[119] PEOPLE v.
ANDAN  After his confession, appellant hugged his wife and son and asked the mayor to help
G.R. No. 116437; March 03, 1997; 269 SCRA 95
TOPIC: [6.0] Arrest > [6.5] Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained, or Under Custodial
Investigation; Duties of Pubic Officers
SUMMARY: 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. TC convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. SC held that the extrajudicial
oral confession unassisted by a counsel is admissible in evidence [see doctrine].
DOCTRINE
 What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or
confessions.
o The rights under Sec. 12 thereof 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.
o Hence we hold that appellant's confession to the mayor was correctly
admitted by the trial court.
RELEVANT PROVISION(S)
FACTS
 Pablito Andan alias "Bobby" was accused of the crime of rape with homicide.
o The offense was committed on February 19, 1994 in Baliuag, Bulacan; the
victim being Marianne Guevarra, 22 and a 2nd year student at the Fatima
School of Nursing.
o The autopsy revealed that she died of "traumatic injuries."
 Marianne's gruesome death drew public attention and prompted Baliuag Mayor Cornelio
Trinidad to form an investigation team.
 On February 24, a police team led by Mayor Trinidad traced appellant in his parents'
house.
o They took him and brought him to the police headquarters where he was
interrogated.
o Initially, he denied any knowledge of Marianne's death. However, when the
police confronted him with evidence, appellant relented but implicated two of
his neighbours, and that he was merely a lookout.
 Upon seeing the mayor, appellant approached him and whispered that they talk
privately.
o The mayor led him to the office of the Chief of Police and there, he broke
down and said "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I will tell you the truth. I am the
one who killed Marianne."
o The mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and media
representatives witness the confession.
 Since no lawyer was available he ordered the proceedings photographed and
videotaped.
o In the presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media and
appellant's own wife and son, appellant confessed his guilt.
o He asked for forgiveness from Larin and Dizon whom he falsely implicated
saying he did it because of ill-feelings against them.
o He also said that the devil entered his mind because of the pornographic
magazines and tabloid he read almost every day.
him.
o His confession was captured on videotape and covered by the media
nationwide.
 On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty."
o He testified that on said date he was at his parent's house for the birthday
party of his nephew.
o Appellant claimed that after he was picked up by the police on February 24,
he was coerced to confess that he raped and killed Marianne.
o Fearing for his life, appellant did as he was told.
 TC convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. He was found guilty of the
crime charged in the Information (Rape with Homicide) and penalized accordingly.
o Hence, the automatic review.
ISSUE(S)/HELD
Whether or not accused-appellant’s extrajudicial oral confession unassisted by a counsel
is admissible in evidence. – YES
 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
Sec.12(1) & (3) of Art. III of the Constitution.
o However, appellant's confession to the mayor was not made in response to
any interrogation by the latter.
o 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 uncounseled confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights.
o 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.
o The rights under Sec. 12 thereof 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.
o 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.
o The confessions were made in response to questions by news reporters, not
by the police or any other investigating officer. The Court held that statements
spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview
are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence.
o The Court therefore held accused-appellant Pablito Andan guilty of the
special complex crime of rape with homicide.
RULING
DISPOSITIVE: