G.R. No. 132745 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROMEO UGIABAN LUMANDONG, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the court finds accused guilty of the crime of murder for killing Analou Eduave. He is hereby sentenced to death, and imposed the accessory penalties provided by law. He is ordered to indemnify the heirs of his victim the following: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P10,000.00 as moral damages, P10,000.00 as exemplary damages and P5,000.00 as actual damages. He is also ordered to pay the costs of this case." [20] In the instant appeal, appellant raised the following assignment of errors, to wit: "I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING (sic) CONVICTION OF (sic) THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE HAVING BEEN SHOWN THAT HIS CONFESSION WAS TAKEN THROUGH THREAT, TORTURE AND VIOLENCE. II THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT GAVE CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PERSONS WHO ALLEGEDLY ASSISTED IN EXTRACTING THE CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHO WERE FOUND TO HAVE FUMBLED IN THEIR TESTIMONIES." [21] It is clear from the records of this case that the minority status of appellant Lumandong at the time of the commission of the crime was not disputed by the prosecution. The appellant stated during the trial that he was born on March 15, 1981 [22] . A verification with the Civil Registrars Office in Cagayan de Oro City proved futile considering that all records of birth prior to 1986, according to the head of the said office, were burned by fire [23] . Nevertheless, it is doctrinal that the claim of minority by an accused will be upheld by the court even without any proof to corroborate his testimony until the same is disproved by the prosecution [24] . Consequently, the trial court erred when it failed to consider that appellant was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. Minority being a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 13(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, appellant Lumandong should have automatically been spared the supreme penalty of death. Anent the issue of admissibility of the extrajudicial confession of the appellant, this Court is guided by four fundamental requirements, namely: 1) the confession must be voluntary; 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; 3) the confession must be express; and 4) the confession must be in writing. [25] Appellant Lumandong denied during the trial that he killed Analou Eduave. He alleged that he was maltreated by the barangay officials in the house of Barangay Captain Obsioma in Sitio Bolihon, Taglimao, Cagayan de Oro City in the evening of December 17, 1995. He also alleged that he confessed before PO3 Agbalog due to fear arising from the threat from Obsioma that the police would kill him should he refuse to admit the crime. An extrajudicial confession will be struck for being involuntary if it had been obtained with the use of coercion, intimidation, inducement or false promises. [26] The evidence, however, fails to support the allegation of the appellant that he was maltreated by the barangay officials in the house of Barangay Captai