Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

EN BANC the old woman was her distant relative.

She did not know that nobody was

inside the house. Appellant then punched her in the abdomen, brought her to
[G.R. No. 116437. March 3, 1997] the kitchen and raped her. His lust sated, appellant dragged the unconscious
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PABLITO girl to an old toilet at the back of the house and left her there until dark. Night
ANDAN y HERNANDEZ @ BOBBY, accused-appellant. came and appellant pulled Marianne, 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
PER CURIAM: beside the pigpen and then lifted and draped the girl's body over the fence to
Accused-appellant Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias "Bobby" was accused of transfer it to the vacant lot. When the girl moved, he hit her head with a piece
the crime of rape with homicide committed as follows: of concrete block. He heard her moan and hit her again on the face. After
silence reigned, he pulled her body to the other side of the fence, dragged it
"That on or about the 19th day of February 1994, in the municipality of towards a shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it.
Baliuag, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of At 11:00 A.M. of the following day, February 20, 1994, the body of Marianne
violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and was discovered. She was naked from the chest down with her brassiere and T-
feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Marianne Guevarra y Reyes against shirt pulled toward her neck. Nearby was found a panty with a sanitary
her will and without her consent; and the above-named accused in order to napkin.
suppress evidence against him and delay (sic) the identity of the victim, did The autopsy conducted by Dr. Alberto Bondoc revealed that Marianne died of
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill the said "traumatic injuries" sustained as follows:
Marianne Guevarra y Reyes, attack, assault and hit said victim with concrete
"1. Abrasions:
hollow blocks in her face and in different parts of her body, thereby inflicting
upon her mortal wounds which directly caused her death. 1.1 chest and abdomen, multiple, superficial, linear,
generally oblique from right to left.
Contrary to Law."
2. Abrasions/contusions:
The prosecution established that on February 19, 1994 at about 4:00 P.M., in
Concepcion Subdivision, Baliuag, Bulacan, Marianne Guevarra, twenty years 2.1 temple, right.
of age and a second-year student at the Fatima School of Nursing, left her 2.2 cheek, right.
home for her school dormitory in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. She was to 2.3 upper and lower jaws, right.
prepare for her final examinations on February 21, 1994. Marianne wore a 2.4 breast, upper inner quadrant, right.
striped blouse and faded denim pants and brought with her two bags 2.5 breast, upper outer quadrant, left.
containing her school uniforms, some personal effects and more than 2.6 abdomen, just above the umbilicus, rectangular,
P2,000.00 in cash. approximate 3 inches in width, from right MCL to left
Marianne was walking along the subdivision when appellant invited her inside
2.7. elbow joint, posterior, bilateral.
his house. He used the pretext that the blood pressure of his wife's
grandmother should be taken. Marianne agreed to take her blood pressure as 3. Hematoma:
3.1 upper and lower eyelids, bilateral. and son left without a word. Calma surrendered to the police several articles
3.2 temple, lateral to the outer edge of eyebrow, right. consisting of pornographic pictures, a pair of wet short pants with some
3.3 upper and lower jaws, right. reddish brown stain, a towel also with the stain, and a wet T-shirt. The clothes
4. Lacerated wounds: were found in the laundry hamper inside the house and allegedly belonged to
4.1 eyebrow, lateral border, right, 1/2 inch.
4.2 face, from right cheek below the zygoma to midline The police tried to locate appellant and learned that his parents live in
lower jaw, 4 inches. Barangay Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan. On February 24 at 11:00 P.M., a police
team led by Mayor Trinidad traced appellant in his parents' house. They took
5. Fractures: him aboard the patrol jeep and brought him to the police headquarters where
5.1 maxillary bone, right. he was interrogated. Initially, appellant denied any knowledge of Marianne's
5.2 mandible, multiple, complete, right, with avulsion of 1st and 2nd incisors. death. However, when the police confronted him with the concrete block, the
victim's clothes and the bloodstains found in the pigpen, appellant relented
6. Cerebral contusions, inferior surface, temporal and frontal lobes, right. and said that his neighbors, Gilbert Larin and Reynaldo Dizon, killed
7. External genitalia Marianne and that he was merely a lookout. He also said that he knew where
7.1 minimal blood present. Larin and Dizon hid the two bags of Marianne. Immediately, the police took
7.2 no signs of recent physical injuries noted on both labia, introitus and appellant to his house. Larin and Dizon, who were rounded up earlier, were
exposed vaginal wall. 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
8. Laboratory examination of smear samples from the vaginal cavity the pot, two bags which were later identified as belonging to Marianne.
showed negative for spermatozoa (Bulacan Provincial Hospital, Thereafter, photographs were taken of appellant and the two other suspects
February 22, 1994, by Dr. Wilfredo S. de Vera). holding the bags.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Cardiorespiratory Arrest due to Cerebral Contusions due Appellant and the two suspects were brought back to the police headquarters.
to Traumatic Injuries, Face." The following day, February 25, a physical examination was conducted on the
Marianne's gruesome death drew public attention and prompted Mayor suspects by the Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Orpha Patawaran. Appellant
Cornelio Trinidad of Baliuag to form a crack team of police officers to look was found to sustain:
for the criminal. Searching the place where Marianne's body was found, the "HEENT: with multiple scratches on the neck Rt side. Chest and
policemen recovered a broken piece of concrete block stained with what back: with abrasions (scratches at the back). Extremities: freshly-
appeared to be blood. They also found a pair of denim pants and a pair of healed wound along index finger 1.5 cm. in size Lt."
shoes which were identified as Marianne's.
By this time, people and media representatives were already gathered at the
Appellant's nearby house was also searched by the police who found police headquarters awaiting the results of the investigation. Mayor Trinidad
bloodstains on the wall of the pigpen in the backyard. They interviewed the arrived and proceeded to the investigation room. Upon seeing the mayor,
occupants of the house and learned from Romano Calma, the stepbrother of appellant approached him and whispered a request that they talk privately. The
appellant's wife, that accused-appellant also lived there but that he, his wife mayor led appellant to the office of the Chief of Police and there, appellant
broke down and said "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I will tell you the truth. I am toilet at the back of the house and get two bags from under the flower pot.
the one who killed Marianne." The mayor opened the door of the room to let Fearing for his life, appellant did as he was told.
the public and media representatives witness the confession. The mayor first In a decision dated August 4, 1994, the trial court convicted appellant and
asked for a lawyer to assist appellant but since no lawyer was available he sentenced him to death pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659. The trial court also
ordered the proceedings photographed and videotaped. In the presence of the ordered appellant to pay the victim's heirs P50,000.00 as death indemnity,
mayor, the police, representatives of the media and appellant's own wife and P71,000.00 as actual burial expenses and P100,000.00 as moral damages,
son, appellant confessed his guilt. He disclosed how he killed Marianne and thus:
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 "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias
because of ill-feelings against them. He also said that the devil entered his "Bobby" is found guilty by proof beyond a scintilla of doubt of the crime
mind because of the pornographic magazines and tabloid he read almost charged in the Information (Rape with Homicide) and penalized in accordance
everyday. After his confession, appellant hugged his wife and son and asked with R.A. No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) Sec. 11, Par. 8, classifying this
the mayor to help him. His confession was captured on videotape and covered offense as one of the heinous crimes and hereby sentences him to suffer the
by the media nationwide. penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the family of Marianne Guevarra the amount
of P50,000.00 for the death of Marianne Guevarra and P71,000.00 as actual
Appellant was detained at the police headquarters. The next two days, burial and incidental expenses and P100,000.00 as moral damages. After
February 26 and 27, more newspaper, radio and television reporters came. automatic review of this case and the decision becomes final and executory,
Appellant was again interviewed and he affirmed his confession to the mayor the sentence be carried out.
and reenacted the crime.
On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." He testified
that in the afternoon of February 19, 1994 he was at his parent's house in This case is before us on automatic review in accordance with Section 22 of
Barangay Tangos attending the birthday party of his nephew. He, his wife and Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code.
son went home after 5:00 P.M. His wife cooked dinner while he watched their Appellant contends that:
one-year old son. They all slept at 8:00 P.M. and woke up the next 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 was picked up by the police.
