PEOPLE V.

MOJELLO
425 SCRA 11 (2004)
FACTS
The victim was last seen with the appellant Bebot Mojello. On December 16,200 the body of Lenlen
Rayco was found lifeless, naked and bruised on the seashore. The medico-legal report positively indicated
that the victim was raped.
When apprehended by the police officers and was subjected to an investigation on 17 December 1996, the
appellant admitted to the crime.
Six days after, on 23 December 1996, during custodial investigation, the appellant, assisted by his
counsel, executed an extrajudicial confession to the crime.
The appellant was charged of the crime of Rape with Homicide defined and penalized under Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.The accused was arraigned and entered
a not guilty plea. The lower court found him guilty. Hence, an automatic review of the case was submitted
to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the appellant was admissible.
HELD
No. The Court finds the extrajudicial confession in compliance with the strict constitutional requirements
of the right to counsel as enshrined in Art. III, Sec. 12, par. 1 of the Constitution in relation to Rep. Act
No. 7438, Sec. 2. The Court observed that the confession itself expressly states that the investigating
officers informed him of such rights.
Further, the appellant claimed that his confession was induced by a threat against his life. The Court took
cognizance, however, of his failure to present evidence to prove such threat and neither did he file any
case against the person who threatened him nor did he report such incident to his counsel. He also
claimed that he did not understand the contents of the confession which was read in the Visayan dialect,
yet he admits that he uses the Visayan dialect in his daily discourse.
The Court also noted that even if improper interrogation methods were used at the start, it does not bar the
possibility of having a valid confession by properly interrogating the subject.
The Court sustained the appellant’s conviction on the crime of rape based on his admission to the said
crime, the medico-legal report and the witness’ testimony proving the corpus delicti but held that there
was no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant killed the victim or that the rape committed caused
the death of the victim. Therefore, he cannot be convicted of the said special complex crime as that would
raise a reasonable doubt to his guilt.
The Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime only that of statutory rape, the victim
being 11 years old, and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.