People v Andan; G.R. No.

116437; 03 Mar 1997; 269 SCRA 95

Published on 29 November 2017 in Legal Chyme by Claudine

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.

FACTS:

Accused-appellant and two other suspects were rounded up in connection with a rape with homicide case. In the presence of the mayor, the police,
representatives of the media and appellant’s own wife and son, appellant confessed his guilt, disclosed how he killed Marianne and volunteered to
show them the place where he hid her bags. The confession was captured on videotape.

ISSUE(S):

Whether or not accused-appellant’s extrajudicial oral confession unassisted by a counsel is admissible in evidence.

RULING:

YES. 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. Appellant’s confession to the mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by
the latter. His confessions to the media were made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer.

Decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant is CONVICTED of the special complex crime of rape with homicide.

PP VS DOMANTAY

this case is here on appeal from the decision

of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City(Branch 57), finding accused-appellant guilty of rape with homicide and sentencing him to death,and to
indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P480,000.00, and to pay the costs

SYNOPSIS

Appellant, 29 years old, was charged with rape with homicide for the death of Jennifer Domantay, a 6-year old girl whose body was found in a
bamboo grove with 38 stab wounds at the back and whose hymen was completely lacerated on the right side, though found fully clothed in blue
shorts and white shirt. The trial court found appellant guilty as charged and was sentenced to death. Conviction was based primarily on the
testimonies of SPO1 Espinoza and Celso Manuel, a radio reporter. SPO1 Espinoza testified that appellant confessed to the killing of Jennifer and
disclosed to him the location of the bayonet used which was submitted as evidence for the prosecution. According to him, appellant waived
assistance of counsel but the waiver was not put in writing nor made in the presence of counsel. On the other hand, Manuel declared that
appellant, in an interview, admitted the brutal killing of Jennifer; that he was just outside the cell when he interviewed appellant accompanied by his
uncle inside the jail, that the nearest policemen were about 2-3 meters from him and that no lawyer assisted appellant during the interview. Also
presented as a witness was Dr. Bandonill, medico-legal expert of the NBI, who testified that it was possible that the lacerations on the victim could
have been caused by something blunt other than the male organ. Raised in this appeal was the admissibility of two confessions made before
SPO1 Espinoza and Manuel which appellant claimed to have been obtained from him in violation of Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution.

The right to counsel of a person under custodial investigation can be waived only in writing and with assistance of counsel and that confessions or
admissions obtained in violation thereof are inadmissible in evidence. However, this prohibition does not apply to confessions or admissions made
to private individuals, such as radio reporters.

Abuse of superior strength is appreciated where the victim, a six-year old child, was assaulted by a fully grown man of 29 years.

A physicians finding, standing alone, that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does not prove rape. It must be corroborated by other
evidence proving carnal knowledge. The prosecution having failed to establish the fact of rape, appellant was found guilty of homicide, not rape
with homicide, with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION; REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY. -- For an extrajudicial confession to be
admissible, it must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. -- In the case at bar, when accused-appellant was brought to the Malasiqui police station in the evening of
October 17, 1996, he was already a suspect, in fact the only one, in the brutal slaying of Jennifer Domantay. He was, therefore, already under
custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed in Art. III, 12 (1) of the Constitution applied to him. xxx But though he waived the assistance of
counsel, the waiver was neither put in writing nor made in the presence of counsel. For this reason, the waiver is invalid and his confession is
inadmissible. SPO1 Espinoza's testimony on the alleged confession of accused-appellant should have been excluded by the trial court. So is the
bayonet inadmissible in evidence, being, as it were, the fruit of the poisonous tree.

3. ID.; ID.; EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION BEFORE RADIO REPORTER, ADMISSIBLE. -- We agree with the Solicitor General, however, that
accused-appellant's confession to the radio reporter, Celso Manuel, is admissible. In People v. Andan, the accused in a rape with homicide case
confessed to the crime during interviews with the media. In holding the confession admissible, despite the fact that the accused gave his answers
without the assistance of counsel, this Court said: [A]ppellant's [oral] 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 primarily addressed to the State and its agents.

4. CRIMINAL LAW; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH; SIX-YEAR OLD CHILD KILLED BY A FULL
GROWN MAN. -- The killing was committed with the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The record shows that the
victim, Jennifer Domantay, was six years old at the time of the killing. She was a child of small build, 46 in height. It is clear then that she could
not have put up much of a defense against accused-appellant's assault, the latter being a fully grown man of 29 years. Indeed, the physical
evidence supports a finding of abuse of superior strength: accused-appellant had a weapon, while the victim was not shown to have had any; there
were 38 stab wounds; and all the knife wounds are located at the back of Jennifer's body.

5. ID.; ID.; CRUELTY; MUST BE DELIBERATELY AND SADISTICALLY AUGMENTED VICTIM'S SUFFERING; NOT CONSIDERED IN CASE AT
BAR. -- But we think the lower court erred in finding that the killing was committed with cruelty. The trial court appears to have been led to this
conclusion by the number of wounds inflicted on the victim. But the number of wounds is not a test for determining whether there was cruelty as
an aggravating circumstance. The test . . . is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim's suffering thus . . . there
must be proof that the victim was made to agonize before the [the accused] rendered the blow which snuffed out [her] life. In this case, there is no
such proof of cruelty. Dr. Bandonill testified that any of the major wounds on the victim's back could have caused her death as they penetrated her
heart, lungs and liver, kidney and intestines.

6. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, NOT ESTABLISHED IN CASE AT BAR. -- As the victim here was six years old, only carnal
knowledge had to be proved to establish rape. Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual bodily
connections with a woman. For this purpose, it is enough if there was even the slightest contact of the male sex organ with the labia of the victim's
genitalia. However, there must be proof, by direct or indirect evidence, of such contact. xxx Even assuming that Jennifer had been raped, there
is no sufficient proof that it was accused-appellant who had raped her. He did not confess to having raped the victim. From the foregoing, we
cannot find that accused-appellant also committed rape. In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must
be established beyond reasonable doubt.

7. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; PHYSICIAN'S FINDINGS THAT HYMEN OF VICTIM WAS LACERATED, DOES NOT PROVE RAPE. -- Hymenal
laceration is not necessary to prove rape; neither does its presence prove its commission. As held in People v. Ulili, a medical certificate or the
testimony of the physician is presented not to prove that the victim was raped but to show that the latter had lost her virginity. Consequently,
standing alone, a physician's finding that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does not prove rape. It is only when this is corroborated
by other evidence proving carnal knowledge that rape may be deemed to have been established.

8. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; ACTUAL DAMAGES; MUST BE DULY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. -- The list of expenses produced by the victim's
father, Jaime Domantay, only totaled P28,430.00. Of this amount, only P12,000.00 was supported by a receipt. Art. 2199 of the Civil Code
provides that a party may recover actual or compensatory damages only for such loss as he has duly proved. Therefore, the award of actual
damages should be reduced to P12,000.00.

9. ID.; ID.; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; RECOVERABLE WHERE CRIME WAS ATTENDED BY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. -- In addition,
the heirs of Jennifer Domantay are entitled to recover exemplary damages in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength. Art. 2230 of the Civil Code provides for the payment of exemplary damages when the crime is committed with one or more
aggravating circumstance. An amount of P25,000.00 is deemed appropriate.

10. ID.; DAMAGES; INDEMNITY AND MORAL DAMAGES AT P50,000.00 EACH. -- In accordance with our rulings in People v. Robles and People
v. Mengote, the indemnity should be fixed at P50,000.00 and the moral damages at P50,000.00.