7 People vs. Andan
7 People vs. Andan
*
G.R. No. 116437. March 3, 1997.
_______________
* EN BANC.
96
97
98
PER CURIAM:
99
_______________
100
“1. Abrasions:
2. Abrasions/contusions:
3. Hematoma:
4. Lacerated wounds:
5. Fractures:
101
_______________
102
6
bags of Marianne. 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 Marianne. Thereafter, photographs were taken 7
of
appellant and the two other suspects holding the bags.
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
8
8
Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Orpha Patawaran.
Appellant was found to sustain:
_______________
103
_______________
11 TSN of May 2, 1994, p. 88; TSN of May 20, 1994, pp. 13, 50.
12 TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 78-82.
13 Id., pp. 20-24, 53, 59-64.
14 Exhibits “AA” and “CC.”
15 TSN of April 27, 1994, pp. 14-18; TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 74-87;
TSN of May 27, 1994, pp. 8-32; Exhibits “S,” “KK-1” to “KK-4,” Folder of
Prosecution Exhibits, p. 41.
16 TSN of July 22, 1994, pp. 12-20, 75-80.
104
_______________
17 Id., pp. 82-88; TSN of July 25, 1994, pp. 10-11.
18 Decision of the trial court, p. 23, Rollo, p. 52.
105
(2) x x x
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this
or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
(4) x x x”
_______________
106
_______________
20 This provision was taken from Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution which adopted the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 [1966] and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 12 L.
Ed. 2d 977 [1964].
21 People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586 [1993]; Sampaga v. People, 215
SCRA 839 [1992]; People v. Penero, 213 SCRA 536 [1992].
22 Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, p. 410 [1996]; Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 457.
23 Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 445; Cummings v. State, 341 A. 2d
294, 298 [1975].
24 People v. Macam, 238 SCRA 306 [1994]; People v. Bandula, 232
SCRA 566, 575 [1994]; People v. de Guzman, 224 SCRA 93 [1993]; People
v. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513 [1987].
107
_______________
108
“Atty. You told the court that you were able to recover
Valmores: these bags marked as Exhs. B and B-1 because
accused pointed to them, where did he point
these bags?
A: At the police station, sir, he told us that he hid
the two (2) bags beneath the canal of the toilet.
Q: In other words, you were given the information
where these two (2) bags were located?
A: Yes, sir.
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 two
(2) bags were hidden, sir.
Q: And did you see actually those two (2) bags
before the accused pointed to the place where
the bags were located?
A: After he removed the broken pots with which
he covered the canal, he really showed where
the bags
28
were hidden underneath the canal,
sir.”
_______________
109
_______________
110
33
made in response to any interrogation by the latter. In
fact, the mayor did not question appellant at all. No police
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 mayor as a
confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his
uncounselled confession
34
to him did not violate his
constitutional rights. 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
35
orally admitted having
committed the crime. What the Constitution bars is the
compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions.
The rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the
slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the
accused to admit something false, not to 36prevent him from
freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Hence, we hold
that appellant’s confession to the mayor was correctly
admitted by the trial court.
_______________
111
_______________
37 People v. Vizcarra, 115 SCRA 743, 752 [1982], the accused, under
custody, gave spontaneous answers to a televised interview by several
press reporters in the office of the chief of the CIS.
38 TSN of April 27, 1994, pp. 11, 13-14; Exhibit “S.”
112
113
_______________
114
_______________
115
116
_______________
117
_______________
118
Dr. Aguda testified that the lacerations were fresh and that
they may have been caused by an object forcibly inserted
into the vagina when the victim52
was still alive, indicating
the possibility of penetration. His testimony is as follows:
_______________
when the doctor examined the victim with the use of for-
ceps or retractor, vaginal 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.
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?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: This clotted blood, according to you, found at the edges
of the lacerated wounds, now will you kindly go over
the sketch you have just drawn and indicate the edges
of thelacerated wounds where you found the clotted
blood?
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.
Q: What could have caused those lacerations?
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.
Q: If the victim had sexual intercourse, could she sustain
those lacerations?
53
A: It is possible, sir.
_______________
120
_______________
121
62
and type “AB.” The victim’s pants had bloodstains
which63 were found to be type “O,” appellant’s blood
type;
(7) Appellant had scratch marks 64and bruises in his
body which he failed to explain;
(8) For no reason, appellant and his wife left their
residence after the incident and were later found at
his parents’
65
house in Barangay Tangos, Baliuag,
Bulacan;
_______________
62 Exhibits “MM” and “NN,” Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, pp. 43, 44.
63 Exhibits “LL” and “OO,” Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, pp. 42, 45.
64 Exhibit “Q,” Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, p. 15.
65 TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 82-84.
66 TSN of July 1, 1994, pp. 13-14.
122
——o0o——