G.R. No.
108494 - Din was able to identify the man as one of the men from the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
SAMUEL MARRA y ZARATE, ALLAN TAN, alias "Allan Yao,"
PETER DOE, PAUL DOE and TOM DOE,
Petitioner : State
Respondent : Samuel Marra
Ponente : Regalado
Doctrines :
Notes :
Facts : Jimmy Din and Nelson Tandoc were chilling outside Tan-
doc’s Father’s hotel named Lucky Hotel in Dagupan city at 2:00
am.
- A man across the street flashed them the dirty finger. The
man repeatedly did so until Din and Tandoc gave chase.
- They caught up with the man in front of the Dunkin Donuts
store, where they proceeded to ask the man why he flashed
them.
- Two men appeared in defense of the first man to ask what
was going on, Din and Tandoc explained the circumstance.
- Tandoc then slapped one of the men and a brawl ensued.
Tandoc took on the two men while Din went for the one who
flashed them.
- The brawl ended with the 3 men fleeing from Din and Tan-
doc. The latter made their way back to the hotel.
- Din and Tandoc were followed by one of the men, sensing
the danger, they hid in the hotel until it was safe to leave.
- Tandoc deciding that it was clear made his way out, upon
opening the sliding the door was shot by a man wearing a
security guard uniform.
brawl earlier. Tandoc told Din “Tol, I was shot” Tandoc and
his wife brought Din to the hospital but Tandoc had expired.
- Jimmy Din then reported the events to the police which
prompted them to canvass the area for the supposed “secu-
rity guard”
- The police located a suspect fitting the description in front of
Linda’s Ihaw Ihaw, they came over and approached the man
who later became known as Samuel Marra.
- The police had asked Marra if he knew what happened and
if he could account for his whereabouts during the shooting
and if he could produce his service weapon.
- Marra answered and brought the police back to his place to
show his service weapon.
- The weapon was a .38 revolver with 5 rounds and 1 spent
shell. The police pressed Marra if he fired the gun recently
and why he killed Tandoc.
- Marra reluctant at first, denied shooting Tandoc but later
confessed to doing so because Tandoc came after him ear-
lier with a “Samurai” sword.
- Marra was taken into custody and was arraigned for the
crime of the Murder of Tandoc.
- Marra’s lawyers posits that the confession made by his client
is inadmissible in court because he was not afforded the
rights of an accused under custodial investigation.
Issue : W/N the confession was valid
Held : Yes. The confession remains valid even if it is not written
and made without counsel.
- In the case at bar, appellant was not under custodial investi-
gation when he made the admission. There was no coercion
 whatsoever to compel him to make such as statement. He
could have refused to answer questions from the very start.
The police inquiry had not yet reached a level wherein they
considered him as a particular suspect. Thus, there was no
violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution or the
constitutional procedure on custodial investigation.
- In addition, the law provides that the declaration of an ac-
cused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged or of
any offense necessarily included therein may be given in ev-
idence against him and, in certain circumstances, this ad-
mission may be considered as part of the res gestae or the
facts that may be admitted as evidence.

Dispositive : WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo

finding accused-appellant Samuel Marra y Zarate guilty of the
crime of murder and imposing upon him the penalty and civil
liabilities therein stated is hereby AFFIRMED.