People vs. Domantay

An extrajudicial confession to a media practitioner is admissible without the assistance of counsel, as the constitutional guarantees under Article III, Section 12 apply only to custodial investigation conducted by the State or its agents, not to private interviews; however, a confession to law enforcement officers is inadmissible where the waiver of the right to counsel is neither in writing nor made in the presence of counsel, and evidence derived therefrom is excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must each be proven beyond reasonable doubt; a hymenal laceration, standing alone, does not prove rape, as it may be caused by objects other than the male sex organ.

Bernardino Domantay, alias "Junior Otot," was a cousin of the victim's grandfather and worked as a janitor at the Malasiqui Municipal Hall in Pangasinan. The victim, six-year-old Jennifer Domantay, was his relative within the same extended Domantay family in Barangay Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan. The case was prosecuted under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which prescribed the death penalty for rape with homicide where the victim was under eighteen years of age.

On the afternoon of October 17, 1996, at around four o'clock, the body of six-year-old Jennifer Domantay was found sprawled amidst a bamboo grove in Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan. The child, who had been missing since lunchtime, bore several stab wounds. A medical examination conducted the following day by Dr. Ma. Fe Leticia Macaranas, the rural health physician of Malasiqui, revealed that Jennifer died of multiple organ failure and hypovolemic shock secondary to thirty-eight stab wounds at the back. Dr. Macaranas found no lacerations or signs of inflammation of the outer and inner labia and the vaginal walls, although the vaginal canal easily admitted the little finger with minimal resistance. Noting possible acts of lasciviousness, she recommended an autopsy by an NBI medico-legal expert.

Earlier that day, at around one o'clock in the afternoon, Bernardino Domantay was bathing his pigs outside the house of his brother-in-law Daudencio Macasaeb in Guilig. Daudencio was having drinks in front of his house, joined by Edward Domantay and a certain Jaime Caballero. According to Edward's testimony, after the group consumed several bottles of gin, accused-appellant rolled up his shirt, revealing a bayonet tucked in his waistline, and declared in Pangasinense that there would be a massacre in Guilig. Accused-appellant denied joining the drinking session and denied making any such statement. At about two o'clock in the afternoon, ten-year-old Jiezl Domantay saw accused-appellant and Jennifer walking toward the bamboo grove of Amparo Domantay, where the body was later found; accused-appellant was about two meters ahead of the child. Lorenzo Domantay, a relative, corroborated this, testifying that on his way to his farm that same afternoon, he saw accused-appellant standing about thirty meters away at the spot in the bamboo grove where the body was found, appearing restless and worried. Accused-appellant acknowledged passing by the trail beside the bamboo grove on his way to Alacan but denied knowing that Jennifer was following him.

In Alacan, accused-appellant flagged down tricycle driver Joselito Mejia and pleaded to be taken to Malasiqui at once. Mejia noticed that accused-appellant was nervous and afraid. Instead of proceeding to the town proper, accused-appellant alighted near the Mormon church, just outside Malasiqui, to meet his brother. When his brother did not appear, he proceeded to town and reported for work at the municipal hall. That evening, while at the Malasiqui public market, he was picked up by three police officers without a warrant of arrest and brought to the police station, where SPO1 Antonio Espinoza interrogated him regarding the killing. SPO1 Espinoza apprised accused-appellant of his constitutional rights in English, later translated into Pangasinense, but accused-appellant agreed to answer questions even without counsel. He admitted killing Jennifer and disclosed that he had given the bayonet to his aunt and uncle, Elsa and Jorge Casingal, in Bayambang, Pangasinan. The next day, the bayonet was recovered from the Casingal spouses' tricycle. At no time during the questioning was accused-appellant assisted by counsel, nor was his confession reduced to writing. On October 23, 1996, radio reporter Celso Manuel of station DWPR interviewed accused-appellant inside the municipal jail, presenting his media identification card. Without counsel present, accused-appellant admitted to the killing, expressed willingness to accept the consequences, and claimed the motive was a boundary dispute. Accused-appellant denied confessing to either Espinoza or Manuel.

On October 25, 1996, NBI medico-legal expert Dr. Ronald Bandonill performed an autopsy on the embalmed body. He confirmed that death resulted from numerous stab wounds on the back, averaging six inches in depth, probably caused by a pointed sharp-edged instrument. He also noted contusions on the forehead, neck, and breast bone. As to the genital examination, he found a complete laceration on the right side of the hymen, with signs of inflammation in the surrounding area, and opined that the laceration was inflicted within twenty-four hours of death. His report stated that the findings indicated "the probability of penetration of that area by a hard, rigid instrument." On cross-examination, Dr. Bandonill acknowledged that the laceration could have been caused by a hard blunt instrument other than the male organ, and that a dagger would have produced an incision rather than a laceration. The victim was found fully clothed in blue shorts and a white shirt, with a large bloodstain on the back portion of her shorts.

• Inadmissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions: Accused-appellant contended that his alleged confessions to SPO1 Antonio Espinoza and Celso Manuel were inadmissible because they had been obtained in violation of Article III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution, which requires that any waiver of the right to counsel be in writing and in the presence of counsel.
• Insufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: With the confessions excluded, accused-appellant argued that the remaining circumstantial evidence was inadequate to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Intimidating Atmosphere for Media Interview: Accused-appellant claimed that the atmosphere inside the jail when interviewed by radio reporter Celso Manuel was "tense and intimidating" and similar to that prevailing during custodial investigation, rendering the confession involuntary.
• Possible Police Collusion with Media: Accused-appellant contended that it was not improbable for police investigators to have asked the radio reporter to elicit incriminating information from him.
• Improbability of Silent Killing: Accused-appellant argued that it was improbable for a brutal killing to have been committed without the children playing about eight to ten meters from the bamboo grove having heard any commotion.
• Contradictory Witness Testimonies: Accused-appellant asserted that the testimony of Jiezl Domantay contradicted that of Lorenzo Domantay, as Jiezl said she saw accused-appellant walking toward the bamboo grove while Lorenzo said he saw him standing near it, both at around two o'clock in the afternoon.

• Admissibility of Media Confession: The Solicitor General argued that accused-appellant's confession to radio reporter Celso Manuel was admissible, citing People vs. Andan, which held that confessions to newsmen are not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution because the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the State, not between private individuals.

• Admissibility of Police Confession: Whether the extrajudicial confession made by accused-appellant to SPO1 Antonio Espinoza without the assistance of counsel and without a written waiver is admissible in evidence.
• Admissibility of Media Confession: Whether the extrajudicial confession made by accused-appellant to radio reporter Celso Manuel without the assistance of counsel is admissible in evidence.
• Admissibility of the Bayonet: Whether the bayonet recovered pursuant to the inadmissible police confession is admissible as evidence.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: Whether the prosecution established the rape component of the special complex crime of rape with homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Homicide: Whether the prosecution established the killing beyond reasonable doubt.
• Presence of Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the killing was committed with abuse of superior strength and with cruelty as aggravating circumstances.
• Propriety of Damages Award: Whether the trial court's award of damages was proper in amount and in kind.

• Admissibility of Police Confession: No. The confession was inadmissible because the waiver of the right to counsel was neither put in writing nor made in the presence of counsel, as required by Article III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution.
• Admissibility of Media Confession: Yes. Confessions to media practitioners are not covered by Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights governing only the relationship between the individual and the State, not between private individuals.
• Admissibility of the Bayonet: No. The bayonet was inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree," having been recovered pursuant to the inadmissible uncounseled confession to police.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: No. The hymenal laceration, standing alone, did not prove rape, as it could have been caused by a hard blunt instrument other than the male sex organ, and no circumstantial evidence of sexual assault was presented.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Homicide: Yes. The admissible media confession, corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti and circumstantial evidence from prosecution witnesses, established the killing beyond reasonable doubt.
• Presence of Aggravating Circumstances: Abuse of superior strength was present; cruelty was not. The victim was a six-year-old child of small build, unable to defend herself against a fully grown man armed with a bayonet, but there was no proof that the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim's suffering.
• Propriety of Damages Award: Modified. Actual damages were reduced to P12,000.00, only the receipted amount being recoverable; exemplary damages of P25,000.00 were awarded due to the aggravating circumstance; indemnity and moral damages were each fixed at P50,000.00.

• Admissibility of Police Confession: When accused-appellant was brought to the Malasiqui police station on the evening of October 17, 1996, he was already the lone suspect in the killing and was therefore under custodial investigation, triggering the rights guaranteed under Article III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution. SPO1 Espinoza apprised accused-appellant of his rights, and accused-appellant agreed to cooperate even without counsel. However, the waiver of the right to counsel was neither reduced to writing nor made in the presence of counsel, failing the constitutional requirement that these rights "cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel." The waiver was thus invalid and the confession inadmissible. The four requisites for admissibility of an extrajudicial confession — voluntariness, assistance of competent and independent counsel, expressness, and being in writing — were not satisfied.

• Admissibility of Media Confession: The confession to radio reporter Celso Manuel was admissible. Pursuant to People vs. Andan, confessions to newsmen are not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution because the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the State, not between private individuals. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and its agents. Accused-appellant was interviewed inside his cell, the interviewer stayed outside, and the only other person present was an uncle of the victim. Accused-appellant could have refused the interview but agreed and answered freely and spontaneously. The presence of police officers about two to three meters away did not exert undue pressure. There was no evidence that Manuel was acting for the police or that the confession was extracted out of fear. The interview was conducted six days after the initial police confession, and the media are known to take a stance against government wrongdoing rather than serve as its agents.

• Admissibility of the Bayonet: The bayonet was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. Under the doctrine explained in People vs. Alicando, once the primary source is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence derived from it is also inadmissible. The bayonet was recovered solely on the basis of accused-appellant's inadmissible confession to SPO1 Espinoza, and the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all subsequently obtained evidence.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape: Although the victim was six years old and only carnal knowledge needed to be proved to establish rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, there must still be proof, direct or indirect, of contact between the male sex organ and the labia of the victim's genitalia. Dr. Bandonill's finding of a complete laceration on the right side of the hymen, standing alone, did not prove rape. A hymenal tear may be caused by objects other than the male sex organ or may arise from other causes, a medically accepted fact that Dr. Bandonill himself acknowledged. He testified that the laceration could have been caused by a hard blunt instrument other than the male organ, and that a dagger would have produced an incision, not a laceration. Unlike prior cases where rape with homicide was sustained on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution here presented no tell-tale signs of rape such as the location and description of the victim's undergarments, the position of the body, spermatozoa in the vaginal canal, or the accused zipping up his pants. The victim was found fully clothed with a large bloodstain on the back of her shorts, which was inconsistent with the hypothesis that her garments had been pulled down for rape and then pulled back up. All stab wounds were located at the back, whereas in rape cases external injuries are usually found on the face, neck, and anterior portion of the body. In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt; rape having not been proven, the conviction could not stand for the complex crime.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Homicide: The admissible confession to Celso Manuel was corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, namely the fact of death of Jennifer Domantay, as required by Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. The circumstantial evidence from other prosecution witnesses dovetailed with the confession: accused-appellant was seen walking toward the bamboo grove followed by the victim, and was later seen standing near the grove where the body was found, appearing nervous. The testimonies of Jiezl and Lorenzo Domantay, rather than contradicting each other, confirmed what each saw at around the same approximate time. Both were surnamed Domantay and had no apparent motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant. The argument that children playing nearby would have heard a commotion was without merit, as accused-appellant could have covered the child's mouth or rendered her unconscious — Dr. Bandonill noted a five-by-two-inch contusion on the left side of the forehead consistent with impact against the ground or a hard blunt instrument.

• Presence of Aggravating Circumstances: Abuse of superior strength was established. The victim was six years old, forty-six inches in height, and of small build, unable to put up any defense against a fully grown twenty-nine-year-old man. The physical evidence supported this finding: accused-appellant had a weapon while the victim had none; there were thirty-eight stab wounds; and all knife wounds were located at the back. Cruelty, however, was not proven. The number of wounds is not the test for cruelty; the test is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim's suffering, requiring proof that the victim was made to agonize before the fatal blow. Dr. Bandonill testified that any of the major wounds could have caused death as they penetrated the heart, lungs, liver, kidney, and intestines, and there was no evidence of deliberate prolongation of suffering.

• Propriety of Damages Award: The trial court awarded P30,000.00 as actual damages, but the list of expenses totaled only P28,430.00, of which only P12,000.00 was supported by a receipt. Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, actual or compensatory damages may be recovered only for such loss as is duly proved, warranting reduction to P12,000.00. Exemplary damages of P25,000.00 were appropriate under Article 2230 of the Civil Code due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, indemnity was fixed at P50,000.00 and moral damages at P50,000.00.

• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree — Once the primary source of evidence (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. Illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed but equally inadmissible. Applied to exclude the bayonet recovered pursuant to accused-appellant's inadmissible uncounseled confession to police.

• Requisites for Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions — An extrajudicial confession must satisfy four 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. The police confession failed these requisites because the waiver of counsel was neither written nor made in the presence of counsel.

