G.R. No. 145566; March 9, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DINDO “BEBOT” MOJELLO, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Dindo Mojello was charged with rape with homicide for the December 15, 1996 death of Lenlen Rayco, a child under twelve with a mental deficiency. The prosecution established that on the night of the incident, the victim was seen walking with the appellant. Her naked, bruised body was found the next morning at the seashore. A medico-legal report confirmed rape through hymenal lacerations and indicated death by asphyxia due to strangulation. Following his arrest, appellant executed an extrajudicial confession before a judge, admitting to the crime, with the assistance of counsel Atty. Isaias Giduquio.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of rape with homicide and imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. Appellant contested the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession, arguing it was not given voluntarily and intelligently, as he was not properly informed of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether appellant’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence; and (2) whether his guilt for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the offense and penalty. On the first issue, the Court held the extrajudicial confession admissible. The constitutional rights during custodial investigation under Section 12(1), Article III were duly observed. Appellant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choice, Atty. Giduquio, during the interrogation. The confession was subsequently sworn to before a Municipal Circuit Trial Court judge. The presence of counsel and the judicial affirmation satisfied the requirements for a valid waiver and ensured the confession was voluntary, intelligent, and free from coercion.
However, on the second issue, the Court found the appellant guilty of statutory rape, not the complex crime of rape with homicide. The Information alleged that the killing was done “by reason and/or on the occasion” of the rape to conceal it. The Court ruled this allegation constituted a qualifying circumstance under the law, not a separate crime. Since the killing was alleged as a means to conceal the rape, it is treated as an aggravating circumstance that qualifies the rape, making it a capital offense. Nevertheless, for failure to allege the victim’s age with specificity in the Information as required for imposing the death penalty, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Appellant was ordered to pay the victim’s heirs P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.