The name “Pablito Andan” occupies a notable place in the Philippine criminal jurisprudence as one of the few individuals whose conviction ultimately resulted in the imposition and execution of the supreme penalty of death in recent years. He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the heinous crime of rape with homicide committed against a young nursing student in 1994. The case became significant in Philippine jurisprudence as it discussed the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions and constitutional rights during custodial investigation.
In a decision dated 4 August 1994, the trial court convicted appellant and sentenced him to death pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659. The trial court based its decision, among others, on the testimonies of four (4) news reporters to whom appellant gave his extrajudicial oral confessions. The court a quo also used as basis photographs and video footages from the media of Pablito’s confessions and reenactments of the commission of the crime. In his defense,
Pablito contended the testimonies of the news reporters were in admissible because they were made during custodial investigation and without the assistance of counsel citing Section 12, paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution which states: 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. xxx (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
In the case of People of the Philippines vs Pablito Andan[1], the Honorable Supreme Court, in upholding the admissibility of the confessions made by the accused to media personnel, lengthily discussed:
“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 and are admissible in evidence.
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. Orlan Mauricio, a reporter for “Tell the People” on Channel 9 also interviewed appellant on February 25, 1994. Journalist Berteni Causing of “People’s Journal Tonite” likewise covered the proceedings for three (3) successive days.
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. 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. 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. 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. Governmental 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.”
Just to add, in the same case, the Supreme Court also ruled that Pablito’s voluntarily confession before the mayor is likewise admissible, to wit:
“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 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. 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. 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. 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. Hence, we hold that appellant’s confession to the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial court.”[2]
[1] G.R. No. 116437 March 3, 1997
[2] Idem