Appellant was brought by the police to a hotel at Bagong Nayon, Baliuag. In COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION;
one of the rooms, the policemen covered his face with a bedsheet and kicked
him repeatedly. They coerced him to confess that he raped and killed
Marianne. When he refused, they pushed his head into a toilet bowl and
injected something into his buttocks. Weakened, appellant confessed to the III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN MAKING A FINDING OF
crime. Thereafter, appellant was taken to his house where he saw two of his CONVICTION WHEN THE EVIDENCE IN ITS TOTALITY SHOWS THAT
neighbors, Larin and Dizon. He was ordered by the police to go to the old
THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE It should be stressed that the rights under Section 12 are accorded to "[a]ny
DOUBT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED." person under investigation for the commission of an offense." An
The trial court based its decision convicting appellant on the testimonies of the investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
three policemen of the investigating team, the mayor of Baliuag and four news crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the
reporters to whom appellant gave his extrajudicial oral confessions. It was police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the
also based on photographs and video footages of appellant's confessions and suspect in connection with an alleged offense. As intended by the 1971
reenactments of the commission of the crime. Constitutional Convention, this covers "investigation conducted by police
authorities which will include investigations conducted by the municipal
Accused-appellant assails the admission of the testimonies of the policemen, police, the PC and the NBI and such other police agencies in our
the mayor and the news reporters because they were made during custodial government."
investigation without the assistance of counsel. Section 12, paragraphs (1) and
(3) of Article III of the Constitution provides: When the police arrested appellant, they were no longer engaged in a general
inquiry about the death of Marianne. Indeed, appellant was already a prime
"SECTION 12.(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an suspect even before the police found him at his parents' house. This is clear
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to from the testimony of SPO4 Danilo S. Bugay, the police chief investigator of
have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the the crime, viz:
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of "COURT How did you come about in concluding that it was accused
counsel. who did this act?
(2) x x x WITNESS First, the place where Marianne was last found is at the
backyard of the house of the accused. Second, there were blood
(3)Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 stains at the pigpen, and third, when we asked Romano Calma
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. who were his other companions in the house, he said that, it
(4) x x x" was Pablito Andan who cannot be found at that time and whose
whereabouts were unknown, sir.
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 Q So you had a possible suspect?
counsel preferably of his own choice; and (3) to be informed of such rights. A Yes, sir.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision is Q You went looking for Pablito Andan?
inadmissible in evidence against him. The exclusionary rule is premised on A Yes, sir.
the presumption that the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and Q And then, what else did you do?
runs through menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentiality
for compulsion, physical and psychological, is forcefully apparent. The A We tried to find out where we can find him and from
incommunicado character of custodial interrogation or investigation also information we learned that his parents live in Barangay
obscures a later judicial determination of what really transpired. Tangos in Baliuag. We went there, found him there and
investigated him and in fact during the investigation he "Mayor Trinidad: x x x. During the investigation when there were already
admitted that he was the culprit." many people from the media, Andan whispered something to me and
Appellant was already under custodial investigation when he confessed to the requested that he be able to talk to me alone, so what I did was that, I brought
police. It is admitted that the police failed to inform appellant of his him inside the office of the chief of police.
constitutional rights when he was investigated and interrogated. His Private Prosecutor Principe: And so what happened inside the office of the
confession is therefore inadmissible in evidence. So too were the two bags Chief of Police, mayor?
recovered from appellant's house. SPO2 Cesar Canoza, a member of the A While inside the office of the headquarters he told me "Mayor patawarin
investigating team testified: mo ako,! I will tell you the truth. I am the one who killed Marianne." So when
"Atty. Valmores: You told the court that you were able to recover these bags he was telling this to me, I told him to wait a while, then I opened the door to
marked as Exhs. B and B-1 because accused pointed to them, where did he allow the media to hear what he was going to say and I asked him again
point these bags? whether he was the one who did it, he admitted it, sir. This was even covered
A At the police station, sir, he told us that he hid the two (2) bags beneath by a television camera."
the canal of the toilet. xxx
Q In other words, you were given information where these two (2) bags xxx xxx
were located? Q During that time that Pablito Andan whispered to you that he will tell you
A Yes, sir. something and then you responded by bringing him inside the office of the
Chief of Police and you stated that he admitted that he killed Marianne . . .
Q And upon being informed where the two (2) bags could be located what
did you do? Court: He said to you the following words . . .
A We proceeded to the place together with the accused so that we would Atty. Principe: He said to you the following words "Mayor, patawarin mo
know where the two (2) bags were hidden, sir. ako! Ako ang pumatay kay Marianne," was that the only admission that he
told you?
Q And did you see actually those two (2) bags before the accused pointed to
the place where the bags were located? A The admission was made twice. The first one was, when we were alone
and the second one was before the media people, sir.
A After he removed the broken pots with which he covered the canal, he
really showed where the bags were hidden underneath the canal, sir." Q What else did he tell you when you were inside the room of the Chief of
The victim's bags were the fruits of appellant's uncounselled confession to the
police. They are tainted evidence, hence also inadmissible. 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
The police detained appellant after his initial confession. The following day, was going to say, sir."
Mayor Trinidad visited the appellant. Appellant approached the mayor and
requested for a private talk. They went inside a room and appellant confessed Under these circumstances, it cannot be successfully claimed that appellant's
that he alone committed the crime. He pleaded for forgiveness. Mayor confession before the mayor is inadmissible. It is true that a municipal mayor
Trinidad testified, viz: has "operational supervision and control" over the local police and may
arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Mr. Mauricio: Actually, I started my newsgathering and interview inside the
Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. However, appellant's police station of Baliuag and I identified myself to the accused as I have
confession to the mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the mentioned earlier, sir. At first, I asked him whether he was the one who raped
latter. In fact, the mayor did not question appellant at all. No police authority and killed the victim and I also learned from him that the victim was his
ordered appellant to talk to the mayor. It was appellant himself who cousin.
spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. Q And what was the response of Pablito Andan?
The mayor did not know that appellant was going to confess his guilt to him.
When appellant talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law A His response was he is a cousin of the victim and that he was responsible
enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession to him did not violate his for raping and killing the victim, sir. And then I asked him whether his
constitutional rights. Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures admission was voluntary or that there was a threat, intimidation or violence
on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited that was committed on his person because I knew that there were five other
through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner suspects in this case and he said that he was admitting it voluntarily to the
whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. What the policemen. I asked him whether he was under the influence of drugs but he
Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or said no, and "nakainom lang," sir.
confessions. The rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the Q You mentioned earlier that the uncle of the accused was present, was the
slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused to admit uncle beside him at the time that you asked the question?
something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the
A The uncle was there including the barangay captain whose name I cannot
truth. Hence we hold that appellant's confession to the mayor was correctly
recall anymore. A barangay captain of the place, I don't know if it is the place
admitted by the trial court.
of the crime scene or in the place where Marianne Guevarra resides but . . .
Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. The All throughout the scene inside the office of the Station Commander, there
confessions were made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the was no air of any force or any threatening nature of investigation that was
police or any other investigating officer. We have held that statements being done on the suspect, that is why, I was able to talk to him freely and in a
spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview voluntary manner he admitted to me that he was the one who raped and killed,
are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. so we went to the next stage of accompanying me to the scene of the crime
The records show that Alex Marcelino, a television reporter for "Eye to Eye" where the reenactment and everything that transpired during the killing of
on Channel 7, interviewed appellant on February 27, 1994. The interview was Marianne Guevarra.
recorded on video and showed that appellant made his confession willingly, Q Before you started that interview, did you inform or ask permission from
openly and publicly in the presence of his wife, child and other relatives. the accused Pablito Andan that you were going to interview him?
Orlan Mauricio, a reporter for "Tell the People" on Channel 9 also interviewed
A Yes, sir.
appellant on February 25, 1994. He testified that:
"Atty. Principe: You mentioned awhile ago that you were able to reach the
place where the body of Marianne was found, where did you start your Q You mentioned that after interviewing the accused at the office of the
interview, in what particular place? Baliuag PNP, you also went to the scene of the crime?
A Yes, sir. A The people present before the crowd that included the mayor, the deputy
Q Who accompanied you? chief of police, several of the policemen, the group of Inday Badiday and
several other persons. I asked the suspect after the mayor presented the
A I was accompanied by some Baliuag policemen including Mayor suspect to us and after the suspect admitted that he was the one who killed
Trinidad and some of the relatives of the accused. Marianne. I reiterated the question to the suspect. Are you aware that this
Q At this time, did you see the wife of the accused, Pablito Andan? offense which is murder with . . . rape with murder is a capital offense? And
you could be sentenced to death of this? And he said, Yes. So do you really
A Yes, sir, I saw her at the place where the body of Guevarra was
admit that you were the one who did it and he repeated it, I mean, say the
affirmative answer.
Q How many relatives of accused Pablito Andan were present, more or less?
Q And that was in the presence of the crowd that you mentioned a while
A There were many, sir, because there were many wailing, weeping and ago?
crying at that time when he was already taken in the patrol jeep of the Baliuag
A Yes, yes, sir. And if I remember it right, as I took my camera to take some
police, sir.
pictures of the suspect, the mayor, the policemen and several others, I heard
Q Now, Mr. Mauricio, upon reaching the scene of the crime in Concepcion, the group of Inday Badiday asking the same questions from the suspect and
Baliuag, Bulacan, what transpired? the suspect answered the same.
A I started my work as a reporter by trying to dig deeper on how the crime Q Also in the presence of so many people that you mentioned?
was committed by the accused, so we started inside the pigpen of that old
A The same group of people who were there, sir.
house where I tried to accompany the accused and asked him to narrate to me
and show me how he carried out the rape and killing of Marianne Guevarra, Q You mentioned that the answer was just the same as the accused answered
sir. you affirmatively, what was the answer, please be definite?
Q Did he voluntarily comply? Court: Use the vernacular.
A Yes, sir, in fact, I have it on my videotape. A I asked him the question, after asking him the question," Ikaw ba talaga
and gumawa ng pagpatay at pag-rape sa kay Marianne? Ang sagot nya, "Oo."
Q It is clear, Mr. Mauricio, that from the start of your interview at the PNP
"Alam mo ba itong kasalanang ito, kamatayan ang hatol, inaamin mo pa ba na
Baliuag up to the scene of the crime, all the stages were videotaped by you?
ikaw ang gumawa sa pagpatay at pag-rape kay Marianne?" Sagot pa rin siya
A Yes, sir. ng "Oo."
Journalist Berteni Causing of "People's Journal Tonite" likewise covered the xxx
proceedings for three successive days. His testimony is as follows:
Q Did you ask him, why did you kill Marianne?
"Atty. Principe: You mentioned that you had your own inquiries?
A I asked him, your Honor and the reason he told me was because a devil
A We asked first permission from the mayor to interrupt their own gripped his mind and because of that according to him, your Honor, were the
investigation so that we can have a direct interview with the suspect. pornographic magazines, pornographic tabloids which he, according to him,
Q Were there people? reads almost everyday before the crime.
Atty. Principe: At the time of your interview, Mr. Reporter, will you tell the Q How about the other representatives from the media?
court and the public what was the physical condition of accused Pablito A Roy Reyes, Orlan Mauricio arrived but he arrived late and there were
Andan? people from the radio and from TV Channel 9.
A As I observed him that time there was no sign on his body that he was Q How about Channel 7?
really down physically and I think he was in good condition.
A They came late. I was the one who got the scoop first, sir.
Court: So he was not happy about the incident?
Q You stated that the accused allowed you to interview him, was his wife
A He even admitted it, your Honor. also present?
Court: He was happy? A Yes, sir, and even the son was there but I am not very sure if she was
A He admitted it. He was not happy after doing it. really the wife but they were hugging each other and she was crying and from
Court: Was he crying? the questions that I asked from the people there they told me that she is the
wife, sir.
A As I observed, your Honor, the tears were only apparent but there was no
tear that fell on his face. Q How about the other members of the family of the accused, were they
Court: Was he feeling remorseful?
A I do not know the others, sir, but there were many people there, sir.
A As I observed it, it was only slightly, your Honor.
Q Now, according to you, you made a news item about the interview. May
x x x" we know what question did you ask and the answer.
Another journalist, Rey Domingo, of "Bandera" interviewed appellant on A My first question was, is he Pablito Andan and his answer was "Yes."
February 26, 1994. He also testified that:
Q What was the next question?
"Atty. Principe: Now, Mr. Witness, did the accused Pablito Andan give you the
permission that you asked from him? 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
A Yes, sir. the stomach.
Q And when he allowed you to interview him, who were present? Q What was the next question that you asked him?
A The first person that I saw there was Mayor Trinidad, policemen from A He also said that he raped her and he said that the reason why he killed
Baliuag, the chief investigator, SPO4 Bugay, and since Katipunan, the chief of the victim was because he was afraid that the incident might be discovered,
police was suspended, it was the deputy who was there, sir. sir.
Q Were they the only persons who were present when you interviewed the Q Now, after the interview, are we correct to say that you made a news item
accused? on that?
A There were many people there, sir. The place was crowded with people. A Yes, sir, based on what he told me. That's what I did.
There were people from the PNP and people from Baliuag, sir.
Q Were there other questions propounded by you?
A Yes, sir. individual against aggression and unwarranted interference by any department
Q "Ano iyon?" of government and its agencies.
A He said that he threw the cadaver to the other side of the fence, sir. In his second assigned error, appellant questions the sufficiency of the medical
evidence against him. Dr. Alberto Bondoc, a Medical Specialist with the
Q Did he mention how he threw the cadaver of Marianne to the other side of Provincial Health Office, conducted the first autopsy and found no
the fence? spermatozoa and no recent physical injuries in the hymen. Allegedly, the
A I cannot remember the others, sir. minimal blood found in her vagina could have been caused by her
Q But can you produce the news item based on that interview?
We are unpersuaded. A second autopsy was conducted on March 1, 1994 by
A I have a xerox copy here, sir.
Dr. Dominic L. Aguda, a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of
x x x" Investigation. His findings affirmed the absence of spermatozoa but revealed
Clearly, appellant's confessions to the news reporters were given free from any that the victim's hymen had lacerations, thus:
undue influence from the police authorities. The news reporters acted as news "Hymen -- contracted, tall, thin with fresh lacerations with clotted blood at 6
reporters when they interviewed appellant. They were not acting under the and 3 o'clock positions corresponding to the walls of the clock."
direction and control of the police. They were there to check appellant's
Dr. Aguda testified that the lacerations were fresh and that they may have been
confession to the mayor. They did not force appellant to grant them an
caused by an object forcibly inserted into the vagina when the victim was still
interview and reenact the commission of the crime. In fact, they asked his
alive, indicating the possibility of penetration. His testimony is as follows:
permission before interviewing him. They interviewed him on separate days
not once did appellant protest his innocence. Instead, he repeatedly confessed "Witness: When I exposed the hymen, I found lacerations in this 3 o'clock and
his guilt to them. He even supplied all the details in the commission of the 6 o'clock position corresponding to the walls of the clock. x x x.
crime, and consented to its reenactment. All his confessions to the news Court: Include the descriptive word, fresh.
reporters were witnessed by his family and other relatives. There was no
coercive atmosphere in the interview of appellant by the news reporters. 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.
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 Atty. Valmonte: Now, Doctor, you told the Court that what you did on the
does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and cadaver was merely a re-autopsy, that means, doctor the body was autopsied
another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the first before you did you re-autopsy?
State. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and its A Yes, sir.
agents. They confirm that certain rights of the individual exist without need of Q Could it not be, doctor, that these injuries you found in the vagina could
any governmental grant, rights that may not be taken away by government, have been sustained on account of the dilation of the previous autopsy?
rights that government has the duty to protect. Governmental power is not
unlimited and the Bill of Rights lays down these limitations to protect the A Well, we presumed that if the first doctor conducted the autopsy on the
victim which was already dead, no amount of injury or no amount of lacerated
wounds could produce blood because there is no more circulation, the
circulation had already stopped. So, I presumed that when the doctor Dr. Aguda's finding and the allegation that the victim was raped by appellant
examined the victim with the use of forceps or retractor, vaginal retractor, then are supported by other evidence, real and testimonial, obtained from an
I assumed that the victim was already dead. So it is impossible that the investigation of the witnesses and the crime scene, viz:
lacerated wounds on the hymen were caused by those instruments because the (1) The victim, Marianne, was last seen walking along the subdivision road
victim was already dead and usually in a dead person we do not produce any near appellant's house;
(2) At that time, appellant's wife and her step brother and grandmother were
Q What you would like to tell the Court is this: that the lacerations with not in their house;
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 (3) A bloodstained concrete block was found over the fence of appellant's
was alive? house, a meter away from the wall. Bloodstains were also found on the grass
nearby and at the pigpen at the back of appellant's house;
A Yes, sir.
