G.R. No. 64086 March 15, 1990
Peter Paul Aballe y Mendoza, petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines and the Honorable Judge Bernardo V. Saludares, respondents.

FACTS

On November 7, 1980, in Davao City, 12-year-old Jennie Banguis was found dead in her home with multiple stab wounds. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime. The following day, police sought petitioner Peter Paul Aballe, a 17-year-old neighbor. Upon seeing the police, Aballe spontaneously and orally admitted that he killed Jennie. He was then taken into custody. During custodial investigation, without the assistance of counsel, he executed a sworn extrajudicial confession detailing the killing, which he claimed was done while under the influence of liquor and marijuana after the victim slapped him. He also led the police to the concealed kitchen knife and surrendered his bloodstained shirt.
An information for homicide was filed. At arraignment, Aballe pleaded not guilty and repudiated his extrajudicial confession, claiming it was coerced and obtained without counsel. The trial court convicted him of homicide, giving weight to both his oral admission and the written confession, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the extrajudicial confession and the evidence derived from it are admissible, considering the constitutional rights of an accused during custodial investigation. A secondary issue involves the proper penalty, considering his minority and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The written extrajudicial confession is inadmissible. The 1973 Constitution mandated that any person under custodial investigation must have the right to counsel, and any waiver of this right must be made with the assistance of counsel. Here, Aballe’s waiver and confession were obtained without any counsel present, rendering the sworn statement constitutionally infirm and without probative value.
However, the oral confession made spontaneously to the police upon his apprehension—before any formal custodial interrogation began—is admissible as a voluntary admission not elicited through questioning. This spontaneous statement, coupled with the recovery of the knife and bloodstained shirt (which were not fruits of the poisonous tree as they were discovered based on the valid oral admission), constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
On the penalty, the crime is homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority (Aballe was 17) applies, warranting the imposition of the penalty next lower in degree. The generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling (the crime was committed in the victim’s home) was present but not alleged in the information; thus, it cannot offset minority. Considering the aggravating circumstance, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum. Civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.