VOL.

269, MARCH 3, 1997 95

People vs. Andan

*
G.R. No. 116437. March 3, 1997.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-

appellee, vs. PABLITO ANDAN y HERNANDEZ @
BOBBY, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Constitutional Law; Custodial

Investigation; Exclusionary Rule; Evidence; The
exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the
defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs
through menacing police interrogation procedures where the
potentiality for compulsion, physical and psychological, is
forcefully apparent.—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 choice; and (3) to
be informed of such rights. 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 inadmissible in evidence against him. The
exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the
defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs
through menacing police interrogation procedures where
the potentiality for compulsion, physical and psychological,
is forcefully apparent. The incommunicado character of
custodial interrogation or investigation also obscures a later
judicial determination of what really transpired.
Same; Same; Same; An investigation begins when it is
no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts
to focus on

_______________
 * EN BANC.

96

96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan

a particular person as a suspect, i.e, when the police

investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession
from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense.—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 general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when
the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a
confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged
offense. As intended by the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
this covers “investigation conducted by police authorities
which will include investigations conducted by the
municipal police, the PC and the NBI and such other police
agencies in our government.”
Same; Same; Same; Fruits of the Poisonous Tree
Doctrine; Where the police failed to inform the accused of his
constitutional rights when he was investigated and
interrogated, his confession secured thereby, as well as the
fruits of his uncounselled confession, is inadmissible in
evidence.—Appellant was already under custodial
investigation when he confessed to the police. It is admitted
that the police failed to inform appellant of his
constitutional rights when he was investigated and
interrogated. His confession is therefore inadmissible in
evidence. So too were the two bags recovered from
appellant’s house. x x x The victim’s bags were the fruits of
appellant’s uncounselled confession to the police. They are
tainted evidence, hence also inadmissible.
Same; Same; Same; When the accused talked with the
mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer,
his uncounselled confession did not violate his constitutional
rights.—The police detained appellant after his initial
confession. The following day, Mayor Trinidad visited 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. x x x Under these circumstances, it cannot be
successfully claimed that appellant’s confession before the
mayor is inadmissible. It is true that a municipal mayor has
“operational supervision and control” over the local police
and may arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer for
purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of
the Constitution. However, appellant’s confession to the
mayor was not 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

97

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 97

People vs. Andan

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 to him did not violate his
constitutional rights.
Same; Same; Same; 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 the suspect orally
admits having committed the crime.— 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. 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 prevent
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.
Same; Same; Same; Confessions to the media in
response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or
any other investigating officer, are admissible.—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 a televised interview are
deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence.
Same; Same; Same; The Bill of Rights does not concern
itself with the relation between a private individual and
another individual—it governs the relationship between the
individual and the State.—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. It governs the
relationship between the individual and the State. The
prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the 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

98

98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan

government, 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 individual against
aggression and unwarranted interference by any
department of government and its agencies.
Same; Rape; Absence of spermatozoa in the vagina does
not negate the commission of rape nor does the lack of
complete penetration or rupture of the hymen.—We have
also ruled in the past that the absence of spermatozoa in
the vagina does not negate the commission of rape nor does
the lack of complete penetration or rupture of the hymen.
What is essential is that there be penetration of the female
organ no matter how slight. Dr. Aguda 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 the first autopsy.

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional

Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Br. 15.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Miguel P. Pineda for accused-appellant.

PER CURIAM:

Accused-appellant Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias

“Bobby” was accused of the crime of rape with
homicide committed as follows:

“That on or about the 19th day of February 1994, in the

municipality of Baliuag, province of Bulacan, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of
violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one
Marianne Guevarra y Reyes 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, with intent to kill the said Marianne Guevarra
y Reyes, attack, assault and hit said victim with concrete
hollow blocks in her face and in different

99

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 99

People vs. Andan

parts of her body, thereby inflicting upon her mortal

wounds which directly caused her death.
1
 1
Contrary to Law.”