(4) The victim sustained bruises and scars indicating that her body had been
Q This clotted blood, according to you, found at the edges of the lacerated dragged over a flat rough surface. This supports the thesis that she was thrown
wounds, now will you kindly go over the sketch you have just drawn and over the fence and dragged to where her body was found;
indicate the edges of the lacerated wounds where you found the clotted blood?
(5) Appellant's bloodstained clothes and towel were found in the laundry
A This is the lacerated wound at 3 o'clock and this is the lacerated wound at hamper in his house;
6 o'clock. I found the blood clot at this stage. The clotted blood are found on
the edges of the lacerated wounds, sir. (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
Q What could have caused those lacerations? victim. Marianne's exact blood type was not determined but her parents had
A Well, it could have been caused by an object that is forcibly inserted into type "A" and type "AB." The victim's pants had bloodstains which were found
that small opening of the hymen causing lacerations on the edges of the to be type "O," appellant's blood type;
hymen, sir. (7) Appellant had scratch marks and bruises in his body which he failed to
Q If the victim had sexual intercourse, could she sustain those lacerations? explain;
A It is possible, sir. (8) For no reason, appellant and his wife left their residence after the incident
We have also ruled in the past that the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina and were later found at his parents' house in Barangay Tangos, Baliuag,
does not negate the commission rape nor does the lack of complete Bulacan;
penetration or rupture of the hymen. What is essential is that there be In fine, appellant's extrajudicial confessions together with the other
penetration of the female organ no matter how slight. Dr. Aguda testified that circumstantial evidence justify the conviction of appellant.
the fact of penetration is proved by the lacerations found in the victim's Appellant's defense of alibi cannot overcome the prosecution evidence. His
vagina. The lacerations were fresh and could not have been caused by any alibi cannot even stand the test of physical improbability at the time of the
injury in the first autopsy. commission of the crime. Barangay Tangos is only a few kilometers away
from Concepcion Subdivision and can be traversed in less than half an hour.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, TSN of May 2, 1994, p. 88; TSN of May 20, 1994, pp. 13, 50.
Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 1109-M-94 is affirmed and accused- TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 78-82.
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 Id., pp. 20-24, 53, 59-64.
amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to the Exhibits "AA" and "CC."
penalty of death, with two (2) members of the Court, however, voting to
TSN of April 27, 1994, pp. 14-18; TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 74-87; TSN of
impose reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is also ordered to indemnify the
May 27, 1994, pp. 8-32; Exhibits "S," "KK-1" to "KK-4," Folder of
heirs of the victim, Marianne Guevarra, the sum of P50,000.00 as civil
Prosecution Exhibits, p. 41.
indemnity for her death and P71,000.00 as actual damages.
TSN of July 22, 1994, pp. 12-20, 75-80.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 83
of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of TSN of July 22, 1994, pp. 12-20, 75-80.
this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible Decision of the trial court, p. 23, Rollo, p. 52.
exercise of the pardoning power.
Appellant's Brief, p. 3, Rollo, p. 69.
This provision was taken from Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, which adopted the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d
Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban, and 694 [1966] and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 12 L. ed. 2d 977 [1964].
Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586 [1993]; Sampaga v. People, 215 SCRA 839
Information dated March 11, 1994, Records, p. 1. [1992]; People v. Penero, 213 SCRA 536 [1992].
TSN of May 11, 1994, pp. 34-38; Exhibit "P," Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
pp. 13-14. Commentary, p. 410 [1996]; Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 457.
Exhibit "U," Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, pp. 18-19. Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 445; Cummings v. State, 341 A. 2d 294, 298
TSN of April 19, 1994, pp. 47-51; TSN of April 20, 1994, pp. 45, 55-56; [1975].
Exhibits "A," "C" and "I." People v. Macam, 238 SCRA 306 [1994]; People v. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566,
Exhibits "J," "K," "L," and "N." 575 [1994]; People v. de Guzman, 224 SCRA 93 [1993]; People v Olvis, 154
SCRA 513 [1987].
TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 71-72.
Bernas, supra, at 411.
Exhibits "O," "O-2," and "O-5;" Folder of Prosecution Exhibits; pp. 11-12;
TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 72-73. TSN of April 19, 1994, pp. 62-63.
TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 18-19. TSN of April 22, 1994, pp. 7-15; TSN of May 4, 1994, pp. 89-90; TSN of
May 11, 1994, pp. 30-31.
Exhibit "Q," Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, p. 15.
TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 71-72.
TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 21-22
People v. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 [1995]; People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1, TSN of May 27, 1994, p. 9.
17-19 [1986]. Id., pp. 10-14.
TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 20-21. Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, 234 SCRA 175, 183-184 [1994] — We ruled that
Id., pp. 26-27. an audit examiner is not a law enforcement officer nor did he, in this case, act
R.A. 6975, Department of Interior and Local Government Act of 1990, as one.
Chapter III (D), sec. 51 (b). cf. People v. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513, 525-526 [1987] where several accused
Leuschner v. State, 397 A. 2d 622 [1979]; Vines v. State, 394 A. 2d 809 were forced by the police to reenact the commission of the crime.
[1978]; Cummings v. State, 341 A. 2d 294 [1975]; Howell v. State, 247 A. 2d People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 67 [1991].
291 [1968]; Statements made by defendant while in custody of police officers People v. Maqueda, 242 SCRA 565, 590 [1995]; Quinn v. Buchanan, 298 S.W.
but not pursuant to any questioning by officers were properly admitted as 2d 413, 417 [1957], citing Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional
spontaneously volunteered statements — State v. Matlock, 289 N.W. 2d 625 Limitations 93, 358.
[1980]; State v. Red Feather, 289 N.W. 2d 768 [1980].
16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sec. 199, pp. 975-976; see also People v. Marti,
Baysinger v. State, 550 S.W. 2d 445, 447 [1977], where a defendant, not in supra, at 67-68 where we ruled that the constitutional proscription against
custody, in talking with the sheriff wanted the sheriff for a confidant instead of unlawful searches and seizures cannot be extended to searches and seizures
a law enforcement officer, his admissions on an incriminating taped done by private individuals without the intervention of police authorities;
conversation did not violate the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments of the U.S. People vs. Maqueda, supra, at 59 where we held that extra-judicial admissions
Constitution and are thus admissible. of an accused to a private person and to a prosecutor in connection with the
Aballe v. People, 183 SCRA 196, 205 [1990]; People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111, accused's plea to be utilized as a state witness where deemed outside the scope
123-124 [1988]; People v. Taylaran, 108 SCRA 373, 378-379 [1981]; see also of the provision on custodial investigation.
People v. Rogers, 422 N.Y.S. 18, 48 N.Y. 2d 167, 397 N.E. 2d 709, 714 TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 22, 24-26.
Id., pp. 43-44.
People v. Barlis, 231 SCRA 426, 441 [1994]; People v. Layuso, 175 SCRA 47,
53 [1989]. Exhibit "Y," Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, p. 27.
People v. Vizcarra, 115 SCRA 743, 752 [1982], the accused, under custody, TSN of May 4, 1994, pp. 63, 75.
gave spontaneous answers to a televised interview by several press reporters Id., pp. 59-63.
in the office of the chief of the CIS.
People v. Salomon, 229 SCRA 403 [1994]; People v. Empleo, 226 SCRA 454
TSN of April 27, 1994, pp. 11, 13-14; Exhibit "S." [1993;] People v. Magallanes, 218 SCRA 109 [1993].
TSN of May 4, 1994, pp. 11-14; 15-16; Exhibit "AA." People v. Rejano, 237 SCRA 627 [1994]; People v. Palicte, 229 SCRA 543
TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 76-77. [1994].
TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 78-84.
People v. Fabro, 239 SCRA 146 [1994]; People v. Fortez, 223 SCRA 619
[1993]; People v. Abiera, 222 SCRA 378 [1993].
TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 78, 95.
TSN of May 2, 1994, p. 83; April 25, 1994, p. 38.
TSN of April 19, 1994, p. 51; TSN of May 2, 1994, p. 66; Exhibit "I."
TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 53-54.
Exhibit "JJ," Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, p. 40.
