[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,
Clerk
of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst.
Clerk of Court