G.R. No. 145566 - People vs. Mojello

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145566)

Charges, Plea and Trial Outcome in the RTC

Appellant was charged by Information with rape with homicide for acts committed on or about December 15, 1996, at Sitio Kota, Barangay Talisay, Sta. Fe, Cebu, alleging rape of victim under twelve years of age and, on the occasion thereof, intentional killing with treachery and personal violence. Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment. The RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death; the case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Factual Background as Found by the Trial Court

On the evening of December 15, 1996, the victim was seen walking with appellant some thirty meters away from the Capacito residence. The victim’s naked, bruised body was found on the seashore of Sitio Kota between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m. on December 16, 1996. Appellant was arrested later while attempting to board a motor launch. During custodial proceedings on December 23, 1996, appellant executed an extrajudicial confession, sworn before Judge Jaca and witnessed by barangay captains; Atty. Giduquio assisted appellant during interrogation and testified that he advised appellant of constitutional rights prior to the statement.

Medical and Forensic Findings

An autopsy by Dr. Nestor Sator (PNP Medico‑Legal Branch, Region VII) on December 21, 1996, showed swelling of the labia majora and hymenal lacerations consistent with rape; froth in the lungs and contusions on the neck indicating strangulation and death by asphyxia; cause of death recorded as cardio‑respiratory arrest due to asphyxia by strangulation and physical injuries to the head and trunk. No estimated time of death or DNA/fingerprint evidence tying appellant to the homicide was adduced.

Legal Issues Presented on Review

The Supreme Court addressed two issues: (1) whether appellant’s extrajudicial confession (December 23, 1996) was admissible in evidence given custodial‑investigation protections under Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution and related statutes; and (2) whether appellant was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of rape with homicide, or whether proof sufficed only for statutory rape.

Applicable Constitutional Standard and Miranda Doctrine under the 1987 Constitution

The Court applied Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution, noting that the Philippine formulation of Miranda requires informing any person under custodial investigation of the right to remain silent and the right to competent and independent counsel preferably of the suspect’s choice, and that waiver of the right to counsel must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. The decision recognized that Philippine law has evolved to impose stricter safeguards than the original U.S. Miranda formulation, and also invoked R.A. No. 7438 Sec. 2 as part of the custodial‑investigation framework.

Admissibility Analysis of the Extrajudicial Confession

Although the record showed an earlier custodial interrogation (December 17, 1996) that violated Miranda because no counsel was present and any waiver was not made in writing and in counsel’s presence, the Supreme Court sustained admissibility of the December 23, 1996 confession. The Court found that on December 23 appellant was expressly apprised of his constitutional rights in the Visayan (Cebuano) language by SPO2 Wilfredo Giducos; Atty. Giduquio was present, advised appellant and was accepted by appellant as counsel, and the confession was subscribed and sworn to before Judge Jaca with witnesses present. The Court relied on documentary statements, witness testimony (including Atty. Giduquio and barangay captains), and the contents and level of detail in the confession as indicia of voluntariness.

Voluntariness, Burden to Prove Coercion, and Corroboration

The Court applied established principles: once Miranda warnings are properly given, voluntariness is still to be assessed, but a confession accompanied by warnings and corroborated by independent evidence is presumptively reliable. The Court noted appellant’s failure to substantiate allegations of threats, coercion, or lack of understanding with independent evidence (no complaints to the swearing officer, no criminal or administrative actions, no marks of violence, and no medical examinations offered). The confession contained details that could be known only by the perpetrator and was corroborated by other evidence (medico‑legal findings and eyewitness family testimony), supporting a finding that it was freely and intelligently made and admissible.

Sufficiency of Evidence on Rape and on the Homicide Element

The Court concluded that the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed statutory rape: appellant’s confession, the medico‑legal report confirming sexual assault, and the victim’s age (eleven) satisfied corpus delicti and moral certainty. Conversely, the Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain conviction for homicide as an element of the complex crime. The Court emphasized gaps in the proof connecting the rape to the death: no precise estimated time of death, a six‑to‑seve

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 145566)

Procedural Posture

Case under automatic review from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bogo, Cebu, Branch 61: RTC conviction for rape with homicide and death sentence. (Decision penned by Judge Ildefonso G. Mantilla.)
Information filed May 22, 1997; arraignment July 24, 1997 (plea: not guilty); trial; RTC judgment rendered January 21, 1999 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide and imposing the death penalty.
Appeal proceeded by automatic review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 145566). Decision of the Supreme Court issued March 9, 2004, authored by Justice Ynares-Santiago.
Supreme Court disposition: affirmed with modification — conviction reduced to statutory rape; sentence imposed: reclusion perpetua; civil indemnity and moral damages awarded; costs de oficio.

Parties and Counsel

Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Appellant: Dindo a Bebot a Mojello (also referred to as Dindo Mojello).
Appellant was assisted during custodial interrogation and in initial stages of trial by Atty. Isaias Giduquio.
Confession sworn before Judge Cornelio T. Jaca (Municipal Judge of Medellin-Daanbantayan and acting Judge of MCTC Sta. Fe-Bantayan and Madridejos).
Confession witnessed by Barangay Captains Wilfredo Batobalanos and Manolo Landao; investigation conducted by SPO2 Wilfredo Giducos (also referred to as Wilfredo Abello Giducos).

Factual Background (as found by trial court)

Date and place: On the night of December 15, 1996, at about 9:00–11:00 p.m., Sitio Kota, Barangay Talisay, Municipality of Sta. Fe, Cebu.
On December 15, 1996, Rogelio Rayco was at a gathering at the Capacito residence; he left the group after about an hour and saw his niece, Lenlen Rayco, with appellant walking together toward Sitio Kota, some thirty meters away; Rogelio did not find this unusual and proceeded home.
On December 16, 1996, between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m., the Rayco family was informed that Lenlen’s body was found at the seashore of Sitio Kota; Rogelio saw the lifeless, naked, bruised body and was devastated.
Appellant was arrested at Bantayan while attempting to board a motor launch bound for Cadiz City.
During police investigation, appellant admitted being the perpetrator; he executed an extrajudicial confession sworn before Judge Jaca on December 23, 1996.
Autopsy performed December 21, 1996 by Dr. Nestor Sator, Medico-Legal Branch, PNP Crime Laboratory, Region VII.

Charge/Information

Appellant charged by Information dated May 22, 1997 with rape with homicide under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
Allegations included: having carnal knowledge of Lenlen Rayco (under 12 years and with mental deficiency) by means of force, violence and intimidation, and on the occasion thereof, purposely to conceal the act, intentionally to kill, treacherously and employing personal violence, attacked and killed the victim, inflicting wounds which caused her death.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide and sentenced him to suffer the death penalty.
Trial court accepted as evidence the extrajudicial confession executed December 23, 1996, and relied upon autopsy and witness testimony.

Medico-Legal Findings (Dr. Nestor Sator, autopsy Dec. 21, 1996)

Physical findings supporting sexual assault: swelling of the labia majora and hymenal lacerations—positive indicators that the victim was raped.
Findings supporting cause of death: froth in the lungs and contusions on the neck consistent with strangulation and death by asphyxia.
Recorded cause of death: cardio-respiratory arrest due to asphyxia by strangulation and physical injuries to the head and trunk.

Extrajudicial Confession: Circumstances, Form and Witnesses

Appellant executed an extrajudicial confession on December 23, 1996; it was subscribed and sworn to before Judge Cornelio T. Jaca.
Confession expressly states that investigating officers informed appellant of his constitutional rights.
Atty. Isaias Giduquio testified that he was requested by the Chief of Police to assist appellant; appellant manifested on record that he wanted Atty. Giduquio as his counsel; Giduquio advised appellant of constitutional rights and told him to answer only what he understood.
Confession execution attested to by Barangay Captains Wilfredo Batobalanos and Manolo Landao; Batobalanos testified contents were read to appellant who voluntarily signed it.
The confession, in form and procedure, was held by the trial court to have complied with constitutional requirements.

Custodial Investigation, Miranda Rights and Translation

Legal standard at issue: Article III, Section 12, paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution (right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice; waiver of these rights must be in writing and in presence of counsel). The Court referenced Miranda v. Arizona and local precedents.
Two custodial investigations noted:
- December 17, 1996 custodial investigation upon apprehension — conceded to have violated Miranda doctrine (no counsel present; waiver not in writing and not in the presence of counsel).
- December 23, 1996 custodial investigation which elicited the extrajudicial confession — found to have complied with constitutional requirements.
SPO2 Wilfredo Abello Giducos explained Miranda rights to appellant in the Visayan dialect (Cebuano), a language known to appellant. The transcript provided in the record is quoted and translated, including:
- Preliminary warning (PASIUNA) advising appellant of investigation, right to remain silent, right to counsel, and asking if he understood.
- Questions confirming appellant’s desire to proceed with investigation, whether he wanted counsel, and identifying Atty. Isaias Giduquio as appearing counsel.
- Reminder that statements may be used for or against him, that nobody was coercing or promising reward, and confirmation that appellant was ready to give a free and voluntary statement.
- Affirmative responses by appellant to each query.

Issues Raised on Automatic Review

Whether the extrajudicial confession executed by appellant on December 23, 1996 is admissible in evidence (i.e., whether it was freely, intelligently a