The prosecution established that on February 19,

1994 at about 4:00 P.M., in Concepcion Subdivision,
Baliuag, Bulacan, Marianne Guevarra, twenty years
of age and a second-year student at the Fatima School
of Nursing, left her home for her school dormitory in
Valenzuela, Metro Manila. She was to prepare for her
final examinations on February 21, 1994.
Marianne wore a striped blouse and faded denim
pants and brought with her two bags containing her
school uniforms, some personal effects and more than
P2,000.00 in cash. Marianne 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. Marianne
agreed to take her blood pressure as 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 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 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 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 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
towards
2
a shallow portion of the lot and abandoned
it.
At 11:00 A.M. of the following day, February 20,
1994, the body of Marianne was discovered. She was
naked from the

_______________

1 Information dated March 11, 1994, Records, p. 1.

2 TSN of May 11, 1994, pp. 34-38; Exhibit “P,” Folder of
Prosecution Exhibits, pp. 13-14.
 100

100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan

chest down with her brassiere and T-shirt pulled

toward her neck. Nearby was found a panty with a
sanitary napkin.
The autopsy conducted by Dr. Alberto Bondoc
revealed that Marianne died of “traumatic injuries”
sustained as follows:

“1. Abrasions:

1.1 chest and abdomen, multiple, superficial,

linear, generally oblique from right to left.

2. Abrasions/contusions:

2.1 temple, right.

2.2 cheek, right.
2.3 upper and lower jaws, right.
2.4 breast, upper inner quadrant, right.
2.5 breast, upper outer quadrant, left.
2.6 abdomen, just above the umbilicus,
rectangular, approximate 3 inches in width,
from right MCL to left AAL.
2.7 elbow joint, posterior, bilateral.

3. Hematoma:

3.1 upper and lower eyelids, bilateral.

3.2 temple, lateral to the outer edge of eyebrow,
right.
3.3 upper and lower jaws, right.

4. Lacerated wounds:

4.1 eyebrow, lateral border, right, 1/2 inch.

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

5.1 maxillary bone, right.

5.2 mandible, multiple, complete, right, with
avulsion of 1st and 2nd incisors.

6. Cerebral contusions, inferior surface, temporal

and frontal lobes, right.
7. External genitalia

7.1 minimal blood present.

7.2 no signs of recent physical injuries noted on
both labia, introitus and exposed vaginal wall.

8. Laboratory examination of smear samples

from the vaginal cavity showed negative for
spermatozoa (Bulacan Provincial Hospital,
February 22, 1994, by Dr. Wilfredo S. de
Vera).

101

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 101

People vs. Andan

CAUSE OF DEATH: Cardiorespiratory Arrest due 3

to
Cerebral Contusions due to Traumatic Injuries, Face.”

Marianne’s gruesome death drew public attention and

prompted Mayor Cornelio Trinidad of Baliuag to form
a crack team of police officers to look for the criminal.
Searching the place where Marianne’s body was
found, the policemen recovered a broken piece of
concrete block stained with what appeared to be
blood. They also found a pair of denim pants and 4
a
pair of shoes which were identified as Marianne’s.
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 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 laundry hamper 5
inside
the house and allegedly belonged to appellant.
The police tried to locate appellant and learned
that his parents live in 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 him aboard the patrol jeep and
brought him to the police headquarters where he was
interrogated. Initially, appellant denied any
knowledge of Marianne’s death. However, when the
police confronted him with the concrete block, the
victim’s clothes and the bloodstains found in the
pigpen, appellant relented and said that his
neighbors, Gilbert Larin and Reynaldo Dizon, killed
Marianne and that he was merely a lookout. He also
said that he knew where Larin and Dizon hid the two

_______________

3 Exhibit “U,” Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, pp. 18-19.

4 TSN of April 19, 1994, pp. 47-51; TSN of April 20, 1994, pp. 45,
55-56; Exhibits “A,” “C” and “I.”
5 Exhibits “J,” “K,” “L,” and “N.”

