Confessions to Media Are Admissible: Limits of Custodial Investigation Rights

In Philippine law, the rights of an accused during custodial investigation are paramount. However, these rights are specifically designed to protect individuals from potential coercion by state agents. This case clarifies that confessions made freely to media personnel, without prompting from law enforcement, generally fall outside the scope of custodial investigation and are admissible in court. This distinction is crucial for understanding the boundaries of constitutional rights and the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings.

G.R. No. 130612, May 11, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a scenario where a suspect, after being arrested for a crime, spontaneously confesses to a radio reporter during a jail interview. Is this confession admissible in court, or is it tainted by the suspect’s right to remain silent and to counsel during custodial investigation? This question lies at the heart of People of the Philippines v. Bernardino Domantay. The case revolves around Bernardino Domantay, accused of the gruesome rape and murder of a six-year-old child. A key piece of evidence was Domantay’s confession to a radio reporter, obtained after his arrest but outside the formal police interrogation setting. The Supreme Court had to determine whether this confession was legally obtained and could be used to convict him.

LEGAL CONTEXT: CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AND CONFESSIONS

The Philippine Constitution, under Article III, Section 12, safeguards the rights of individuals under custodial investigation. This provision is crucial in protecting against self-incrimination and ensuring fair trials. It explicitly states:

“(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.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence.”

Custodial investigation begins when law enforcement investigation shifts from a general inquiry to focusing on a specific individual as a suspect, or when an individual is effectively deprived of their freedom of action. Crucially, these constitutional rights are primarily concerned with the relationship between the individual and the State, not between private individuals.

For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible, jurisprudence dictates it must be: voluntary, made with competent and independent counsel (or a valid waiver in writing and with counsel present), express, and in writing. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that spontaneous statements made to private individuals, not acting as agents of the state, are generally admissible, even without the presence of counsel.

CASE BREAKDOWN: PEOPLE V. DOMANTAY

The brutal crime involved six-year-old Jennifer Domantay, found dead with multiple stab wounds. Police investigation quickly focused on Bernardino Domantay, a relative of the victim. Here’s a timeline of key events:

• October 17, 1996: Jennifer Domantay’s body is discovered. Bernardino Domantay is apprehended and questioned by SPO1 Espinoza at the police station. Domantay allegedly confesses orally to the killing but without counsel and no written record.
• October 18, 1996: Police recover the bayonet, the murder weapon, based on Domantay’s alleged confession.
• October 23, 1996: Radio reporter Celso Manuel interviews Domantay in jail. Domantay, without prompting from police and without counsel present, confesses to the killing during the interview, stating his motive was revenge related to a boundary dispute.
• Trial Court: Admits both the confession to SPO1 Espinoza and Celso Manuel. Convicts Domantay of Rape with Homicide based largely on these confessions and circumstantial evidence. Sentences him to death.

On appeal, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the admissibility of these confessions. The Court ruled decisively that:

1. Confession to SPO1 Espinoza: Inadmissible. The Court found this confession violated Domantay’s custodial investigation rights. While SPO1 Espinoza claimed to have informed Domantay of his rights, the waiver of counsel was not in writing nor made in the presence of counsel. Thus, this confession and the recovered bayonet (fruit of the inadmissible confession) were excluded as evidence.
2. Confession to Celso Manuel: Admissible. The Supreme Court differentiated this confession, emphasizing that Celso Manuel was a private individual, a media reporter, not an agent of the State. The interview was conducted in jail, but without police coercion or instigation. Domantay voluntarily spoke to Manuel. The Court quoted People v. Andan, stating, “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.”

Despite admitting the confession to the reporter, the Supreme Court overturned the Rape conviction. While the confession and circumstantial evidence pointed to Homicide, the Court found insufficient evidence to prove Rape beyond reasonable doubt. Medical findings of hymenal laceration were inconclusive as they could have been caused by other means, and crucially, there was no corroborating evidence of sexual assault.

The Supreme Court ultimately downgraded the conviction to Homicide, appreciating abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance due to the victim’s age and vulnerability. Domantay’s death sentence was replaced with imprisonment.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

The Domantay case highlights the critical distinction between confessions made to state agents and those made to private individuals, particularly the media. It underscores that constitutional rights during custodial investigation are designed to protect against state coercion, not against voluntary disclosures to non-state actors.

For Law Enforcement: This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for custodial investigations. Any confession obtained without proper adherence to constitutional rights, including written waiver of counsel in counsel’s presence, is inadmissible. Focus on building cases with admissible evidence beyond potentially flawed confessions.

For Media Professionals: Interviews with accused individuals, even in detention, can yield admissible confessions, provided there’s no indication of acting as a state agent or coercion. This case provides a legal basis for the admissibility of such interviews.

For Individuals: Be aware of your rights during policeCustodial investigation. Exercise your right to remain silent and to counsel. Understand that spontaneous statements to media or other private individuals may be admissible in court, even if statements to police are not due to procedural errors.

Key Lessons:

• Confessions to Media Admissible: Voluntary confessions to media personnel are generally admissible and are not covered by custodial investigation rights.
• Strict Custodial Investigation Rules: Confessions to police are strictly scrutinized. Waivers of rights must be in writing and in the presence of counsel.
• Focus on Corroborating Evidence: For convictions, especially in complex crimes like Rape with Homicide, rely on solid evidence beyond confessions, particularly for elements like Rape which require specific proof.
• Circumstantial Evidence Can Convict: Even without the inadmissible police confession, Domantay was convicted of Homicide based on admissible confession to media and strong circumstantial evidence.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: Does this mean anything a suspect says to anyone can be used against them?

A: Not exactly. Statements made to state agents during custodial investigation without proper procedure are inadmissible. However, voluntary statements to private individuals, like media, are generally admissible. Context is crucial.

Q: What if the reporter was working with the police to get a confession?

A: If it’s proven the reporter was acting as a police agent or there was coercion, the confession might be challenged. The burden of proof would be on the defense to show this agency or coercion.

Q: Is an oral confession to police ever admissible?

A: Generally no, if obtained during custodial investigation without proper waivers. Admissible confessions must be express and preferably written, especially for custodial confessions.

Q: What constitutes ‘custodial investigation’?

A: It begins when investigation focuses on a suspect and they are taken into custody or significantly deprived of freedom. “Invitation” to police stations can also be considered custodial investigation in certain contexts.

Q: If the police illegally obtain evidence (like the bayonet in this case), is that evidence always inadmissible?

A: Yes, under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence is also inadmissible.

Q: Why was Domantay not convicted of Rape despite the hymenal laceration?

A: Medical evidence of laceration alone is insufficient to prove rape. It could be from other causes. Crucially, there was no other corroborating evidence of sexual assault presented in court.

Q: What kind of damages were awarded to the victim’s family?

A: The court awarded civil indemnity (P50,000), moral damages (P50,000), exemplary damages (P25,000 due to aggravating circumstance), and actual damages (reduced to P12,000 based on receipts).

Q: What is ‘abuse of superior strength’ as an aggravating circumstance?

A: It’s using excessive force disproportionate to the victim’s ability to defend themselves, often due to age, size, or being armed when the victim is not.

ASG Law specializes in Criminal Litigation and Constitutional Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.