ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 129286.February 1, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. BANTILAN

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 1 2000 .

G.R. No. 129286(People of the Philippines vs. Hermie Bantilan.)

Accused-appellant Hermie Bantilan moves for a reconsideration of this Court's Decision, dated September 14, 1999, affirming the decision of the regional trial court, which convicted appellant of rape with homicide and sentenced him to suffer the death penalty.

Appellant contends that the bloodstains found in his undergarments and his penis, or more accurately, the testimony regarding the presence thereof, are inadmissible in evidence. He asserts that he was made to strip by the police without his consent and without counsel.

The Court rejects this argument.What the Constitution frowns upon and declares inadmissible are uncounselled confessions or admissions made during custodial investigations. ¹ People vs. Malimit 26 SCRA 177 (1996).Article III of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 12 (1) Any person under custodial 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.

(2) xxx

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) xxx (Underscoring ours.)�

The protection accorded by these so-called Miranda rights" pertains only to testimonial compulsion, and not to instances when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined. ² People vs. Paynor, 261 SCRA 627 (1996). Thus a paraffin test may be validly conducted on the hands of the accused without violating these rights. ³ People vs. Gamboa 194 SCRA 372 (1991). Likewise, he may be stripped of his clothing and personal items, which may later be introduced as evidence against him. ⁴ People vs. Paynor supra, note 2.

In the present case, appellant was merely required to undress, not to confess to the commission to the crime, or admit to any facts relevant thereto. Consequently, the evidence obtained in the strip search is admissible in evidence against him.

Appellant also argues that said bloodstains do not prove the victim was raped since the stains could have been caused by some other source.

In affirming appellant's conviction, however the Court considered the totality of the circumstantial evidence against appellant. The bloodstains are but one of the pieces of evidence that prove his culpability. Taken together with the other evidence they form an unbreakable chain unerringly pointing to appellant as the rapist and killer of Jita Quinto.The test of moral certainty as to appellant's guilt has been met in this case.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE