PEOPLE V.

MOJELLO (2004)
Facts:
Accused- appellant Mojello was charged of rape with homicide. Witness Rogelio Rayco
pointed to Dindo Mojello as the last person to be with the victim Lenlen Rayco, 11
years of age. Lenlen Rayco's body was found at the seashore so Mojello was arrested
at Bantayan while attempting to board a motor launch bound for Cazid City. On an
ivestigation conducted by SPO2 Wilfredo Giducos, Mojello admitted that he was the
perpetrator of the dastardly deed. Mojello was assisted by Atty. Isaias Giduquio
during his custodial interrogation. His confession was witnessed by two Barangay
captains one of whom testified that after the confession was executed, the contents
of the document were read to Mojello who later on voluntarily signed it. Mojello's
extrajudicial confession was sworn before Judge Jaca of the MCTC of Sta Fe-Bantayan.
A few days after, an autopsy was conducted and the results revealed that there was
swelling of the labia majora, indicating that Lenlen was raped. There were also froth
in the lungs of Lenlen and contusions on her neck which show that she was strangled
and died of asphyxia. ojello now claims that the confession which he executed was
not freely, intelligently and voluntarily entered into, that he was not knowingly and
intelligently apprised of his constitutional rights before the confession was taken from
him.
Issue:/Held: Whether the extrajudicial confession executed by Mojello is admissible in
evidence? Yes, admissible
Ratio: The extrajudicial confession executed by Mojello, applying Art. III, Sec. 12. par.
1 of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Rep. Act No. 7438, Sec. 2 complies with the
strict constitutional requirements of the right to counsel. Mojello was undoubtedly
apprised of his Miranda rights. The confession itself expressly stated that the
investigating officers informed him of such rights. Atty. Giduquio testified that while
he was attending a Sangguniang Bayan session, he was requested by the Chief of
Police of Sta. Fe to assist appelant. Mojello manifested on record his desire to have
Atty. Guidoquio as his counsel, with the latter categorically stating that before the
investigation was conducted and Mojello's statement taken, he advised appelant of
his constitutional rights. Atty. Guidoquio was a competent and independent counsel
of appellant within the contemplation of the Constitution. No evidence was presented
to negate his competence and independence in representing Mojello during the
custodial investigation. The phrase "preferably of 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 attorneys from handling the
defense.
There were 2 custodial investigations held and concededly, the first CI upon Mojello's
apprehension violated the doctrine because (1) no counsel was present and (2)
improper waiver of the right to counsel as it was not made in writing and in the
presence of counsel. However, the 2nd custodial investigation which elicited
Mojhello's confession should be uphel for having complied with Art. III, Sec. 12 par. 1.
Even though improper interrogation methods were used at the outset, there is still a
possiblity of obtaining a legally valid confession later on by properly interrogating the
subject under different conditions and circumstances than those which prevailed
originally.
The test for determining if a confession is voluntary is whether the defendant's will
was overborne at the time he confessed. The presumption of voluntariness on the
part of Mojello remains unrebutted for his failure to present evidence that he was
coerced. Having complied with Art. III, Sec. 12 par 1, the confession is deemed

admissible in evidence . Thus, the admission of cuklpability is admissible . It is not a

fruit of the poisonous tree since the tree itself is not poisonous. However, the records
do not adequately show that appellant admitted to killing the victim and neither is
there circumstancial evidence to show that rape with homicide was committed by
Mojello. Thus, Mojello should be convicted only of statutory rape.
NOTE: The Miranda Doctrine under the 1987 Constitution took on a modified form
where the right to counsel was specifically qualified to mean competent and
independent counsel preferably of the suspect's own choice. Waiver of the right to
counsel provided for stricter requirements compared to its American counterpart
since it must be done in writing, and in the presence of counsel.
Dissenting: Quisumbing, J.:
At the very start of custodial investigation, Mojello was not assisted by counsel. Nor
was he informed of his right to counsel from the time the police started to extract
information from him regarding the crime that he was charged of. Much less did he
waive his right to counsel in writing. What happened was contrary to the prevailing
doctrine that the accused under custodial interrogation must continuously have a
counsel assisting him from the very start thereof.