102

102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan

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 of appellant
7
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 by8 the Municipal Health Officer, Dr.
Orpha Patawaran. Appellant was found to sustain:

“HEENT: with multiple scratches on the neck Rt side.

Chest and back: with abrasions (scratches at the back).
Extremities: freshly-healed
9
wound along index finger 1.5
cm. in size Lt.”

By this time, people and media representatives were

already gathered at the police headquarters awaiting
the results of the investigation. Mayor Trinidad
arrived and proceeded to the investigation room.
Upon seeing the mayor, appellant approached him
and whispered a request that they talk privately. The
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 the
one who killed Marianne.” The mayor opened the door
of the room to let the public and media
representatives witness the confession. The mayor
first asked for a lawyer to assist appellant but since
no lawyer was available he ordered
10
the proceedings
photographed and videotaped. In the presence of the
mayor, the police, representatives of the media and
ap-

_______________

6 TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 71-72.

7 Exhibits “O,” “O-2,” and “O-5;” Folder of Prosecution Exhibits;
pp. 11-12; TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 72-73.
8 TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 18-19.
9 Exhibit “Q,” Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, p. 15.
10 TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 21-22.

103

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 103

People vs. Andan
pellant’s own wife and son, appellant confessed his
guilt. He disclosed how he killed Marianne and
volunteered to show them the place where he hid her
bags. He asked for forgiveness from Larin and Dizon
whom he falsely implicated11
saying he did it because of
ill-feelings against them. He also said that the devil
entered his mind because of the pornographic 12
magazines and tabloid he read almost everyday.
After his confession, appellant hugged 13
his wife and
son and asked the mayor to help him. His confession
was captured 14
on videotape and covered by the media
nationwide.
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 he affirmed 15
his
confession to the mayor 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
Barangay Tangos attending the birthday party of his
nephew. He, his wife and son went home after 5:00
P.M. His wife cooked dinner while he watched their
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
16
24, 1994 when he was picked up by the police.
Appellant was brought by the police to a hotel at
Bagong Nayon, Baliuag. In one of the rooms, the
policemen covered

_______________

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

104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan

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 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 17
pot. Fearing for his life, appellant did as he was told.
In a decision dated August 4, 1994, the trial court
convicted appellant and sentenced him to death
pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659. The trial court
also ordered appellant to pay the victim’s heirs
P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P71,000.00 as actual
burial expenses and P100,000.00 as moral damages,
thus:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Pablito Andan y

Hernandez alias “Bobby” is found guilty of proof beyond a
scintilla of doubt of the crime charged in the Information
(Rape with Homicide) and penalized in accordance with
R.A. No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) Sec. 11, Par. 8,
classifying this offense as one of the heinous crimes and
hereby sentences him to suffer the 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 burial and incidental expenses and
P100,000.00 as moral damages. After automatic review of
this case and the decision becomes final and executory, the
sentence be carried18out.
SO ORDERED.”

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 contends that:
 THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
“I ADMITTING AND USING AS BASIS OF
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION THE TESTI

_______________

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

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 105

People vs. Andan

MONIES OF THE POLICE

INVESTIGATORS, REPORTERS AND THE
MAYOR ON THE ALLEGED ADMISSION
OF THE ACCUSED DURING THE
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION, THE
ACCUSED NOT BEING ASSISTED BY
COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION;
II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING
THAT THERE WAS RAPE WHEN THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND TO
SUPPORT IT;
III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN MAKING A
FINDING OF CONVICTION WHEN THE
EVIDENCE IN ITS TOTALITY SHOWS
THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO
PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE 19
DOUBT
THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED.”

