People v. Lumandong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The lifeless and naked body of eight-year-old Analou Eduave was found in an isolated and grassy portion of the Iponan River with multiple stab and hack wounds. There was no witness to the killing. The accused-appellant, Romeo Lumandong, allegedly confessed to the killing. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City found Romeo Lumandong guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his confession was obtained through threat, torture, and violence, and that the lower court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of those who extracted the confession.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession was voluntary and admissible in evidence. Whether the accused-appellant was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. Whether the killing was qualified by treachery and attended by aggravating circumstances. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court should be modified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for murder but modified the penalty. The Court ruled that the extrajudicial confession was voluntary and admissible. It also found that the accused-appellant was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, which is a privileged mitigating circumstance. The Court upheld the presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance and the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place, while absorbing nighttime and abuse of superior strength in treachery. Cruelty was not appreciated. The penalty was reduced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession: The Court held that the confession was voluntary and admissible. The appellant's claim of maltreatment was not substantiated. He did not complain to the police or his counsel about the alleged maltreatment. The presence of his counsel, Atty. Emelgar Paasa, during the custodial investigation, who explained his rights and discussed the case with him alone, ensured that the confession was not obtained through coercion. The appellant affirmed the truth of his written statement before a Branch Clerk of Court, who also warned him of the consequences, and he proceeded to sign it, stating he was bothered by his conscience. This demonstrated the voluntariness of the confession. On the minority of the accused-appellant: The Court found that the appellant was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, born on March 15, 1981, making him fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and fifteen (15) days old. Minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 13(2) of the Revised Penal Code, entitling the accused to a penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for the crime. The trial court erred in failing to consider this circumstance. On the qualifying and aggravating circumstances: The Court agreed with the trial court that the killing was qualified by treachery, considering the victim's age (eight years old). The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place was also correctly appreciated as the appellant deliberately brought the victim to an isolated area. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength were absorbed by treachery. Cruelty was not appreciated as there was no showing that the other wounds were inflicted to prolong suffering. On the penalty: Due to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and the presence of one aggravating circumstance (uninhabited place), the imposable penalty was reduced by two degrees from murder (reclusion perpetua) to prision mayor in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was set at six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. The civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were affirmed, with actual damages also awarded.
Main Doctrine
The minority of an accused is a privileged mitigating circumstance that reduces the penalty by at least two degrees. An extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must be voluntary, made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel, express, and in writing. The absence of complaint regarding alleged maltreatment to the officers who administered the oath is an indication of voluntariness.