find out where we can find him and from information we learned that his
really transpired.[23] parents live in xxx. We went there, found him there and investigated him and in fact during
the investigation he admitted that he was the culprit."[26]

It should be stressed that the rights under Section 12 are accorded to "[a]ny person under
investigation for the commission of an offense." An investigation begins when it is no longer a Appellant was already under custodial investigation when he confessed to the police. It is
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect, admitted that the police failed to inform appellant of his constitutional rights when he was
i.e., when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the investigated and interrogated.[27] His confession is therefore inadmissible in evidence. So
too were the two bags recovered from appellant's house. SPO2 xxx, a member of the "Mayor xxx: x x x. During the investigation when there were already many people from the
investigating team testified: media, Andan whispered something to me and requested that he be able to talk to me alone,
so what I did was that, I brought him inside the office of the chief of police.

"Atty. Valmores: You told the court that you were able to recover these bags marked as Exhs.
B and B-1 because accused pointed to them, where did he point these bags? Private Prosecutor Principe: And so what happened inside the office of the Chief of Police,
mayor?

A At the police station, sir, he told us that he hid the two (2) bags beneath the canal of the
toilet. A While inside the office of the headquarters he told me "Mayor patawarin mo ako,! I will
tell you the truth. I am the one who killed AAA." So when he was telling this to me, I told him
to wait a while, then I opened the door to allow the media to hear what he was going to say
and I asked him again whether he was the one who did it, he admitted it, sir. This was even
Q In other words, you were given information where these two (2) bags were located?
covered by a television camera."[30]

A Yes, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q And upon being informed where the two (2) bags could be located what did you do?

A We proceeded to the place together with the accused so that we would know where the
Q During that time that Pablito Andan whispered to you that he will tell you something and
two (2) bags were hidden, sir.
then you responded by bringing him inside the office of the Chief of Police and you stated
that he admitted that he killed AAA . . .

Q And did you see actually those two (2) bags before the accused pointed to the place
where the bags were located?
Court: He said to you the following words . . .

A After he removed the broken pots with which he covered the canal, he really showed
Atty. Principe: He said to you the following words "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! Ako ang
where the bags were hidden underneath the canal, sir."[28]
pumatay kay AAA," was that the only admission that he told you?

The victim's bags were the fruits of appellant's uncounselled confession to the police. They
A The admission was made twice. The first one was, when we were alone and the second
are tainted evidence, hence also inadmissible.[29]
one was before the media people, sir.

The police detained appellant after his initial confession. The following day, Mayor xxx visited
Q What else did he tell you when you were inside the room of the Chief of Police?
the appellant. Appellant approached the mayor and requested for a private talk. They went
inside a room and appellant confessed that he alone committed the crime. He pleaded for
forgiveness. Mayor xxx testified, viz:
A These were the only things that he told me, sir. I stopped him from making further
admissions because I wanted the media people to hear what he was going to say, sir."[31]
Under these circumstances, it cannot be successfully claimed that appellant's confession A His response was he is a cousin of the victim and that he was responsible for raping and
before the mayor is inadmissible. It is true that a municipal mayor has "operational killing the victim, sir. And then I asked him whether his admission was voluntary or that there
supervision and control" over the local police[32] and may arguably be deemed a law was a threat, intimidation or violence that was committed on his person because I knew that
enforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the there were five other suspects in this case and he said that he was admitting it voluntarily to
Constitution. However, appellant's confession to the mayor was not made in response to any the policemen. I asked him whether he was under the influence of drugs but he said no, and
interrogation by the latter.[33] In fact, the mayor did not question appellant at all. No police "nakainom lang," sir.
authority ordered appellant to talk to the mayor. It was appellant himself who
spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. The mayor did
not know that appellant was going to confess his guilt to him. When appellant talked with the
Q You mentioned earlier that the uncle of the accused was present, was the uncle beside
mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession to
him at the time that you asked the question?
him did not violate his constitutional rights.[34] Thus, it has been held that the constitutional
procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited
through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant
orally admitted having committed the crime.[35] What the Constitution bars is the A The uncle was there including the barangay captain whose name I cannot recall
compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under Section 12 are anymore. A barangay captain of the place, I don't know if it is the place of the crime scene or
guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused in the place where AAA resides but . . . All throughout the scene inside the office of the
to admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.[36] Station Commander, there was no air of any force or any threatening nature of investigation
Hence we hold that appellant's confession to the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial that was being done on the suspect, that is why, I was able to talk to him freely and in a
court. voluntary manner he admitted to me that he was the one who raped and killed, so we went
to the next stage of accompanying me to the scene of the crime where the reenactment and
everything that transpired during the killing of AAA.
Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. The confessions were
made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating
officer. We have held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on Q Before you started that interview, did you inform or ask permission from the accused
a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence.[37] Pablito Andan that you were going to interview him?