The trial court based its decision convicting appellant

on the testimonies of the three policemen of the
investigating team, the mayor of Baliuag and four
news reporters to whom appellant gave his
extrajudicial oral confessions. It was also based on
photographs and video footages of appellant’s
confessions and reenactments of the commission of
the crime.
Accused-appellant assails the admission of the
testimonies of the policemen, the mayor and the news
reporters because they were made during custodial
investigation without the assistance of counsel.
Section 12, paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article III of the
Constitution provides:

“Sec. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the

commission of an offense shall have 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 presence of counsel.

(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”

_______________

19 Appellant’s Brief, p. 3, Rollo, p. 69.

106

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. 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 choice; and (3) to be
informed of such rights. These rights cannot be
waived 20except in writing and in the presence of
counsel. Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this
21
provision is inadmissible in evidence
against him. The exclusionary rule is premised on
the presumption that the defendant is thrust into an
unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing
police interrogation procedures where the potentiality
for compulsion, physical
22
and psychological, is
forcefully apparent. The incommunicado character of
custodial interrogation or investigation also obscures
a later judicial
23
determination of what really
transpired.
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 general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular
person as a suspect, i.e., when the police investigator
starts interrogating or exacting a confession from24 the
suspect in connection with an alleged offense. As
intended by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, this
covers “investigation conducted by police authorities
which will include investigations conducted by the
municipal police, the

_______________

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

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 107

People vs. Andan

PC and the NBI

25
and such other police agencies in our
government.”
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
suspect even before the police found him at his
parents’ house. This is clear from the testimony of
SPO4 Danilo S. Bugay, the police chief investigator of
the crime, viz:

“COURT: How did you come about in concluding

that it was accused who did this act?
WITNESS: First, the place where Marianne was last
found is at the backyard of the house of
the 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 unk nown, sir.
Q: So you had a possible suspect:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You went looking for Pablito Andan?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And then, what else did you do?
A: We tried to find out where we can find
him and from information we learned
that his parents live in Barangay Tangos
in Baliuag. We went there, found him
there and investigated him and in fact
during the investigation 26he admitted
that he was the culprit.”

Appellant was already under custodial investigation

when he confessed to the police. It is admitted that
the police failed to inform appellant of his
constitutional27 rights when he was investigated and
interrogated. His confession is therefore
inadmissible in evidence. So too were the two bags
recovered

_______________

25 Bernas, supra, at 411.

26 TSN of April 19, 1994, pp. 62-63.
27 TSN of April 22, 1994, pp. 7-15; TSN of May 4, 1994, pp. 89-
90; TSN of May 11, 1994, pp. 30-31.
 108

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan

from appellant’s house. SPO2 Cesar Canoza, a

member of the investigating team testified:

“Atty. You told the court that you were able to

Valmores: recover 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 were 28
hidden
underneath the canal, sir.”

The victim’s bags were the fruits of appellant’s

uncounselled confession to the police.29 They are
tainted evidence, hence also inadmissible.
The police detained appellant after his initial
confession. The following day, Mayor Trinidad visited
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 Trinidad
testified, viz:

“Mayor Trinidad: x x x. During the investigation when there

were already many people from the 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.

_______________

28 TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 71-72.

29 People v. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 [1995]; People v. Burgos,
144 SCRA 1, 17-19 [1986].

109

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 109

People vs. Andan

Private Prosecutor Principe: And so what happened

inside the office of the
     Chief of Police, mayor?
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
Marianne.” 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 was30even covered by a television
camera.”
  xxx
Q: During that time that Pablito Andan
whispered to you that he will tell you
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 Mari- anne . . .
Court: He said to you the following words . . .
Atty. Principe: He said to you the following words
 “Mayor, patawarin mo ako! Ako ang pumatay kay
Marianne,” was that the only admission that he told
you?
A: The admission was made twice. The first one
was, when we were alone and the second one
was before the media people, sir.
Q: What else did he tell you when you were
inside the room of the Chief of Police?
A: These were the only things that he told me,
sir. I stopped him from making further
admissions because I wanted the media 31
people to hear what he was going to say, sir.”