Exhibits "MM" and "NN," Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, pp. 43, 44.
Exhibits "LL" and "OO," Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, pp. 42, 45.
Exhibit "Q," Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, p. 15.
TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 82-84.
TSN of July 1, 1994, pp. 13-14.
he had given the fatal weapon used, a bayonet, to Elsa and Jorge Casingal, his
aunt and uncle respectively, in Poblacion Sur, Bayambang, Pangasinan. The
EN BANC next day, October 18, 1996, SPO1 Espinoza and another policeman took
[G.R. No. 130612. May 11, 1999] accused-appellant to Bayambang and recovered the bayonet from a tricycle
belonging to the Casingal spouses. The police officers executed a receipt to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNARDINO evidence the confiscation of the weapon.
DOMANTAY, @ “JUNIOR OTOT,” accused-appellant.
On the basis of the post-mortem findings of Dr. Macaranas, SPO4 Juan
DECISION Carpizo, the Philippine National Police chief investigator at Malasiqui, filed,
MENDOZA, J.: on October 21, 1996, a criminal complaint for murder against accused-
This case is here on appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of appellant before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Malasiqui. On October
Dagupan City (Branch 57), finding accused-appellant guilty of rape with 25, 1996, Dr. Ronald Bandonill, medico-legal expert of the NBI, performed an
homicide and sentencing him to death, and to indemnify the heirs of the autopsy on the embalmed body of Jennifer. The result of his examination of
victim in the amount of P480,000.00, and to pay the costs. the victim’s genitalia indicated that the child’s hymen had been completely
lacerated on the right side. Based on this finding, SPO4 Carpizo amended the
The facts hark back to the afternoon of October 17, 1996, at around 4 o’clock, criminal complaint against accused-appellant to rape with homicide.
when the body of six-year old Jennifer Domantay was found sprawled amidst Subsequently, the following information was filed:
a bamboo grove in Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan. The child’s body bore
several stab wounds. Jennifer had been missing since lunch time. That on or about the 17th day of October, 1996, in the afternoon, in barangay
Guilig, Municipality of Malasiqui, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and
The medical examination conducted the following day by Dr. Ma. Fe Leticia within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
Macaranas, the rural health physician of Malasiqui, showed that Jennifer died with lewd design and armed with a bayonnete, did then and there, wilfully,
of multiple organ failure and hypovolemic shock secondary to 38 stab wounds unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Jennifer Domantay, a
at the back. Dr. Macaranas found no lacerations or signs of inflammation of minor of 6 years old against her will and consent, and on the same occasion,
the outer and inner labia and the vaginal walls of the victim’s genitalia, the said accused with intent to kill, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
although the vaginal canal easily admitted the little finger with minimal feloniously stab with the use of a bayonnete, the said Jennifer Domantay,
resistance. Noting possible commission of acts of lasciviousness, Dr. inflicting upon her multiple stab wounds, which resulted to her death, to the
Macaranas recommended an autopsy by a medico-legal expert of the NBI. damage and prejudice of her heirs.
The investigation by the Malasiqui police pointed to accused-appellant At the trial, the prosecution presented seven witnesses, namely, Edward, Jiezl,
Bernardino Domantay, a cousin of the victim’s grandfather, as the lone Lorenzo, all surnamed Domantay, Joselito Mejia, Antonio Espinoza, Celso
suspect in the gruesome crime. At around 6:30 in the evening of that day, Manuel, and Dr. Ronald Bandonill, to establish its charge that accused-
police officers Montemayor, de la Cruz, and de Guzman of the Malasiqui appellant had raped and killed Jennifer Domantay.
Philippine National Police (PNP) picked up accused-appellant at the
Malasiqui public market and took him to the police station where accused- Edward Domantay testified that in the morning of October 17, 1996, accused-
appellant, upon questioning by SPO1 Antonio Espinoza, confessed to killing appellant and his two brothers-in-law, Jaime Caballero and Daudencio
Jennifer Domantay. He likewise disclosed that at around 3:30 that afternoon, Macasaeb, had a round of drinks in front of the latter’s house in Guilig,
Malasiqui, Pangasinan. Edward Domantay said that he was in front of pleaded with him, saying they will not be gone for long. Mejia, therefore,
Macasaeb’s house, tending to some pigeons in his yard. After the group had agreed. Mejia noticed that accused-appellant was nervous and afraid.
consumed several bottles of San Miguel gin, accused-appellant gave money to Accused-appellant later changed his mind. Instead of going to the town
Edward Domantay and asked him to buy two bottles of gin and a bottle of proper, he alighted near the Mormon’s church, outside Malasiqui.
Sprite. Edward said he joined the group and sat between Daudencio Macasaeb In addition, the prosecution presented SPO1 Antonio Espinoza and Celso
and accused-appellant. Edward said that accused-appellant, who, apparently Manuel who testified that, on separate occasions, accused-appellant had
had one too many then, rolled up his shirt and said: “No diad Antipolo tan confessed to the brutal killing of Jennifer Domantay.
L[i]pa et walay massacre, diad Guilig wala, walay massacren kod dia, walay
onakis-akis” (“In Antipolo and Lipa, there were massacres; here in Guilig, SPO1 Espinoza testified that he investigated accused-appellant after the latter
there will also be a massacre. I will massacre somebody here, and they will had been brought to the Malasiqui police station in the evening of October 17,
cry and cry”). Edward Domantay saw that tucked in the left side of accused- 1996. Before he commenced his questioning, he apprised accused-appellant
appellant’s waistline was a bayonet without a cover handle. It was not the first of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and
time that Edward had seen accused-appellant with the knife as the latter independent counsel, in English, which was later translated into Pangasinense.
usually carried it with him. According to SPO1 Espinoza, accused-appellant agreed to answer the
questions of the investigator even in the absence of counsel and admitted
Jiezl Domantay, 10, likewise testified. She said that, at about 2 o’clock in the killing the victim. Accused-appellant also disclosed the location of the
afternoon on October 17, 1996, she and four other children were playing in bayonet he used in killing the victim. On cross-examination, Espinoza
front of their house in Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan. Jiezl saw accused- admitted that at no time during the course of his questioning was accused-
appellant and Jennifer Domantay walking towards the bamboo grove of appellant assisted by counsel. Neither was accused-appellant’s confession
Amparo Domantay where Jennifer’s body was later found. Accused-appellant reduced in writing. Espinoza’s testimony was admitted by the trial court over
was about two meters ahead of Jennifer. The bamboo grove was about 8 to 10 the objection of the defense.
meters from the house of Jiezl Domantay.
Celso Manuel, for his part, testified that he is a radio reporter of station
Lorenzo Domantay, a relative of the victim, corroborated Jiezl’s testimony DWPR, an AM station based in Dagupan City. He covers the third district of
that accused-appellant had gone to Amparo Domantay’s bamboo grove in the Pangasinan, including Malasiqui. Sometime in October 1996, an uncle of the
afternoon of October 17, 1996. Lorenzo said that that afternoon, on his way victim came to Dagupan City and informed the station about Jennifer
to his farm, he saw accused-appellant about 30 meters away, standing at the Domantay’s case. On October 23, 1996, Manuel went to Malasiqui to
spot in the bamboo grove where Jennifer’s body was later found. Accused- interview accused-appellant who was then detained in the municipal jail. He
appellant appeared restless and worried as he kept looking around. However, described what transpired during the interview thus:
as Lorenzo was in a hurry, he did not try to find out why accused-appellant
appeared to be nervous. PROS. QUINIT:
Prosecution witness Joselito Mejia, a tricycle driver, said that, in the afternoon Q Did you introduce yourself as a media practitioner?
of October 17, 1996, he was about to take his lunch at home in Alacan, a A Yes, sir.
neighboring barangay about half a kilometer from Guilig, when accused-
Q How did you introduce yourself to the accused?
appellant implored Mejia to take him to Malasiqui at once. Mejia told
accused-appellant that he was going to take his lunch first, but the latter
A I showed to Bernardino Domantay alias “Junior Otot” my I.D. card and I he had been called to testify regarding an interview he had conducted. As in
presented myself as a media practitioner with my tape recorder [in] my hand, the case of the testimony of SPO1 Espinoza, the defense objected to the
sir. admission of Manuel’s testimony, but the lower court allowed it.
Q What was his reaction to your request for an interview? Dr. Bandonill, the NBI medico-legal who conducted an autopsy of the victim
A He was willing to state what had happened, sir. on October 25, 1996, testified that Jennifer Domantay died as a result of the
numerous stab wounds she sustained on her back, the average depth of which
Q What are those matters which you brought out in that interview with the was six inches. He opined that the wounds were probably caused by a
accused Bernardino Domantay alias “Junior Otot”? “pointed sharp-edged instrument.” He also noted contusions on the forehead,
A I asked him what was his purpose for human interest’s sake as a reporter, neck, and breast bone of the victim. As for the results of the genital
why did he commit that alleged crime. And I asked also if he committed the examination of the victim, Dr. Bandonill said he found that the laceration on
crime and he answered “yes.” That’s it. the right side of the hymen was caused within 24 hours of her death. He added
that the genital area showed signs of inflammation.
Pacifico Bulatao, the photographer who took the pictures of the scene of the
crime and of the victim after the latter’s body was brought to her parents’
Q You mentioned about accused admitting to you on the commi[ssion] of house, identified and authenticated the five pictures (Exhibits A, B, C, D, and
the crime, how did you ask him that? E) offered by the prosecution.
A I asked him very politely. The defense then presented accused-appellant as its lone witness. Accused-
Q More or less what have you asked him on that particular matter? appellant denied the allegations against him. He testified he is an uncle of
Jennifer Domantay (he and her grandfather are cousins) and that he worked as
A I asked “Junior Otot,” Bernardino Domantay, “Kung pinagsisisihan mo a janitor at the Malasiqui Municipal Hall. He said that at around 1 o’clock in
ba ang iyong ginawa?” “Opo” sabi niya, “Ibig mo bang sabihin Jun, ikaw ang the afternoon of October 17, 1996, he was bathing his pigs outside the house
pumatay kay Jennifer?”, “Ako nga po”. The [l]ast part of my interview, of his brother-in-law Daudencio Macasaeb in Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan.
“Kung nakikinig ang mga magulang ni Jennifer, ano ang gusto mong He confirmed that Daudencio was then having drinks in front of his
iparating?”, “kung gusto nilang makamtan ang hustisya ay tatanggapin ko”. (Macasaeb’s) house. Accused-appellant claimed, however, that he did not join
That is what he said, and I also asked Junior Otot, what was his purpose, and in the drinking and that it was Edward Domantay, whom the prosecution had
he said, it was about the boundary dispute, and he used that little girl in his presented as witness, and a certain Jaime Caballero who joined the party. He
revenge. also claimed that it was he whom Macasaeb had requested to buy some more
On cross-examination, Manuel explained that the interview was conducted in liquor, for which reason he gave money to Edward Domantay so that the latter
the jail, about two to three meters away from the police station. An uncle of could get two bottles of gin, a bottle of Sprite, and a pack of cigarettes. He
the victim was with him and the nearest policemen present were about two to denied Edward Domantay’s claim that he (accused-appellant) had raised his
three meters from him, including those who were in the radio room. There shirt to show a bayonet tucked in his waistline and that he had said he would
was no lawyer present. Before interviewing accused-appellant, Manuel said he massacre someone in Guilig.
talked to the chief of police and asked permission to interview accused-
appellant. On questioning by the court, Manuel said that it was the first time
Accused-appellant also confirmed that, at about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, he II.
went to Alacan passing on the trail beside the bamboo grove of Amparo THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED
Domantay. But he said he did not know that Jennifer Domantay was DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT
following him. He further confirmed that in Alacan, he took a tricycle to BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Malasiqui. The tricycle was driven by Joselito Mejia. He said he alighted near
the Mormon church, just outside of the town proper of Malasiqui to meet his First. Accused-appellant contends that his alleged confessions to SPO1
brother. As his brother did not come, accused-appellant proceeded to town Antonio Espinoza and Celso Manuel are inadmissible in evidence because
and reported for work. That night, while he was in the Malasiqui public they had been obtained in violation of Art. III, §12(1) of the Constitution and
market, he was picked up by three policemen and brought to the Malasiqui that, with these vital pieces of evidence excluded, the remaining proof of his
police station where he was interrogated by SPO1 Espinoza regarding the alleged guilt, consisting of circumstantial evidence, is inadequate to establish
killing of Jennifer Domantay. He denied having owned to the killing of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Jennifer Domantay to SPO1 Espinoza. He denied he had a grudge against the Art. III, §12 of the Constitution in part provides:
victim’s parents because of a boundary dispute. With respect to his
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
extrajudicial confession to Celso Manuel, he admitted that he had been
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
interviewed by the latter, but he denied that he ever admitted anything to the
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
As already stated, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty as charged. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
The dispositive portion of its decision reads: counsel.
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the ....
accused, Bernardino Domantay @ “Junior Otot” guilty beyond reasonable
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section or
doubt with the crime of Rape with Homicide defined and penalized under
section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation and as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659 and accordingly, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the This provision applies to the stage of custodial investigation, that is, “when
penalty of death by lethal injection, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
the total amount of Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P480,000.00), and starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect.” R.A. No. 7438 has
to pay the costs. extended the constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual has
not been formally arrested but has merely been “invited” for questioning.
Decisions of this Court hold that for an extrajudicial confession to be
In this appeal, accused-appellant alleges that:
admissible, it must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be
I. voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION[S] MADE BY THE ACCUSED- In the case at bar, when accused-appellant was brought to the Malasiqui police
APPELLANT. station in the evening of October 17, 1996, he was already a suspect, in fact
the only one, in the brutal slaying of Jennifer Domantay. He was, therefore, fact that the accused gave his answers without the assistance of counsel, this
already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed in Art. III, Court said:
§12(1) of the Constitution applied to him. SPO1 Espinoza narrated what [A]ppellant’s [oral] confessions to the newsmen are not covered by Section
transpired during accused-appellant’s interrogation: 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not
[I] interrogated Bernardino Domantay, prior to the interrogation conducted to concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another
him, I informed him of his constitutional right as follows; that he has the right individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State.
to remain silent; that he has the right to a competent lawyer of his own choice The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and its agents.
and if he can not afford [a counsel] then he will be provided with one, and Accused-appellant claims, however, that the atmosphere in the jail when he
further informed [him] that all he will say will be reduced into writing and was interviewed was “tense and intimidating” and was similar to that which
will be used the same in the proceedings of the case, but he told me that he prevails in a custodial investigation. We are not persuaded. Accused-appellant
will cooperate even in the absence of his counsel; that he admitted to me that was interviewed while he was inside his cell. The interviewer stayed outside
he killed Jennifer Domantay, and he revealed also the weapon used [and] the cell and the only person besides him was an uncle of the victim.
where he gave [it] to. Accused-appellant could have refused to be interviewed, but instead, he
But though he waived the assistance of counsel, the waiver was neither put in agreed. He answered questions freely and spontaneously. According to Celso
writing nor made in the presence of counsel. For this reason, the waiver is Manuel, he said he was willing to accept the consequences of his act.
invalid and his confession is inadmissible. SPO1 Espinoza’s testimony on the Celso Manuel admitted that there were indeed some police officers around
alleged confession of accused-appellant should have been excluded by the because about two to three meters from the jail were the police station and the
trial court. So is the bayonet inadmissible in evidence, being, as it were, the radio room. We do not think the presence of the police officers exerted any
“fruit of the poisonous tree.” As explained in People v. Alicando: undue pressure or influence on accused-appellant and coerced him into giving
. . . According to this rule, once the primary source (the “tree”) is shown to his confession.
have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the Accused-appellant contends that “it is . . . not altogether improbable for the
“fruit”) derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized police investigators to ask the police reporter (Manuel) to try to elicit some
evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of incriminating information from the accused.” This is pure conjecture.
the poisonous tree” is at least once removed from the illegally seized Although he testified that he had interviewed inmates before, there is no
evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence to show that Celso was a police beat reporter. Even assuming that he
evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other was, it has not been shown that, in conducting the interview in question, his
evidence because the originally illegal obtained evidence taints all evidence purpose was to elicit incriminating information from accused-appellant. To
subsequently obtained. the contrary, the media are known to take an opposite stance against the
We agree with the Solicitor General, however, that accused-appellant’s government by exposing official wrongdoings.
