Case Summary (G.R. No. 116437)
Key Dates
Crime: February 19, 1994 (date when AAA was last seen and when the assault/rape allegedly occurred).
Body discovered: February 20, 1994.
Arrest/custodial events: appellant located February 24, 1994 and interrogated thereafter; confessions and media interviews occurred between February 24–27, 1994.
Trial court decision: August 4, 1994.
Supreme Court decision under review: affirming conviction (case subject to automatic review under RA 7659).
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution — specifically Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) (right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel; inadmissibility of confessions obtained in violation).
Statute defining penalty and automatic review: Republic Act No. 7659 (death penalty law, amending Article 335 and Article 83/47 matters).
Evidentiary doctrine applied: exclusionary rule for custodial confessions and the doctrine distinguishing custodial, elicited statements from spontaneous or voluntarily offered admissions to private persons or the media; rule that fruits of an unconstitutional confession are tainted and inadmissible.
Factual Background of the Alleged Offense
AAA left home on February 19, 1994 to go to her school dormitory and prepare for exams. She was carrying clothing and over P2,000. While walking near appellant’s residence, appellant purportedly invited her inside under the pretext of checking an elderly relative’s blood pressure. The prosecution’s version is that appellant then struck her, raped her, rendered her unconscious, left her in an old toilet, and later moved and assaulted her again—striking her with a concrete hollow block and abandoning her body over the house fence into a vacant lot. The next morning AAA’s body was found naked from the chest down and with signs of trauma.
Physical and Forensic Evidence Recovered
At the scene and from appellant’s residence investigators recovered: a bloodstained broken piece of concrete block; denim pants and shoes identified as belonging to AAA; a panty with a sanitary napkin near the body; bloodstains on the pigpen wall at appellant’s backyard; appellant’s clothing (shorts, towel, T-shirt) with reddish-brown stains found in the laundry hamper and alleged to belong to appellant; two bags later identified as AAA’s recovered from beneath a flower pot in an old toilet (recovered after appellant directed police to their location). Laboratory testing showed mixed results on blood typing: some stains yielded blood type B (probable victim), other stains yielded type O (appellant’s alleged blood type); the victim’s exact blood type was not determined, though her parents’ blood types were A and AB.
Autopsy and Medical Evidence on Rape and Cause of Death
First autopsy (Provincial Health Office) reported traumatic injuries and absence of spermatozoa and no recent physical injuries to the hymen; minimal blood was noted in the external genitalia. Cause of death: cardiorespiratory arrest due to cerebral contusions from facial traumatic injuries. A second autopsy (NBI medico-legal officer) found fresh lacerations of the hymen at approximately 3 and 6 o’clock with clotted blood at the edges, which the second pathologist opined were fresh and consistent with forcible insertion of an object or penetration while the victim was still alive. The absence of spermatozoa was acknowledged, but the court accepted that absence of sperm alone does not negate rape where penetration, even slight, is established by other findings.
Arrest, Custodial Interrogation, and Initial Confession to Police
Police, having identified appellant as a prime suspect based on location and bloodstains, went to his parents’ house and brought him to the police headquarters. During interrogation at the police station appellant initially denied involvement but later, when confronted with physical items (concrete block, victim’s clothes, pigpen bloodstains), he implicated two neighbors and claimed to be a lookout. The police then brought appellant back to his house where, at the old toilet, appellant retrieved and produced two bags identified as the victim’s. Appellant was later interrogated at the police station and, according to prosecution witnesses, made statements confessing guilt. The trial court admitted the testimonies of police officers, journalists, and the mayor recounting appellant’s extrajudicial confessions as part of the evidence.
Constitutional Analysis: Custodial Confessions and Exclusionary Rule
Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees suspects under investigation the rights to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel; such rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. The Court recognized that these protections apply when investigation has focused on a particular person and that custodial interrogation creates a setting highly susceptible to coercion. The Supreme Court concluded that appellant was under custodial investigation when interrogated by the police and that police failed to inform him of his rights; accordingly, any confession or admission obtained in violation of Section 12 is inadmissible. The Court further applied the doctrine that tangible items recovered as a direct product of an uncounselled custodial confession (here, the two bags) are tainted and inadmissible as fruits of the poisonous tree.