Under these circumstances, it cannot be successfully

claimed that appellant’s confession before the mayor
is inadmissible. It is true that a municipal mayor has
“operational
32
supervision and control” over the local
police and may arguably be deemed a law
enforcement officer for purposes of applying Section
12 (1 ) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution.
However, appellant’s confession to the mayor was not

_______________

30 TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 20-21.

31 Id., pp. 26-27.
32 R.A. 6975, Department of Interior and Local Government Act
of 1990, Chapter III (D), sec. 51 (b).

110

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan

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 prevent 36
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.

_______________

33 Deuschner v. State, 397 A. 2d 622 [1979]; Vines v. State, 394

A. 2d 809 [1978]; Cummings v. State, 341 A. 2d 294 [1975]; Howell
v. State, 247 A. 2d 291 [1968]; Statements made by defendant while
in custody of police officers but not pursuant to any questioning by
officers were properly admitted as spontaneously volunteered
statements—State v. Matlock, 289 N.W. 2d 625 [1980]; State v. Red
Feather, 289 N.W. 2d 768 [1980].
34 Baysinger v. State, 550 S.W. 2d 445, 447 [1977], where a
defendant, not in custody, in talking with the sheriff wanted the
sheriff for a confidant instead of a law enforcement officer, his
admissions on an incriminating taped conversation did not violate
the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and are
thus admissible.
35 Aballe v. People, 183 SCRA 196, 205 [1990; People v. Dy, 158
SCRA 111, 123-124 [1988]; People v. Taylaran, 108 SCRA 373, 378-
379 [1981]; see also People v. Rogers, 422 N.Y.S. 18, 48 N.Y. 2d 167,
397 N.E. 2d 709, 714 [1979].
36 People v. Barlis, 231 SCRA 426, 441 [1994]; People v. Layuso,
175 SCRA 47, 53 [1989].

111

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 111

People vs. Andan
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 a televised interview 37are deemed
voluntary and are admissible in evidence.
The records show that Alex Marcelino, a television
reporter for “Eye to Eye” on Channel 7, interviewed
appellant on February 27, 1994. The interview was
recorded on video and showed that appellant made
his confession willingly, openly and publicly38 in the
presence of his wife, child and other relatives. Orlan
Mauricio, a reporter for “Tell the People” on Channel
9 also interviewed appellant on February 25, 1994. He
testified that:

“Atty. You mentioned awhile ago that you were

Principe: able to reach the place where the body of
Marianne was found, where did you start
your interview, in what particular place?
Mr. Actually, I started my newsgathering and
Mauricio: interview inside the police station of
Baliuag 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: And what was the response of Pablito
Andan?
A: His response was he is a cousin of the
victim and that he was responsible for
raping and killing the victim, sir. And then
I asked him whether his admission was
voluntary or that there was a threat,
intimidation or violence that was
committed on his person because I knew
that there were five other suspects in this
case and he said that he was admitting it
voluntarily to the policemen. I asked him
whether he was under the influence of
drugs but he said no, and “nakainom
lang,” sir.
_______________

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

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan

Q: You mentioned earlier that the uncle of the

accused was present, was the uncle beside him at
the time that you asked the question?
A: The uncle was there including the barangay
captain whose name I cannot recall anymore. A
barangay captain of the place, I don’t know if it is
the place of the crime scene or in the place where
Marianne Guevarra resides but . . . All
throughout the scene inside the office of the
Station Commander, there was no air of any force
or any threatening nature of investigation that
was being done on the suspect, that is why, I was
able to talk to him freely and in a 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 ree nactment and everything that
transpired during the killing of Marianne
Guevarra.
Q: Before you started that interview, did you inform
or ask permission from the accused Pablito Andan
that you were going to interview him?
A: Yes, sir.
  xxx
Q: You mentioned that after interviewing the
accused at the office of the Baliuag PNP, you also
went to the scene of the crime?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who accompanied you?
A: I was accompanied by some Baliuag policemen
 including Mayor Trinidad and some of the
relatives of the accused.
Q: At this time, did you see the wife of the accused,
Pablito Andan?
A: Yes, sir, I saw her at the place where the body of
Guevarra was recovered.
Q: How many relatives of accused Pablito Andan
were present, more or less?
A: There were many, sir, because there were many
wailing, weeping and crying at that time when he
was already taken in the patrol jeep of the
Baliuag police, sir.
Q: Now, Mr. Mauricio, upon reaching the scene of
the crime in Concepcion, Baliuag, Bulacan, what
transpired?
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