confession to the radio reporter, Celso Manuel, is admissible. In People v. Indeed, there is no showing that the radio reporter was acting for the police or
Andan, the accused in a rape with homicide case confessed to the crime during that the interview was conducted under circumstances where it is apparent that
interviews with the media. In holding the confession admissible, despite the accused-appellant confessed to the killing out of fear. As already stated, the
interview was conducted on October 23, 1996, 6 days after accused-appellant little it was, between the time Jiezl saw accused-appellant and the victim
had already confessed to the killing to the police. walking and the time Lorenzo saw accused-appellant near the place where the
Accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by evidence of victim’s body was later found. Far from contradicting each other, these
corpus delicti, namely, the fact of death of Jennifer Domantay. In addition, witnesses confirmed what each had said each one saw. What is striking about
the circumstantial evidence furnished by the other prosecution witnesses their testimonies is that while Jiezl said she saw accused-appellant going
dovetails in material points with his confession. He was seen walking toward toward the bamboo grove followed by the victim “at around” 2 o’clock in the
the bamboo grove, followed by the victim. Later, he was seen standing near afternoon on October 17, 1996, Lorenzo said he had seen accused-appellant
the bamboo grove where the child’s body was found. Rule 133 of the Revised near the bamboo grove “at around” that time. He described accused-appellant
Rules on Evidence provides: as nervous and worried. There is no reason to doubt the claim of these
witnesses. Lorenzo is a relative of accused-appellant. There is no reason he
§3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. ¾ An would testify falsely against the latter. Jiezl, on the other hand, is also
extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for surnamed Domantay and could also be related to accused-appellant and has
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. not been shown to have any reason to testify falsely against accused-
§4. Evidence necessary in treason cases. ¾ No person charged with treason appellant. At the time of the incident, she was only 10 years old.
shall be convicted unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt For the foregoing reasons, the Court is convinced of accused-appellant’s guilt
act, or on confession in open court. with respect to the killing of the child. It is clear that the prosecution has
Accused-appellant argues that it was improbable for a brutal killing to have proven beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of homicide.
been committed without the children who were playing about eight to ten Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
meters from Amparo Domantay’s grove, where the crime took place, having Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 [parricide]
heard any commotion. The contention has no merit. Accused-appellant could shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances
have covered the young child’s mouth to prevent her from making any sound. enumerated in the next preceding article [murder], shall be deemed guilty of
In fact, Dr. Bandonill noted a five by two inch (5” x 2”) contusion on the left homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
side of the victim’s forehead, which he said could have been caused by a hard
blunt instrument or by impact as her head hit the ground. The blow could have The killing was committed with the generic aggravating circumstance of
rendered her unconscious, thus precluding her from shouting or crying. abuse of superior strength. The record shows that the victim, Jennifer
Domantay, was six years old at the time of the killing. She was a child of
Accused-appellant also contends that the testimony of Jiezl Domantay small build, 46” in height. It is clear then that she could not have put up much
contradicts that of Lorenzo Domantay because while Jiezl said she had seen of a defense against accused-appellant’s assault, the latter being a fully grown
accused-appellant walking towards the bamboo grove, followed by the victim, man of 29 years. Indeed, the physical evidence supports a finding of abuse of
at around 2 o’clock in the afternoon on October 17, 1996, Lorenzo said he saw superior strength: accused-appellant had a weapon, while the victim was not
accused-appellant standing near the bamboo grove at about the same time. shown to have had any; there were 38 stab wounds; and all the knife wounds
These witnesses, however, did not testify concerning what they saw at exactly are located at the back of Jennifer’s body.
the same time. What they told the court was what they had seen “at around” 2 But we think the lower court erred in finding that the killing was committed
o’clock in the afternoon. There could have been a difference in time, however with cruelty. The trial court appears to have been led to this conclusion by the
number of wounds inflicted on the victim. But the number of wounds is not a testimony of the physician is presented not to prove that the victim was raped
test for determining whether there was cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. but to show that the latter had lost her virginity. Consequently, standing alone,
“The test . . . is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented a physician’s finding that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does
the victim’s suffering thus . . . there must be proof that the victim was made to not prove rape. It is only when this is corroborated by other evidence proving
agonize before the [the accused] rendered the blow which snuffed out [her] carnal knowledge that rape may be deemed to have been established.
life.” In this case, there is no such proof of cruelty. Dr. Bandonill testified that This conclusion is based on the medically accepted fact that a hymenal tear
any of the major wounds on the victim’s back could have caused her death as may be caused by objects other than the male sex organ or may arise from
they penetrated her heart, lungs and liver, kidney and intestines. other causes. Dr. Bandonill himself admitted this. He testified that the right
Second. There is, however, no sufficient evidence to hold accused-appellant side of the victim’s hymen had been completely lacerated while the
guilty of raping Jennifer Domantay. Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as surrounding genital area showed signs of inflammation. He opined that the
amended, in part provides: laceration had been inflicted within 24 hours of the victim’s death and that the
ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. ¾ Rape is committed by having inflammation was due to a trauma in that area. When asked by the private
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances. prosecutor whether the lacerations of the hymen could have been caused by
the insertion of a male organ he said this was possible. But he also said when
1. By using force or intimidation; questioned by the defense that the lacerations could have been caused by
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and something blunt other than the male organ. Thus, he testified:
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. PROS. F. QUINIT:
As the victim here was six years old, only carnal knowledge had to be proved Q Now, what might have caused the complete laceration of the right side of
to establish rape. Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man having the hymen, doctor?
sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with a woman. For this A Well, sir, if you look at my report there is a remark and it says there;
purpose, it is enough if there was even the slightest contact of the male sex findings at the genital area indicated the probability of penetration of that area
organ with the labia of the victim’s genitalia. However, there must be proof, by a hard rigid instrument.
by direct or indirect evidence, of such contact.
Q Could it have been caused by a human organ?
Dr. Ronald Bandonill’s report on the genital examination he had performed on
the deceased reads: A If the human male organ is erect, fully erect and hard then it is possible,
GENITAL EXAMINATION; showed a complete laceration of the right side of
the hymen. The surrounding genital area shows signs of inflamation. ....
REMARKS: 1) Findings at the genital area indicate the probability of Q In your remarks; finding at the genital area indicates the probability of
penetration of that area by a hard, rigid instrument. penetration of that area by a hard rigid instrument, this may have also been
caused by a dagger used in the killing of Jennifer Domantay is that correct?
Hymenal laceration is not necessary to prove rape; neither does its presence
prove its commission. As held in People v. Ulili, a medical certificate or the
A Well, sir when I say hard rigid instrument it should not be sharp pointed To be sure, this Court has sustained a number of convictions for rape with
and sharp rigid, it should be a hard bl[u]nt instrument. homicide based on purely circumstantial evidence. In those instances,
Q Do you consider a bolo a bl[u]nt instrument, or a dagger? however, the prosecution was able to present other tell-tale signs of rape such
as the location and description of the victim’s clothings, especially her
A The dagger is a sharp rigid but it is not a bl[u]nt instrument, sir. undergarments, the position of the body when found and the like. In People v.
Q This Genital Examination showed a complete laceration of the right side Macalino, for instance, the Court affirmed a conviction for the rape of a two
of the hymen, this may have been possibly caused by a dagger, is it not? year-old child on the basis of circumstantial evidence:
A No, sir. I won’t say that this would have been caused by a dagger, The Court notes that the testimony or medical opinion of Dr. Gajardo that the
because a dagger would have made at its incision . . . not a laceration, sir. fresh laceration had been produced by sexual intercourse is corroborated by
the testimony given by complainant Elizabeth that when she rushed upstairs
Q But this laceration may also have been caused by other factors other the
upon hearing her daughter suddenly cry out, she found appellant Macalino
human male organ, is that correct?
beside the child buttoning his own pants and that she found some sticky fluid
A A hard bl[u]nt instrument, sir could show. on the child’s buttocks and some blood on her private part. (Emphasis in the
Q My question is other than the human male organ? original)
A Possible, sir. In contrast, in the case at bar, there is no circumstantial evidence from which
to infer that accused-appellant sexually abused the victim. The only
.... circumstance from which such inference might be made is that accused-
COURT: appellant was seen with the victim walking toward the place where the girl’s
Q You mentioned that the hymen was lacerated on the right side? body was found. Maybe he raped the girl. Maybe he did not. Maybe he
simply inserted a blunt object into her organ, thus causing the lacerations in
A Yes, your Honor. the hymen. Otherwise, there is no circumstance from which it might
Q And if there is a complete erection by a human organ is this possible that reasonably be inferred that he abused her, e.g., that he was zipping up his
the laceration can only be on the right side of the hymen? pants, that there was spermatozoa in the girl’s vaginal canal.
