PEOPLE V MOJELLO
At the core of the instant case the law on custodial investigation
FACTS:
1. Rogelio was having drinks with his friend and about an hour later,
he went home. While he was walking on his way home, he saw his
niece Lenlen and appellant Mojello walking together towards Sitio
Kota.
2. The next day, Rogelio was informed that the body of Lenlen was
found at the seashore of Sitio Kota. He went there and saw the
naked, bruised body of Lenlen. (A remorse of conscience enveloped
him for his failure to protect his niece. He even attempted suicide).
3. Appellant was arrested while attempting to board a motor launch
bound for Cadiz.
4. On an investigation conducted by SP02 Giducos, Mojello admitted
that he was the perpetrator of the rape.
a. Mojello was assisted by Atty. Isaias during his custodial
investigation
b. His confession was witnessed by Brgy. Captains.
c. One Brgy. Captain testified that after it was executed, the
content of the document were read to appellant who later
on voluntarily signed it.
d. Appellant’s extrajudicial confession was sworn before RTC
Judge.
5. Medico legal’s finding indicates that it was rape. RTC convicted him
guilty of the crime rape with homicide.
6. Appellant appeals contending that the alleged extrajudicial
confession that he executed was not freely, intelligently, and
voluntarily entered into. He alleges that he was not apprised of his
constitutional right before the confession was taken from him.
Hence, it should be deemed inadmissible evidence.
ISSUE: WON the extrajudicial confession which appellant executed was
admissible as evidence? YES.
HELD:
1.
enshrine in Article III, Sec 12 of the Constitution 1
2. It is what Jurisprudence has termed as “Miranda Rights” from the
landmark decision of US Miranda v Arizona. The Miranda doctrine
requires that:
a. Any person under custodial investigation has the right to
remain silent.
b. Anything he say can and will be used against him in the
court of law
c. He has the right to talk to an Atty before being questioned
and to have his counsel present when being questioned
d. If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before
any questioning starts.
3. In the Philippines, the right to counsel was qualified to mean
competent and independent counsel preferably of the suspect’s
own choice and waiver of such right must be done in writing, and in
the presence of counsel.
4. In this case, appellant was undoubtedly apprised of his Miranda
rights under the Constitution.
a. The court observed that the confession itself expressly
states that the investigating officers informed him of such
rights.
b. Appellant manifested his desire to have Atty. Isaiah to be his
counsel, which the latter complied with. Atty Isaiah advised
him of his constitutional rights.
5. Atty. Isaiah was a competent and independent counsel of appellant
within the contemplation of the Constitution. No evidence was
presented to negate this.
6. The phrase preferably his own choice does not convey the message
that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is
exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent
1
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
 attorneys from handling the defense.; otherwise the tempo of the
custodial investigation will be solely in the hands of the accused.
a. If person cannot afford lawyer, or where the preferred
lawyer is not available, the suspect has the final choice as he
may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another
one.
b. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged
by the accused when he does not raise any objection
against the counsel's appointment during the course of the
investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes to the
veracity of the statement before the swearing officer
7. The extrajudicial confession was subscribed and sworn by RTC
judge. The confession executed by appellant followed the rigid
requirements of the Miranda Doctrine.
8. Mojello claimed his life was threatened thereby inducing him to
execute a confession, yet he neither filed any case against the
person who threatened him nor he reported this to his counsel.
9. However, the records do not adequately show that appellant
admitted to killing the victim. Appellant only admitted to boxing the
victim when she shouted. No physical, scientific evidence was
presented to pinpoint appellant. No estimated time of death was
given in making the connection.
a. Thus appellant cannot be convicted of rape with homicide.
Appellant should only be liable only for the crime of
statutory rape since Lenlen was 11 years old.

DISPOSITVE: Modified to reclusion perpetua.

LAVIDES V CA
FACTS:
1. Parents of complainant, Lorelie, reported to the police that their
daughter, then 16 years old, had been contacted by petitioner for
an assignation that night a petitioner’s room.
2. An entrapment operation was therefore set in motion. Police
knocked at the door of the room and saw Lorelie who was wearing
only a T-shirt and an underwear whereupon they arrested
petitioner. (Arrest was made without a warrant as a result of the
entrapment).
3. An information for violation of RA 7610 (child abuse) against
petitioner.
4. Petition filed for Omnibus Motion (1) Judicial Determination of
Probable Cause; (2) For the immediate release of the accused
unlawfully detained on an unlawful warrantless arrest; and (3) in
the event of adverse resolution, accused be allowed to bail as a
matter of right under the Law on which he is charged.
5. Subsequently, 9 more information for child abuse were filed against
petitioner. No bail was recommended.
6. Trial Court issued a resolution on Omnibus Motion:
a. There is probable cause to hold the accused in detention
b. accused is entitled to bail in all the case under the following
conditions:
i. accused shall not be entitled to waiver of
appearance. He shall always be present.
ii. In the eevent that he shall not be able to do so, his
bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and
warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued.
iii. Hold departure
iv. Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after
arraignment.
7. Petitioner filed a motion to quash. Pending resolution of this
motion, he asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment
schedule.
8. Trial court denied petitioner’s motion to quash and to suspend
arraignment. Accordingly, petitioner was arraigned during which he
pleaded not guilty to the charges against him,
9. Subsequently, he filed a petition for certiorari in CA assailing the
orders of TC, denying his motion to quash.
10. The Court of Appeals declared conditions (a) and (b) invalid but
declined to pass upon the validity of condition (d) on the ground
that the issue had become moot and academic. Petitioner takes
issue with the Court of Appeals with respect to its treatment of
condition (d) of the May 16, 1997 order of the trial court which
makes petitioners arraignment a prerequisite to the approval of his
bail bonds. His contention is that this condition is void and that his
arraignment was also invalid because it was held pursuant to such
invalid condition.
ISSUE: WON the condition is void and the arraignment invalid?
HELD:
1. The theory of the trial court is that if he didn’t get to be arraigned
before bail, he can merely be absent and it would be a delay to his
trial. It is mistaken.
2. Bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused
may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. For if the
information is quashed and the case is dismissed, there would then
be no need for the arraignment of the accused.
a. The TC could ensure the presence of petitioner at the
arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering his
presence at any stage of the proceedings, such as
arraignment.
b. Under Rule 114, 2(b) the accused shall appear before the
proper court whenever so required by the court or these
Rules.
c. Rule 116, 1(b) the presence of the accused at the
arraignment is required.
3. To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment
would be to place him in a position where he has to choose
between
a. filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail
because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his
arraignment cannot be held.
b. Forego the filing of motion to quash.
4. The CA should have instead declared void the condition “approval of
the bail bonds shall be made only after arraignment”
5. The condition regarding the “cannot waive his appearance” is
already in accordance with the Rules since failure to appear without
 justification despite due notice, will be deemed as an express waiver
and the trial will proceed in absentia.
6. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE ARRAIGNMENT OFPETITIONER ON MAY 23,
1997 WAS ALSO INVALID. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the
arraignment did not emanate from the invalid condition that "approval of the bail
bonds shall be made only after the arraignment." Even without such a condition,
the arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted. In sum, although the
condition for the grant of bail to petitioner is invalid, his arraignment and the
subsequent proceedings against him are valid
7. The elements of the offense are as follows: (1) the accused commits
the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) that said act
is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is or
is deemed under 18 years of age. Exploitation in prostitution or
other sexual abuse occurs when the child indulges in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other
consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate, or group.
8. Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious act with a child
under the circumstances mentioned in Art. III, 5 of R.A. No. 7160 is
thus a separate and distinct offense. 

DISPOSITIVE: Declared the Omnibus Motion resolution is valid with the

exception of condition (d) making arraignment a prerequisite to the grant of
bail which is declared void.