CASE DIGESTS NI KAT

In Good Faith

BUNGAD

Tag Archives: People v. Mojello

!
4 People v. Mojello, 425 SCRA 11 (2004)
APR
2014 posted in CONLAW2 cases
DIG IN!
Facts
A Simple Reminder

SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES

PHILS., INC. v SPOUSES
The victim was last seen with the appellant Bebot Mojello. On December ALFREDO and GRACE
16,200 the body of Lenlen Rayco was found lifeless, naked and bruised on HUANG, G. R. No. 137290, 31
the seashore. The medico-legal report positively indicated that the victim was July 2000
raped. NHA v GRACE BAPTIST
CHURCH, G. R. No. 156437, 1
March 2004

When apprehended by the police officers and was subjected to an MUN. OF CAVITE v ROJAS, G.

investigation on 17 December 1996, the appellant admitted to the crime. R. No. L-9069, 31
March 1915

Pollo v. Constantino-David,
G.R. No. 181881, 18
Six days after, on 23 December 1996, during custodial investigation, the
October 2011
appellant, assisted by his counsel, executed an extrajudicial confession to the
crime.

Follow
TREASURE BOX
The appellant was charged of the crime of Rape with Homicide defined and
Agosto 2015 (1)
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 Hulyo 2014 (3)

plea. The lower court found him guilty. Hence, an automatic review of the Abril 2014 (4)
case was submitted to the Supreme Court. Enero 2014 (5)

Disyembre 2013 (1)

Issues

LOGS

1. WON the extrajudicial confession of the appellant was admissible 30,502 hits
2. WON the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged

Ruling

The decision of the lower court was affirmed and was modified. The accused
was found guilty of the crime of statutory rape.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant avers that his extrajudicial confession, and admissions therein,
should be considered a fruit of a poisonous tree and being such, should be
inadmissible as evidence against him. The Court disagrees. 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.

With regards to the second query, appellant alleges that the lower court
erred in convicting him of the crime of rape with homicide sentencing him of
the death penalty despite of the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence to
prove his guilt.

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.

Advertisements

!425 SCRA 11 (2004), bill of rights, case ! Mag-iwan ng puna

brief, digest, People v. Mojello

Sumulat ng Blog sa WordPress.com.