A Yes, your Honor, its possible. Indeed, the very autopsy report of Dr. Bandonill militates against the finding
of rape. In describing the stab wounds on the body of the victim, he testified:
Q How about if the penetration was done by a finger, was it the same as the
human organ? [A]fter examining the body I took note that there were several stab wounds . .
. these were all found at the back area sir . . . extending from the back
A Well, it depends on the size of the finger that penetrat[es] the organ, if the
shoulder down to the lower back area from the left to the right.
finger is small it could the superficial laceration, and if the finger is large then
it is possible your honor. Considering the relative physical positions of the accused and the victim in
crimes of rape, the usual location of the external bodily injuries of the victim
Q How about two fingers?
is on the face, neck, and anterior portion of her body. Although it is not
A Possible, sir. unnatural to find contusions on the posterior side, these are usually caused by
the downward pressure on the victim’s body during the sexual assault. It is
unquestionably different when, as in this case, all the stab wounds (except for In accordance with our rulings in People v. Robles and People v. Mengote, the
a minor cut in the lower left leg) had their entry points at the back running indemnity should be fixed at P50,000.00 and the moral damages at
from the upper left shoulder to the lower right buttocks. P50,000.00.
It is noteworthy that the deceased was fully clothed in blue shorts and white WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is SET ASIDE and another
shirt when her body was brought to her parent’s house immediately after it one is rendered FINDING accused-appellant guilty of homicide with the
was found. Furthermore, there is a huge bloodstain in the back portion of her aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and sentencing him to
shorts. This must be because she was wearing this piece of clothing when the a prison term of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of
stab wounds were inflicted or immediately thereafter, thus allowing the blood reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ORDERING him to pay the heirs of
to seep into her shorts to such an extent. As accused-appellant would naturally Jennifer Domantay the amounts of P50,000.00, as indemnity, P50,000.00, as
have to pull down the girl’s lower garments in order to consummate the rape, moral damages, P25,000.00, as exemplary damages, and P12,000.00, as actual
then, he must have, regardless of when the stab wounds were inflicted, pulled damages, and the costs.
up the victim’s shorts and undergarments after the alleged rape, otherwise, the
victim’s shorts would not have been stained so extensively. Again, this is
contrary to ordinary human experience. Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
Even assuming that Jennifer had been raped, there is no sufficient proof that it
was accused-appellant who had raped her. He did not confess to having raped
the victim. Purisima, and Buena, JJ., took no part in the deliberations.
From the foregoing, we cannot find that accused-appellant also committed Per Judge Bienvenido R. Estrada.
rape. In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and Records, p.15. Dr. Macaranas was not presented as a witness and her post-
the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. mortem report was not offered in evidence by either party.
Third. The trial court ordered accused-appellant to pay the heirs of Jennifer Folder of Exhibits, p. 5; Exh. G.
Domantay the amount of P30,000.00 as actual damages. However, the list of
expenses produced by the victim’s father, Jaime Domantay, only totaled Records, p. 1.
P28,430.00. Of this amount, only P12,000.00 was supported by a receipt. Art. TSN, pp. 3-4, March 4, 1997.
2199 of the Civil Code provides that a party may recover actual or Id., pp. 8,13.
compensatory damages only for such loss as he has duly proved. Therefore,
the award of actual damages should be reduced to P12,000.00. Id., p. 19.
In addition, the heirs of Jennifer Domantay are entitled to recover exemplary Id., pp. 13-15 (Translation by the trial court).
damages in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of Id., pp. 20-21.
superior strength. Art. 2230 of the Civil Code provides for the payment of
TSN, pp. 4-7, 13, March 3, 1997.
exemplary damages when the crime is committed with one or more
aggravating circumstance. An amount of P25,000.00 is deemed appropriate. TSN, pp. 4-5, 13, April 3, 1997.
TSN, pp. 4-7, March 13, 1997.
TSN, p. 6, Feb. 28, 1997. People v. Deniega, 251 SCRA 626 (1995); People v. Española, 271 SCRA 689
TSN, p. 4, Feb. 25, 1997. (1997); People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199 (1998); People v. Tan, 286 SCRA
207, 214 (1998) citing cases.
TSN, p. 8, Feb. 28, 1997.
Accused-appellant was picked up by the police without any warrant of arrest,
TSN, p. 14, April 10, 1997. although his case did not fall under any of the three instances where
Id., pp. 6-9. warrantless arrests are authorized under Rule 113, §5 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
TSN, p. 10, April 10, 1997.
TSN, p. 4, Feb. 25, 1995.
Id., p. 13.
251 SCRA 293, 314 (1995).
Id., p. 15.
269 SCRA 95 (1997).
Records, p. 20.
Id., at 314. Reiterated in People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199 (1998).
TSN, pp. 12-13, April 8, 1997.
Rollo, p. 59; Appellant’s Brief, p. 10.
Id., p. 16.
TSN, p. 10, April 10, 1997.
Id., pp. 10-11.
Rollo, p. 59; Appellant’s Brief, p. 10.
Records, p. 20.
Rollo, pp. 62-63, Appellant’s Brief, pp. 13-14.
TSN, pp. 8-11, April 15, 1997.
TSN, pp. 10-11, April 18, 1997.
Id., p. 26-27.
Records, p. 13.
Id., pp. 17-18, 27-29.
Rollo, p. 32; Decision, p. 14.
Id., p. 31.
People v. Tonog, 205 SCRA 772 (1992); People v. Manzano, 58 SCRA 250
Rollo, p. 32; Decision, p. 14.
Broken down as follows: P200,000.00 as moral damages; P200,000.00 as
People v. Ferrer, 255 SCRA 19, 36 (1996), citing People v. Lacao, 60 SCRA
exemplary damages; P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; and P30,000.00 for
89 (1974).
funeral and related expenses.
TSN, p. 16, April 8, 1997.
Rollo, p. 50; Appellant’s Brief, p. 1.
People v. Alib, 222 SCRA 517 (1993); People v. Orita, 184 SCRA 105 (1990).
Id., pp. 54-60; Id., pp. 5-11.
People v. Evangelista, 282 SCRA 37 (1997); People v. Orita, supra.
People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997).
Records, p. 20.
Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993).
People v. Butron, 272 SCRA 352 (1997); People v. Gabris, 258 SCRA 663 People v. Espanola, 271 SCRA 689 (1997).
(1996); People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658 (1996); People v. Lazaro, 249 G.R No. 124300, March 25, 1999.
SCRA 234 (1995); People v. Salinas, 232 SCRA 274 (1994).
G.R No. 130491, March 25, 1999.
225 SCRA 594 (1993).
Supra note 74.
People v. Castillo, 197 SCRA 657 (1991).
See People v. Macalino, 209 SCRA 788, 795 (1992).
Records, p. 20.
TSN, p. 20, April 8, 1997.
TSN, pp. 15-19, April 8, 1997 (emphasis added).
See People v. Develles, 208 SCRA 101 (1992); People v. Magana, 259 SCRA
380 (1996).
209 SCRA 788 (1992).
Id., at 797.
TSN, pp. 12-13, April 8, 1997.
People v. Advincula, 96 SCRA 875, 878 (1980); People v. Lood, 117 SCRA
467, 471 (1982); People v. Aguirre, 143 SCRA 572, 578 (1986); People v.
Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82, 92 (1996).
People v. Garcia, 89 SCRA 440, 448 (1979); People v. Saligan, 101 SCRA
264, 269 (1980); People v. Vizcarra, 115 SCRA 743, 746 (1982); People v.
Umali, 116 SCRA 23, 32 (1982); People v. Aguirre, supra.; People v.
Dawandawan, 184 SCRA 264, 269 (1990); People v. Magana, supra.
People v. Saligan, supra.; People v. Empleo, 226 SCRA 454, 459 (1993).
See People v. Madridano, 227 SCRA 363, 363 (1993); People v. Empleo,
supra.; People v. Garcia, supra.
Exh. C.
Exh. B.
See People v. Dino, 160 SCRA 197, 209 (1988).