113

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 113

People vs. Andan

  accompany the accused and asked him to narrate

to me and show me how he carried out the rape
and killing of Marianne Guevarra, sir.
Q: Did he voluntarily comply?
A: Yes, sir, in fact, I have it on my videotape.
Q: It is clear, Mr. Mauricio, that from the start of
your interview at the PNP Baliuag up to the scene
of the crime, all the stages were videotaped by
you?
39
A: Yes, sir.

Journalist Berteni Causing of “People’s Journal

Tonite” likewise40 covered the proceedings for three
successive days. His testimony is as follows:
 “Atty. You mentioned that you had your own
Principe: inquiries?
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: Were there people?
A: The people present before the crowd that
included the mayor, the deputy 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 suspect to us and after the
suspect admitted that he was the one who
killed Marianne. I reiterated the question to
the suspect. Are you aware that this 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 admit that you were the
one who did itand he repeated it, I mean,
say the affirmative answer.
Q: And that was in the presence of the crowd
that you mentioned a while ago?
A: Yes, yes, sir. And if I remember it right, as I
took my camera to take some pictures of the
suspect, the mayor, the policemen and
several others, I heard the group of Inday
Badiday asking the same questions from
the suspect and the suspect answered the
same.

_______________

39 TSN of May 4, 1994, pp. 11-14; 15-16; Exhibit “AA.”

40 TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 76-77.

114

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan
 Q: Also in the presence of so many people that
you mentioned?
A: The same group of people who were there,
sir.
Q: You mentioned that the answer was just
the same as the accused answered you
affirmatively, what was the answer, please
be definite?
Court: Use the vernacular.
A: I asked him the question, after asking him
the question,” Ikaw ba talaga ang gumawa
ng papatay at pag-rape sa kay Marianne?
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 Mari- anne?”
Sagot pa rin siya ng “Oo.”
  xxx
Q: Did you ask him, why did you kill
Marianne?
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. At the time of your interview, Mr.
Principe: Reporter, will you tell the court and the
public what was the physical condition of
accused Pablito Andan?
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.
Court : So he was not happy about the incident?
A: He even admitted it, your Honor.
Court: He was happy?
A: He admitted it. He was not happy after
doing it.
 Court: Was he crying?
A: As I observed, your Honor, the tears were
only apparent but there was no tear that
fell on his face.
Court: Was he feeling remorseful?
A: As I observed it, it was only slightly, your
Honor.
41
x x x.”  

Another journalist, Rey Domingo, of “Bandera”

42
interviewed appellant on February 26, 1994. He also
testified that:

_______________

41 TSN of May 13, 1994, pp. 78-84.

42 TSN of May 27, 1994, p. 9.

115

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 115

People vs. Andan

“Atty. Now, Mr. Witness, did the accused Pablito

Principe: Andan give you the permission that you
asked from him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And when he allowed you to interview him,
who were present?
A: The first person that I saw there was
Mayor Trinidad, policemen from Baliuag,
the chief investigator, SPO4 Bugay, and
since Katipunan, the chief of police was
suspended, it was the deputy who was
there, sir.
Q: Were they the only persons who were
present when you interviewed the accused?
A: There were many people there, sir. The
place was crowded with people. There were
people from the PNP and people from
Baliuag, sir.
 Q: How about the other representatives from
the media?
A: Roy Reyes, Orlan Mauricio arrived but he
arrived late and there were people from the
radio and from TV Channel 9.
Q: How about Channel 7?
A: They came late. I was the one who got the
scoop first, sir.
Q: You stated that the accused allowed you to
interview him, was his wife also present?
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: How about the other members of the family
of the accused, were they around?
A: I do not know the others, sir, but there
were many people there, sir.
Q: Now, according to you, you made a news
item about the interview. May we know
what question did you ask and the answer.
A: My first question was, is he Pablito Andan
and his answer was “Yes.”
Q: What was the next question?
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.

