CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PABLITO ANDAN. G.R. No. 116437. March 3, 1997

FACTS:

Respondent in this case was charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide against the person of one Marianne Guevarra, a nursing student at Fatima School of Nursing against her will and without her consent at his house in Baliuag Bulacan. In order to suppress evidence against him and delay the identity of the victim, he attack, assault and hit the 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. Her body was found the following day near the house of the suspect. She was naked from the chest down with her brassiere and T-shirt pulled toward her neck.

Her 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. Respondent's nearby house was searched by the police and found evidences of blood stains on the wall of the pigpen in his backyard, a pair of wet short pants with some reddish brown stain, a towel with a stain and a wet T-shirt.

Respondent was then arrested by the police and brought him to the police headquarters where he was interrogated. Initially, respondent denied the accusations and dropping other names as the perpetrators. He also said that he was merely a look out but he knows where the bags of Marianne were hidden. He assisted the police in retrieving the bags of Marianne. 

The following day, the people and media representatives were already gathered at the police headquarters awaiting the results of the investigation. Mayor Trinidad also arrived and proceeded in the investigation room. Respondent approached the Mayor and whispered a request that they talk privately. They talked in the Office of the Chief of Police where the respondent broke down and confessed that he killed Marianne. Mayor Trinidad then open the door for the media and public to witness his confession. After that, series of interviews were conducted by different media representatives which were all consented and willingly participated by the respondent. He even re-enacted the crime to some of his interviews which were broadcasted in the television. Apparently, these media footages were used by the prosecution as evidences against the respondent. Mayor Trinidad also testified in the court regarding the confession he received from the respondent. 

Respondent on arraignment, however pleaded not guilty. He claimed that the police coerced him to confess and claim the commission of the crime.

ISSUE:

Whether the extrajudicial confession made by respondent to Mayor Trinidad and the media were inadmissible and a violation of his right under custodial investigation.

RULING:

No. Although at the time that the accused was brought to the headquarters was already under custodial investigation because the police already focused on him as the suspect of the crime, his confession made to the Mayor and to the public is admissible and valid in all circumstances.

It is true that a Municipal Mayor has "operational supervision and control" over the local police and be considered a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Constitutional provisions for custodial investigation. However, respondent's confession to the Mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the latter. It is the respondent himself who spontaneously, freely, and voluntarily approached the Mayor for a private talk and confessed to him. The Mayor has also no idea that the respondent was going to confess his guilt to him. When respondent confessed to him as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounseled confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights. The constitution bars those compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. 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 respondent orally admitted having committed the crime.

The confession made to the media were likewise admissible. The confession made by the respondent in this case was made in response to a questions asked by news reporters and not by the police officers or any other investigating officer. It is also shown that his statements and interviews with the media are done with his consent. He willingly and openly participated in those interviews in the presence of the public and his family, which negates his claims that it is done under the influence of the police authorities. Moreover, interviews conducted with news reporters are not part of custodial investigation because those media men are private private individual and not the State and its agents or in other words they are not law enforcement officers.