Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 116437 March 3, 1997

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
PABLITO ANDAN y HERNANDEZ @ BOBBY, 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
parts of her body, thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds which directly caused
her death.
Contrary to Law. 1
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 a shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it. 2

At 11:00 A.M. of the following day, February 20, 1994, the body of Marianne was discovered.
She was naked from the 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).
CAUSE OF DEATH: Cardiorespiratory Arrest due to Cerebral Contusions due to
Traumatic Injuries, Face. 3
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 a pair of shoes which
were identified as Marianne's. 4
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 inside
the house and allegedly belonged to appellant. 5
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 bags of Marianne. 6 Immediately, the police
took appellant to his house. Larin and Dizon, who were rounded up earlier, were likewise brought
there by the police. Appellant went to an old toilet at the back of the house, leaned over a flower pot
and retrieved from a canal under the pot, two bags which were later identified as belonging to
Marianne. Thereafter, photographs were taken of appellant and the two other suspects holding the
bags. 7

Appellant and the two suspects were brought back to the police headquarters. The following day,
February 25, a physical examination was conducted on the suspects by the Municipal Health
Officer, Dr. Orpha
Patawaran. 8 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 wound along index
finger 1.5 cm. in size Lt. 9
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 the proceedings photographed and videotaped.

10

In
the presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media and appellant'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
implicated saying he did it because of ill-feelings against them. 11 He also said that the devil entered
his mind because of the pornographic magazines and tabloid he read almost everyday. 12 After his
confession, appellant hugged his wife and son and asked the mayor to help
him. 13 His confession was captured on videotape and covered by the media nationwide. 14

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 his confession to the mayor and reenacted the crime. 15
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 24, 1994 when he was picked
up by the police.16
Appellant was brought by the police to a hotel at Bagong Nayon, Baliuag. In 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 crime.
Thereafter, appellant was taken to his house where he saw two of his neighbors, Larin and
Dizon. He was ordered by the police to go to the old toilet at the back of the house and get two
bags from under the flower pot. Fearing for his life, appellant did as he was told. 17
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 by 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 carried out.
SO ORDERED. 18
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:
I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AND USING AS BASIS OF
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION THE TESTIMONIES 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 DOUBT THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED. 19
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) . . .
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) . . .
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. 20 Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible
in evidence against him. 21 The exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the
defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police
interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion physical and psychological, is
forcefully apparent. 22 The incommunicado character of custodial interrogation or investigation
also obscures a later judicial determination of what really transpired. 23

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. 24 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." 25

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 unknown, 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 he admitted that he was the
culprit.26
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. 27His confession is therefore inadmissible in evidence. So too
were the two bags recovered from appellant's house. SPO2 Cesar Canoza, a member of the
investigating team testified:

Atty. Valmores: You told the court that you were able to recover
these bags marked as Exhs. B and B-1 because accused pointed
to them, where did he point these bags?
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 hidden underneath
the canal, sir. 28
The victim's bags were the fruits of appellant's uncounselled confession to the police. They are
tainted evidence, hence also inadmissible. 29
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: . . . . 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.
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 was even covered by a
television camera. 30
xxx xxx 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 Marianne . . .
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
people to hear what he was going to say, sir. 31
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 32 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. 33 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 to him did not violate his
constitutional rights. 34 Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures on custodial
investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the
authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the
crime. 35 What the Constitution bars is the 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. 36 Hence, we hold that appellant's confession to the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial
court.

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 an are admissible in evidence. 37
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 publicly in the presence of his wife, child
and other relatives. 38 Orlan Mauricio, a reporter for "Tell the People" on Channel 9 also interviewed
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 interview, in what particular place?
Mr. Mauricio: Actually, I started my newsgathering and 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.
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
reenactment 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 xxx 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 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?

A: Yes, sir. 39
Journalist Berteni Causing of "People's Journal Tonite" likewise covered the proceedings
for three successive days. 40 His testimony is as follows:
Atty. Principe: You mentioned that you had your own 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 it and 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.
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 and gumawa ng pagpatay 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 and gumawa
sa pagpatay at pag-rape kay Marianne?" Sagot pa rin siya ng
"Oo."
xxx xxx 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. Principe: At the time of your interview, Mr. Reporter, will you
tell the court and the public what was the physical condition of
accused Pablito Andan?
A: 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.
xxx xxx xxx 41
Another journalist, Rey Domingo, of "Bandera" interviewed appellant on February 26,
1994. 42 He also testified that:
Atty. Principe: Now, Mr. Witness, did the accused Pablito 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.
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 what 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.
xxx xxx xxx 43
Clearly, appellant's confessions to the news reporters were given free from any undue influence
from the police authorities. The news reporters acted as news reporters when they interviewed
appellant. 44 They were not acting under the direction and control of the police. They were there to
check appellant's confession to the mayor. They did not force appellant to grant them an interview
and reenact the commission of the crime. 45 In fact, they asked his permission before interviewing him.
They interviewed him on separate days 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 reenactment. All his confessions to the news reporters were witnessed by
his family and other relatives. There was no coercive atmosphere in the interview of appellant by the
news 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 a private individual and another individual. 46 It governs the relationship between the
individual and the State. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and its agents.
They confirm that certain rights of the individual exist without need of any governmental grant, rights
that may not be taken away by government, rights that government has the duty to
protect. 47Governmental 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. 48

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 and no recent physical injuries in the hymen. 49 Allegedly,
the minimal blood found in her vagina could have been caused by her menstruation.

50

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 and 3
o'clock positions corresponding to the walls of the
clock. 51
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 still alive, indicating the
possibility of penetration. 52 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. . . . .

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. Valmonte: Now, Doctor, you told the Court that what you did
on the cadaver was merely a re-autopsy, that means, doctor the
body was autopsied first before you did you re-autopsy?
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 when the doctor examined the
victim with the use of forceps 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 the lacerated 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?
A: It is possible, sir. 53

We have also ruled in the past that the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina does not negate
the commission of rape 54 nor does the lack of complete penetration or rupture of the hymen. 55 What
is essential is that there be penetration of the female organ no matter how slight. 56 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.

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 the subdivision road near appellant's
house; 57
(2) At that time, appellant's wife and her step brother and grandmother were not in their house;

58

(3) A bloodstained concrete block was found over the fence of appellant's house, a meter away
from the wall. Bloodstains were also found on the grass nearby and at the pigpen at the back of
appellant's house; 59
(4) The victim sustained bruises and scars indicating that her body had been dragged over a flat
rough surface.60 This supports the thesis that she was thrown over the fence and 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 "B," the probable blood type of the victim. 61 Marianne 's exact blood type
was not determined but her parents had type "A" and type "AB."
which were found to be type "O," appellant's blood type; 63

62

The victim's pants had bloodstains

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

64

(8) For no reason, appellant and his wife left their residence after the incident and were later
found at his parents' house in Barangay Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan; 65
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 and can be traversed in less
than half an hour. 66
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 imposereclusion 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 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.