116

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan

Q: What was the next question that you asked him?

A: He also said that he raped her and he said that
the reason why he killed the victim was because he
 was afraid that the incident might be discovered,
sir.
Q: Now, after the interview, are we correct to say
that you made a news item on that?
A: Yes, sir, based on what he told me. That’s why I
did.
Q: Were there other questions propounded by you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: “Ano iyon?”
A: He said that he threw the cadaver to the other
side of the fence, sir.
Q: Did he mention how he threw the cadaver of
Marianne to the other side of the fence?
A: I cannot remember the others, sir.
Q: But can you produce the news item based on that
interview?
A: I have a xerox copy here, sir.
43
  x x x.”

Clearly, appellant’s confessions to the news reporters

were given free from any undue influence from the
police authorities. The news reporters acted as44
news
reporters when they interviewed appellant. 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 45
and reenact the
commission of the crime. In fact, they asked his
permission before interviewing him. They interviewed
him on separate days not once did appellant protest
his innocence. Instead, he repeatedly confessed his
guilt to them. He even supplied all the details in the
commission of the crime, and consented to its reenact-

_______________

43 Id., pp. 10-14.

44 Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, 234 SCRA 175, 183-184 [1994]—
We ruled that an audit examiner is not a law enforcement officer
nor did he, in this case, act as one.
 45 Cf. People v. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513, 525-526 [1987] where
several accused were forced by the police to reenact the commission
of the crime.

117

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 117

People vs. Andan

ment. 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 reporters.
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
46
a private
individual and another individual. It governs the
relationship between the individual and the State.
The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to
the 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, 47
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 individual against
aggression and unwarranted interference48 by any
department of government and its agencies.
In his second assigned error, appellant questions
the sufficiency of the medical evidence against him.
Dr. Alberto Bondoc, a Medical Specialist with the
Provincial Health Office, conducted the first autopsy
and found no spermatozoa
49
and no recent physical
injuries in the hymen. Allegedly, the mini-

_______________

46 People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 67 [1991].

47 People v. Maqueda, 242 SCRA 565, 590 [1995]; Quinn v.
Buchanan, 298 S.W. 2d 413, 417 [1957], citing Cooley, A Treatise
on the Constitutional Limitations 93, 358.
 48 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sec. 199, pp. 975-976; see also
People v. Marti, supra, at 67-68 where we ruled that the
constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures
cannot be extended to searches and seizures done by private
individuals without the intervention of police authorities; People v.
Maqueda, supra, at 59 where we held that extrajudicial admissions
of an accused to a private person and to a prosecutor in connection
with the accused’s plea to be utilized as a state witness were
deemed outside the scope of the provision on custodial
investigation.
49 TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 22, 24-26.

118

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Andan

mal blood found in her

50
vagina could have been caused
by her menstruation.
We are unpersuaded. A second autopsy was
conducted on March 1, 1994 by Dr. Dominic L. Aguda,
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:

“Hymen—contracted, tall, thin with fresh lacerations with

clotted blood at 6 and51 3 o’clock positions corresponding to
the walls of the clock.”