• Media Confessions Not Covered by Constitutional Custodial Investigation Guarantees — The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between private individuals; it governs the relationship between the individual and the State. Confessions to media practitioners are admissible without counsel because the constitutional prohibitions under Article III, Section 12 are primarily addressed to the State and its agents, not to private interviewers.

• Hymenal Laceration Alone Does Not Prove Rape — A physician's finding that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does not, standing alone, prove rape. A hymenal tear may be caused by objects other than the male sex organ or may arise from other causes. Rape is established only when hymenal laceration is corroborated by other evidence proving carnal knowledge.

• Cruelty as an Aggravating Circumstance — The test for cruelty is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim's suffering; there must be proof that the victim was made to agonize before the accused rendered the blow which snuffed out her life. The number of wounds inflicted is not the test for determining whether cruelty attended the killing.

• Abuse of Superior Strength — This aggravating circumstance is present where there is a notorious inequality of forces between the offender and the victim, rendering the latter unable to defend herself. Here, the victim was a six-year-old child of small build, unarmed, attacked by a fully grown man with a bayonet, with all thirty-eight stab wounds located at the back.

• Corpus Delicti Requirement for Extrajudicial Confessions — Under Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, an extrajudicial confession is not sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. The confession to the radio reporter was corroborated by the fact of the victim's death and by circumstantial evidence from other witnesses.

• "[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 are primarily addressed to the State and its agents." — This passage, quoting People vs. Andan, establishes the doctrinal basis for admitting confessions made to media practitioners without counsel, distinguishing private interviews from state-conducted custodial investigation.

• "According to this rule, once the primary source (the 'tree') is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the 'fruit') derived from it is also inadmissible." — This passage, quoting People vs. Alicando, articulates the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine as applied to exclude the bayonet recovered through the inadmissible police confession.

• "In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt." — This statement defines the standard of proof for each component of the special complex crime, explaining why the conviction was reduced from rape with homicide to homicide alone.

• "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." — This passage formulates the controlling test for cruelty as an aggravating circumstance, distinguishing it from the mere number of wounds inflicted.

• People vs. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997) — Controlling precedent followed. Held that confessions to newsmen are admissible without counsel because the Bill of Rights governs only state-individual relations. Applied to uphold the admissibility of accused-appellant's confession to radio reporter Celso Manuel.

• People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995) — Followed. Articulated the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Applied to exclude the bayonet recovered pursuant to the inadmissible police confession.

• People vs. Macalino, 209 SCRA 788 (1992) — Distinguished. Affirmed a rape conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence including the mother finding the appellant buttoning his pants beside the child and sticky fluid on the child's buttocks. Distinguished from the present case, where no comparable tell-tale signs of rape were present.

• People vs. Ulili, 225 SCRA 594 (1993) — Followed. Held that a medical certificate or physician's testimony is presented not to prove rape but to show loss of virginity, and that hymenal laceration standing alone does not prove rape. Applied to reject the rape component of the charge.

• People vs. Robles, G.R. No. 124300, March 25, 1999 — Followed. Basis for fixing indemnity at P50,000.00.

• People vs. Mengote, G.R. No. 130491, March 25, 1999 — Followed. Basis for fixing moral damages at P50,000.00.

• Article III, Section 12(1) and (3), 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of any person under investigation for the commission of an offense to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, and provides that any confession obtained in violation thereof is inadmissible in evidence. Applied to exclude the police confession for failure to comply with the written-waiver-in-the-presence-of-counsel requirement; held inapplicable to the media confession.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes rape, including rape with homicide. The trial court convicted under this provision; the Supreme Court found the rape component unproven and convicted instead under Article 249 for homicide.

• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes homicide with reclusion temporal. Applied to convict accused-appellant of homicide, the killing having been proven but the rape not.

• Article 2199, Civil Code — Provides that a party may recover actual or compensatory damages only for such loss as he has duly proved. Applied to reduce the award of actual damages from P30,000.00 to P12,000.00, the only receipted amount.

• Article 2230, Civil Code — Provides for the payment of exemplary damages when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Applied to award P25,000.00 in exemplary damages due to the presence of abuse of superior strength.

• Rule 133, Sections 3 and 4, Revised Rules on Evidence — Provides that an extrajudicial confession shall not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Applied to uphold the homicide conviction based on the media confession corroborated by the fact of death and circumstantial evidence.

• Republic Act No. 7438 — Extends the constitutional guarantee of rights during custodial investigation to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been "invited" for questioning. Cited in support of the finding that accused-appellant was under custodial investigation when questioned by police.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concurred. Purisima and Buena, JJ., took no part in the deliberations.