The records show that Alex Marcelino, a television reporter for "Eye to Eye" on Channel 7, A Yes, sir.
interviewed appellant on February 27, 1994. The interview was recorded on video and
showed that appellant made his confession willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of
his wife, child and other relatives.[38] Orlan Mauricio, a reporter for "Tell the People" on xxx
Channel 9 also interviewed appellant on February 25, 1994. He testified that:

Q You mentioned that after interviewing the accused at the office of the xxx PNP, you also
"Atty. Principe: You mentioned awhile ago that you were able to reach the place where the went to the scene of the crime?
body of AAA was found, where did you start your interview, in what particular place?

A Yes, sir.
Mr. Mauricio: Actually, I started my newsgathering and interview inside the police station of
xxx and I identified myself to the accused as I have mentioned earlier, sir. At first, I asked him
whether he was the one who raped and killed the victim and I also learned from him that the
victim was his cousin. Q Who accompanied you?

Q And what was the response of Pablito Andan? A I was accompanied by some xxx policemen including Mayor xxx and some of the relatives
of the accused.
 A We asked first permission from the mayor to interrupt their own investigation so that we
can have a direct interview with the suspect.
Q At this time, did you see the wife of the accused, Pablito Andan?

Q Were there people?

A Yes, sir, I saw her at the place where the body of AAA was recovered.

A The people present before the crowd that included the mayor, the deputy chief of police,
Q How many relatives of accused Pablito Andan were present, more or less? several of the policemen, the group of Inday Badiday and several other persons. I asked the
suspect after the mayor presented the suspect to us and after the suspect admitted that he
was the one who killed AAA. I reiterated the question to the suspect. Are you aware that this
A There were many, sir, because there were many wailing, weeping and crying at that time offense which is murder with . . . rape with murder is a capital offense? And you could be
when he was already taken in the patrol jeep of the xxx police, sir. sentenced to death of this? And he said, Yes. So do you really admit that you were the one
who did it and he repeated it, I mean, say the affirmative answer.

Q Now, Mr. Mauricio, upon reaching the scene of the crime in xxx, what transpired?
Q And that was in the presence of the crowd that you mentioned a while ago?

A I started my work as a reporter by trying to dig deeper on how the crime was committed
by the accused, so we started inside the pigpen of that old house where I tried to accompany A Yes, yes, sir. And if I remember it right, as I took my camera to take some pictures of the
the accused and asked him to narrate to me and show me how he carried out the rape and suspect, the mayor, the policemen and several others, I heard the group of Inday Badiday
killing of AAA, sir. asking the same questions from the suspect and the suspect answered the same.

Q Did he voluntarily comply? Q Also in the presence of so many people that you mentioned?

A Yes, sir, in fact, I have it on my videotape. A The same group of people who were there, sir.

Q It is clear, Mr. Mauricio, that from the start of your interview at the PNP xxx up to the Q You mentioned that the answer was just the same as the accused answered you
scene of the crime, all the stages were videotaped by you? affirmatively, what was the answer, please be definite?

A Yes, sir.[39] Court: Use the vernacular.

Journalist Berteni Causing of "People's Journal Tonite" likewise covered the proceedings for A I asked him the question, after asking him the question," Ikaw ba talaga and gumawa ng
three successive days.[40] His testimony is as follows: pagpatay at pag-rape sa kay AAA? Ang sagot nya, "Oo." "Alam mo ba itong kasalanang ito,
kamatayan ang hatol, inaamin mo pa ba na ikaw ang gumawa sa pagpatay at pag-rape kay
AAA?" Sagot pa rin siya ng "Oo."

"Atty. Principe: You mentioned that you had your own inquiries?

xxx
 x x x"[41]

Q Did you ask him, why did you kill AAA?

Another journalist, Rey Domingo, of "Bandera" interviewed appellant on February 26, 1994.
[42] He also testified that:
A I asked him, your Honor and the reason he told me was because a devil gripped his mind
and because of that according to him, your Honor, were the pornographic magazines,
pornographic tabloids which he, according to him, reads almost everyday before the crime.
"Atty. Principe: Now, Mr. Witness, did the accused Pablito Andan give you the permission
that you asked from him?

Atty. Principe: At the time of your interview, Mr. Reporter, will you tell the court and the
public what was the physical condition of accused Pablito Andan?
A Yes, sir.

A As I observed him that time there was no sign on his body that he was really down
physically and I think he was in good condition. Q And when he allowed you to interview him, who were present?

Court: So he was not happy about the incident? A The first person that I saw there was Mayor xxx, policemen from xxx, the chief
investigator, SPO4 xxx, and since xxx, the chief of police was suspended, it was the deputy
who was there, sir.

A He even admitted it, your Honor.

Q Were they the only persons who were present when you interviewed the accused?

Court: He was happy?

A There were many people there, sir. The place was crowded with people. There were
people from the PNP and people from xxx, sir.
A He admitted it. He was not happy after doing it.

Q How about the other representatives from the media?

Court: Was he crying?

A Roy Reyes, Orlan Mauricio arrived but he arrived late and there were people from the
A As I observed, your Honor, the tears were only apparent but there was no tear that fell radio and from TV Channel 9.
on his face.

Q How about Channel 7?

Court: Was he feeling remorseful?

A They came late. I was the one who got the scoop first, sir.
A As I observed it, it was only slightly, your Honor.

Q You stated that the accused allowed you to interview him, was his wife also present?
 A Yes, sir.

A Yes, sir, and even the son was there but I am not very sure if she was really the wife but
they were hugging each other and she was crying and from the questions that I asked from
the people there they told me that she is the wife, sir. Q "Ano iyon?"

Q How about the other members of the family of the accused, were they around? A He said that he threw the cadaver to the other side of the fence, sir.

A I do not know the others, sir, but there were many people there, sir. Q Did he mention how he threw the cadaver of AAA to the other side of the fence?

Q Now, according to you, you made a news item about the interview. May we know what A I cannot remember the others, sir.
question did you ask and the answer.

Q But can you produce the news item based on that interview?
A My first question was, is he Pablito Andan and his answer was "Yes."

A I have a xerox copy here, sir.

Q What was the next question?

x x x"[43]
A I asked him how he did the crime and he said that, he saw the victim aboard a tricycle. He
called her up. She entered the house and he boxed her on the stomach.
Clearly, appellant's confessions to the news reporters were given free from any undue
influence from the police authorities. The news reporters acted as news reporters when they
Q What was the next question that you asked him? interviewed appellant.[44] They were not acting under the direction and control of the
police. They were there to check appellant's confession to the mayor. They did not force
appellant to grant them an interview and reenact the commission of the crime.[45] In fact,
they asked his permission before interviewing him. They interviewed him on separate days
A He also said that he raped her and he said that the reason why he killed the victim was not once did appellant protest his innocence. Instead, he repeatedly confessed his guilt to
because he was afraid that the incident might be discovered, sir. them. He even supplied all the details in the commission of the crime, and consented to its
reenactment. All his confessions to the news reporters were witnessed by his family and
other relatives. There was no coercive atmosphere in the interview of appellant by the news
Q Now, after the interview, are we correct to say that you made a news item on that? reporters.

A Yes, sir, based on what he told me. That's what I did. We rule that appellant's verbal confessions to the newsmen are not covered by Section 12 (1)
and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the
relation between a private individual and another individual.[46] It governs the relationship
between the individual and the State. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the
Q Were there other questions propounded by you? State and its agents. They confirm that certain rights of the individual exist without need of
any governmental grant, rights that may not be taken away by government, rights that
government has the duty to protect.[47] Governmental power is not unlimited and the Bill of
Rights lays down these limitations to protect the individual against aggression and Q Could it not be, doctor, that these injuries you found in the vagina could have been
unwarranted interference by any department of government and its agencies.[48] sustained on account of the dilation of the previous autopsy?

