People v. Mojello
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 15, 1996, at around 9:00 p.m., Rogelio Rayco saw his niece, Lenlen Rayco, a minor under twelve years of age and with mental deficiency, walking with appellant Dindo Mojello towards Sitio Kota. The following morning, Lenlen's lifeless, naked, and bruised body was found at the seashore of Sitio Kota. An autopsy revealed that the victim was raped and died of asphyxia due to strangulation and physical injuries. Procedural History: Appellant Dindo Mojello was charged with rape with homicide. He pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bogo, Cebu, Branch 61, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The Petition: Appellant questioned the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession, alleging it was not freely, intelligently, and voluntarily given, and that he was not properly apprised of his constitutional rights. He also argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of rape with homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the extrajudicial confession executed by the appellant is admissible in evidence. Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and, if not rape with homicide, whether he is guilty of statutory rape.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision with modification. The Court ruled that the extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence. However, it found insufficient evidence to prove that the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the rape. Consequently, the appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with an order to pay civil and moral damages to the heirs of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession: The Court held that the extrajudicial confession executed by the appellant on December 23, 1996, complied with the strict constitutional requirements under Article III, Section 12, paragraph 1 of the Constitution and Republic Act No. 7438. The confession explicitly stated that the appellant was informed of his rights in the Visayan dialect (Cebuano), a language he understood. Furthermore, Atty. Isaias Giduquio, who was chosen by the appellant, assisted him during the custodial investigation and confirmed that he advised the appellant of his constitutional rights. The Court noted that the appellant did not present independent evidence of coercion or duress, and his claim of not understanding the confession was contradicted by his admission of using the Visayan dialect daily. The Court reiterated that the confession was sworn before a municipal judge who explained its contents and confirmed its voluntariness. Therefore, the confession was deemed admissible, and the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine was inapplicable. On the guilt of the appellant for rape and statutory rape: The Court found that while the appellant's confession and the corpus delicti established the rape of Lenlen Rayco, the evidence was insufficient to prove that the homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of the rape. The Court noted the lack of physical evidence, fingerprints, or DNA evidence to connect the appellant to the killing. The time variance between the appellant's alleged actions and the discovery of the body, coupled with the cause of death (strangulation), created reasonable doubt as to whether the appellant committed the homicide. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain leading to a reasonable conclusion, which was absent in this case regarding the homicide element. Therefore, the appellant could not be convicted of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Given the insufficiency of evidence for the homicide component, the Court found that the appellant should be held liable only for statutory rape, as the victim was under twelve years old. This crime was necessarily included in the charge of rape with homicide. The Court awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
An extrajudicial confession, even if initially obtained in violation of Miranda rights, can be admissible if a subsequent custodial investigation is conducted in full compliance with constitutional requirements, provided the suspect is properly apprised of their rights and assisted by counsel. However, conviction for a special complex crime like rape with homicide requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for both components; if the homicide element is not sufficiently proven, the accused may be convicted of the lesser crime of statutory rape.