Distinction: Spontaneous Confession to the Mayor and Admissions to Reporters
The Court drew a distinction between statements elicited by police during custodial interrogation and spontaneous admissions voluntarily offered to private persons or to the press. Appellant approached the mayor and requested a private conversation during which he spontaneously declared that he killed the victim; the mayor did not interrogate or coerce him. The Court found that because the mayor acted as a confidant and not as an interrogating law enforcement agent, the mayor’s testimony about the unsolicited admission was admissible. Similarly, the Court held that confessions and reenactments given to news reporters, after the reporters secured the appellant’s permission and conducted interviews (including videotaped segments), were voluntary and admissible because journalists are private actors and their questioning did not constitute state coercion under the Bill of Rights. The Court emphasized that constitutional protections against compelled self-incrimination regulate State action, not private interactions.
Evidentiary Assessment of the Rape Element
The medical evidence from the re-autopsy, specifically fresh hymenal lacerations with clotted blood, was accepted as proof of penetration and therefore of rape, notwithstanding the negative test for spermatozoa. The Court reiterated that penetration, however slight, is the essential element of rape and that lack of sperm or incomplete rupture of the hymen does not automatically negate the crime when other forensic indicators of penetration exist. The Court also considered the second autopsy’s finding that the bleeding at the laceration edges could only occur if the injuries were inflicted while the victim was still alive, supporting the prosecution’s account of sexual assault preceding death.
Corroborating Circumstantial Evidence
Beyond the admissible confessions (to the mayor and to reporters), the Court found multiple corroborating circumstantial facts supporting guilt: the victim was last seen near appellant’s house; physical evidence (bloodstained concrete block, victim’s clothing, bloodstains at pigpen and on appellant’s clothing/towel) linked appellant’s premises and belongings to the crime; appellant bore unexplained scratches and abrasions; appellant and his wife left their residence abruptly after the incident; the victim’s body showed signs consistent with being lifted over the fence and dragged. The Court weighed blood-typing results, observed bruises indicating dragging, and appellant’s flight from the scene as cumulatively establishing a strong nexus between appellant and the crime.
Appellant’s Alibi and Defense Claims
Ap
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 116437)
Procedural Posture
- En banc decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997 (336 Phil. 91).
- Case is before the Court on automatic review pursuant to Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Trial court (Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan) convicted accused-appellant Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias "Bobby" of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death under R.A. No. 7659; ordered civil indemnity, burial expenses and moral damages.
- Two members of the Supreme Court voted for reclusion perpetua instead of death. The majority affirmed the trial court's conviction and death sentence.
Parties
- Plaintiff-Appellee: The People of the Philippines.
- Accused-Appellant: Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias "Bobby".
- Victim: Identified in the records only as "AAA", a 20-year-old second-year student preparing for final examinations.
- Other persons appearing in the record: appellant's wife, son, stepbrother Romano Calma, neighbors Gilbert Larin and Reynaldo Dizon, Mayor xxx, various police officers, municipal health officer and medico-legal officers, and several media reporters.
Charged Offense and Information
- Accused was charged by Information dated March 11, 1994 with the special complex crime of rape with homicide allegedly committed on or about February 19, 1994 in the municipality and province indicated in the Information.
- Allegations: appellant, with lewd design by means of violence and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will and without her consent; to suppress evidence and delay identification, he intentionally attacked and hit AAA with concrete hollow blocks in her face and body with intent to kill, inflicting mortal wounds that directly caused her death.
- The Information invoked Section 11, paragraph 8 of R.A. No. 7659 (classifying the offense among heinous crimes).
Factual Narrative (Prosecution Version)
- On February 19, 1994 at about 4:00 P.M., AAA left home for her school dormitory to prepare for final exams, carrying two bags containing school uniforms, personal effects and more than P2,000.00 in cash; she wore a striped blouse and faded denim pants.
- While walking along the subdivision, appellant invited AAA into his house under the pretext of taking the blood pressure of his wife's grandmother (who was actually not present); AAA agreed as the old woman was a distant relative.
- Appellant punched AAA in the abdomen, brought her to the kitchen and raped her; after assault he dragged the unconscious girl to an old toilet at the back of the house and left her there until dark.
- That night appellant pulled the still-unconscious AAA to the backyard, stood on a bench beside the pigpen, lifted and draped her body over a six-foot concrete fence to transfer it to a vacant lot; when she moved, he struck her head and face with a piece of concrete block until silence ensued; he then pulled the body over, dragged it to a shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it.
- AAA’s body was found the next day, February 20, 1994 at 11:00 A.M., naked from the chest down with brassiere and T-shirt pulled toward her neck; a panty with a sanitary napkin was found nearby.
- Police searching the scene recovered a broken piece of concrete block stained with what appeared to be blood, AAA's denim pants and a pair of shoes identified as hers.
- Police searched appellant’s nearby house and found bloodstains on the pigpen wall; Romano Calma reported that appellant, his wife and son had left without word; Calma surrendered pornographic pictures, a pair of wet short pants with reddish-brown stain, a towel with stain and a wet T‑shirt found in the laundry hamper said to belong to appellant.
- Appellant was located at his parents’ house on February 24, 1994 at about 11:00 P.M., brought to police headquarters and initially denied knowledge of AAA’s death.
- When confronted with the concrete block, victim’s clothes and pigpen bloodstains, appellant at first blamed neighbors Larin and Dizon and said he was a lookout and that they hid AAA's two bags.
- At the house, with Larin and Dizon present, appellant retrieved two bags from under an old toilet flower pot at the canal site; photographs were taken of appellant and the two suspects holding the bags.
- Appellant sustained multiple scratches and abrasions noted in a physical examination by the Municipal Health Officer on February 25, 1994 (scratches on the right side of the neck; abrasions on chest and back; freshly-healed wound on left index finger 1.5 cm).
- Appellant, in the presence of the mayor, police, media and his wife and son, spontaneously requested a private talk with the mayor and twice confessed orally and publicly that he killed AAA; the mayor opened the door for the public and the confession was photographed and videotaped.
- Appellant reiterated his confession in videotaped interviews with several news reporters on February 25–27, 1994 and reenacted aspects of the crime at the scene; the media coverage and videotapes were presented at trial.
- Appellant later pleaded "not guilty" at arraignment and offered an alibi claiming presence at his parents’ house and attendance at a nephew's birthday party on the day of the crime; he also later alleged police coercion and torture at a hotel and at the police station to extract a confession.
Physical and Forensic Evidence
- Autopsy by Dr. xxx (Bulacan Provincial Hospital) found multiple abrasions, abrasions/contusions at temple, right cheek, jaws, breasts, abdomen, elbow joints; hematomas of eyelids, temple and jaws; lacerated wounds of eyebrow and face; fractures of maxillary bone (right) and multiple mandible fractures (right) with avulsion of incisors; cerebral contusions inferior surface temporal and frontal lobes (right).
- External genitalia: minimal blood present; no signs of recent physical injuries on labia, introitus and exposed vaginal wall in the first autopsy; laboratory smear from vaginal cavity negative for spermatozoa (Bulacan Provincial Hospital, Feb. 22, 1994).
- Cause of death in first autopsy: Cardiorespiratory arrest due to cerebral contusions due to traumatic injuries, face.
- Second autopsy (re-autopsy) by NBI medico-legal officer Dr. xxx (March 1, 1994) found absence of spermatozoa but disclosed that the hymen was contracted, tall, thin with fresh lacerations with clotted blood at 6 and 3 o'clock positions corresponding to the walls of the clock; these lacerations were characterized as fresh and possibly caused by forcible insertion of an object while the victim was still alive, indicating possible penetration.
- Evidence recovered at or near the scene included the broken concrete block with apparent bloodstain, victim’s denim pants and shoes; at appellant’s house police found bloodstains on pigpen wall and clothing with reddish-brown stains and towel said to belong to appellant.
- Laboratory testing: towels and T-shirt stains were positive for presence of blood type "B" (probable blood type of the victim); victim’s exact blood type not determined though her parents had types "A" and "AB"; victim’s pants had bloodstains of type "O", the appellant’s blood type.
- Observed bruises and scars on AAA indicated dragging over flat rough surface, supporting theory of being thrown over fence and dragged.
Evidence of Extrajudicial Confessions and Recovery of Bags
- Appellant made several oral confessions:
- Initial uncounselled confession at police station after arrest, when confronted with physical evidence, wherein he admitted being the culprit or implicated others then changed story.
- Spontaneous confession(s) to Mayor xxx in Mayor’s office, first privately and then repeated in the presence of media; the mayor allowed public viewing and had the confession photographed/videotaped. The mayor testified to two admissions (one private, one before media).
- Multiple televised and recorded interviews with reporters (Channel 7 "Eye to Eye", Channel 9 "Tell the People" and others) where appellant, voluntarily and on videotape, admitted raping and killing AAA, described details and reenacted aspects of the crime; reporters testified they obtained appellant’s permission and that no coercion by police was evident during their interviews.
- Recovery of the two bags: police testimony indicated the bags were located after appellant pointed out where he had hidden them at the old toilet under the flower pot; police proceeded with the accused to that place and appellant removed the broken pots and showed where the bags were hidden. The prosecution characterized the bags as identified as belonging to AAA and admitted photographs of appellant and the suspects holding the bags.