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 victim was 52
still alive, indicating the possibility of penetration.
His testimony is as follows:

“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
Court: Include the descriptive word, fresh.
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.
Atty. Now, Doctor, you told the Court that what
Valmonte: you did on the cadaver was merely a re-
autopsy, that means, doctor the body was
autopsied first before you did your re-
autopsy?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Could it not be, doctor, that these injuries
you found in the vagina could have been
sustained on account of the dilation of the
previous autopsy?
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

_______________

50 Id., pp. 43-44.

51 Exhibit “Y,” Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, p. 27.
52 TSN of May 4, 1994, pp. 63, 75.

119

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 119

People vs. Andan

  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.

We have also ruled in the past that the absence of

spermatozoa in the 54
vagina does not negate the
commission of rape nor does the lack of 55
complete
penetration or rupture of the hymen. What is
essential is that there be penetration
56
of the female
organ no matter how slight. Dr. Aguda testified

_______________

53 Id., pp. 59-63.

54 People v. Salomon, 229 SCRA 403 [1994]; People v. Empleo,
226 SCRA 454 [1993]; People v. Magallanes, 218 SCRA 109 [1993].
55 People v. Rejano, 237 SCRA 627 [1994]; People v. Palicte, 229
SCRA 543 [1994].
56 People v. Fabro, 239 SCRA 146 [1994]; People v. Fortez, 223
SCRA 619 [1993]; People v. Abiera, 222 SCRA 378 [1993].

120

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 People vs. Andan

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 the first autopsy.
Dr. Aguda’s finding and the allegation that the
victim was raped by appellant are supported by other
evidence, real and testimonial, obtained from an
investigation of the witnesses and the crime scene,
viz:

(1) The victim, Marianne, was last seen walking

along 57the subdivision road near appellant’s
house;
(2) At that time, appellant’s wife and her step
brother58 and grandmother were not in their
house;
(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 and59 at the pigpen at the back
of appellant’s house;
(4) The victim sustained bruises and scars
indicating that her body 60had been dragged
over a flat rough surface. This supports the
thesis that she was thrown over the fence and
dragged to where her body was found;
(5) Appellant’s bloodstained clothes and towel
were found in the laundry hamper in his
house;
(6) The reddish brown stains in the towel and T-
shirt of appellant were found positive for the
presence of blood type
61
“B,” the probable blood
type of the victim. Marianne’s exact blood
type was not determined but her parents had
type “A”

_______________

57 TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 78, 95.

58 TSN of May 2, 1994, p. 83; April 25, 1994, p. 38.
 59 TSN of April 19, 1994, p. 51; TSN of May 2, 1994, p. 66;
Exhibit “I.”
60 TSN of May 2, 1994, pp. 53-54.
61 Exhibit “JJ,” Folder of Prosecution Exhibits, p. 40.

121

VOL. 269, MARCH 3, 1997 121

People vs. Andan

62
and type “AB.” The victim’s pants had
bloodstains which were 63
found to be type “O,”
appellant’s blood type;
(7) Appellant had scratch marks and64bruises 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’ house 65
in Barangay
Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan;

In fine, appellant’s extrajudicial confessions together

with the other circumstantial evidence justify the
conviction of appellant.
Appellant’s defense of alibi cannot overcome the
prosecution evidence. His alibi cannot even stand the
test of physical improbability at the time of the
commission of the crime. Barangay Tangos is only a
few kilometers away from Concepcion Subdivision 66
and can be traversed in less than half an hour.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan in 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 of death, with two (2)
members of the Court, however, voting to impose
reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is also ordered
to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Marianne
Guevarra, the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
for her death and P71,000.00 as actual damages.
 In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No.
7659 amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code,
upon finality

_______________

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

122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ingles vs. Court of Appeals

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.
SO ORDERED.

     Narvasa (C.J.), Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,

Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban
and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Imposition of death penalty affirmed.

Note.—To be an effective counsel, a lawyer need

not challenge all the questions being propounded to
his client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to
stop an accused from saying anything which might
incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our
Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as
would lead the accused to admit something else. The
counsel, however, should never prevent an accused
from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. (People
vs. Suarez, 267 SCRA 119 [1997])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.