In his second assigned error, appellant questions the sufficiency of the medical evidence A Well, we presumed that if the first doctor conducted the autopsy on the victim which was
against him. Dr. xxx, a Medical Specialist with the Provincial Health Office, conducted the first already dead, no amount of injury or no amount of lacerated wounds could produce blood
autopsy and found no spermatozoa and no recent physical injuries in the hymen.[49] because there is no more circulation, the circulation had already stopped. So, I presumed
Allegedly, the minimal blood found in her vagina could have been caused by her that when the doctor examined the victim with the use of forceps or retractor, vaginal
menstruation.[50] retractor, then I assumed that the victim was already dead. So it is impossible that the
lacerated wounds on the hymen were caused by those instruments because the victim was
already dead and usually in a dead person we do not produce any bleeding.
We are unpersuaded. A second autopsy was conducted on March 1, 1994 by Dr. xxx, a
medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation. His findings affirmed the absence
of spermatozoa but revealed that the victim's hymen had lacerations, thus: Q What you would like to tell the Court is this: that the lacerations with clotted blood at 6
and 3 o'clock positions corresponding to the walls of the clock could have been inflicted or
could have been sustained while the victim was alive?
"Hymen -- contracted, tall, thin with fresh lacerations with clotted blood at 6 and 3 o'clock
positions corresponding to the walls of the clock."[51]
A Yes, sir.

Dr. xxx testified that the lacerations were fresh and that they may have been caused by an
object forcibly inserted into the vagina when the victim was still alive, indicating the Q This clotted blood, according to you, found at the edges of the lacerated wounds, now
possibility of penetration.[52] His testimony is as follows: will you kindly go over the sketch you have just drawn and indicate the edges of the lacerated
wounds where you found the clotted blood?

"Witness: When I exposed the hymen, I found lacerations in this 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock
position corresponding to the walls of the clock. x x x. A This is the lacerated wound at 3 o'clock and this is the lacerated wound at 6 o'clock. I
found the blood clot at this stage. The clotted blood are found on the edges of the lacerated
wounds, sir.
Court: Include the descriptive word, fresh.

Q What could have caused those lacerations?

Witness: I put it in writing that this is fresh because within the edges of the lacerations, I
found blood clot, that is why I put it into writing as fresh.
A Well, it could have been caused by an object that is forcibly inserted into that small
opening of the hymen causing lacerations on the edges of the hymen, sir.
Atty. Valmonte: Now, Doctor, you told the Court that what you did on the cadaver was
merely a re-autopsy, that means, doctor the body was autopsied first before you did you re-
autopsy? Q If the victim had sexual intercourse, could she sustain those lacerations?

A Yes, sir. A It is possible, sir.[53]

We have also ruled in the past that the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina does not (8) For no reason, appellant and his wife left their residence after the incident and were later
negate the commission rape[54] nor does the lack of complete penetration or rupture of the found at his parents' house in xxx;[65]
hymen.[55] What is essential is that there be penetration of the female organ no matter how
slight.[56] Dr. xxx testified that the fact of penetration is proved by the lacerations found in
the victim's vagina. The lacerations were fresh and could not have been caused by any injury
In fine, appellant's extrajudicial confessions together with the other circumstantial evidence
in the first autopsy.
justify the conviction of appellant.

Dr. xxx's finding and the allegation that the victim was raped by appellant are supported by
Appellant's defense of alibi cannot overcome the prosecution evidence. His alibi cannot even
other evidence, real and testimonial, obtained from an investigation of the witnesses and the
stand the test of physical improbability at the time of the commission of the crime. Xxx is
crime scene, viz:
only a few kilometers away from xxx and can be traversed in less than half an hour.[66]

(1) The victim, AAA, was last seen walking along the subdivision road near appellant's house;
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan in
[57]
Criminal Case No. 1109-M-94 is affirmed and accused-appellant Pablito Andan y Hernandez is
found guilty of the special complex crime of rape with homicide under Section 11 of Republic
Act No. 7659 amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to the penalty
(2) At that time, appellant's wife and her step brother and grandmother were not in their of death, with two (2) members of the Court, however, voting to impose reclusion perpetua.
house;[58] Accused-appellant is also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim, AAA, the sum of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for her death and P71,000.00 as actual damages.

(3) A bloodstained concrete block was found over the fence of appellant's house, a meter
away from the wall. Bloodstains were also found on the grass nearby and at the pigpen at the In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 83 of the Revised
back of appellant's house;[59] Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded
to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.

(4) The victim sustained bruises and scars indicating that her body had been dragged over a
flat rough surface.[60] This supports the thesis that she was thrown over the fence and SO ORDERED.
dragged to where her body was found;

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
(5) Appellant's bloodstained clothes and towel were found in the laundry hamper in his Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
house;

(6) The reddish brown stains in the towel and T-shirt of appellant were found positive for the
presence of blood type "B," the probable blood type of the victim.[61] AAA's exact blood type
was not determined but her parents had type "A" and type "AB."[62] The victim's pants had
bloodstains which were found to be type "O," appellant's blood type;[63]

(7) Appellant had scratch marks and bruises in his body which he failed to explain;[64]