G.R. No. 193833 November 16, 2011 Criminal Case No.

02-3393 for Kidnapping

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, That on or about the 7th day of November 2002, in the City of Makati,
vs. Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
PO1 FROILAN L. TRESTIZA, P/S INSP. LORIEMAN* L. Court, the above-named accused, PO1 Froilan Trestiza y Lacson and
MANRIQUE, and RODIE J. PINEDA @ "Buboy," Accused. P/S Insp. Loriemar L. Manrique, both active members of the Philippine
PO1 FROILAN L. TRESTIZA, Accused-Appellant. National Police, and Rodie Pineda y Jimenez, a private individual[,] all
of them armed with firearms, conspiring, confederating and mutually
DECISION helping one another with one PO2 [Reynel] Jose, a member of the
Philippine National Police, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
CARPIO, J.: feloniously kidnap Lawrence Yu y Lim and Maria Irma Navarro, or
otherwise deprive them of their liberty by then and there kidnap without
legal grounds for the purpose of extorting money for their safety and
The Case immediate release as in fact said accused demanded the amount of
₱1,000,000.00 as ransom money from them.
G.R. No. 193833 is an appeal1 from the Decision2 promulgated on 30
June 2009 as well as the Resolution3 promulgated on 11 June 2010 CONTRARY TO LAW.5
by the Court of Appeals (appellate court) in CA-G.R. CR.-HC. No.
03119. The appellate court affirmed the 24 July 2007 Joint
Criminal Case No. 02-3394 for Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Decision4 of Branch 143 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (trial
Ammunitions
court) in Criminal Case Nos. 02-3393 for Kidnapping (for Ransom),
03-766 for Robbery, and 04-1311 also for Robbery.
That on or about the 16th day of November 2002, in the City of Makati,
The trial court found appellant PO1 Froilan L. Trestiza (Trestiza) guilty Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation of the
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control
crime of Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised
one (1) Pistol Glock 21 bearing SN 035481 with thirteen (13) rounds
Penal Code, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7659 (RA
7659), and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion of live ammunitions and without the corresponding license or permit
perpetua and to pay damages to Irma Navarro (Navarro) and thereof, which he carried outside of his residence.
Lawrence Yu (Yu). P/Insp. Lorieman L. Manrique (Manrique) and
Rodie Pineda y Jimenez (Pineda) were likewise found guilty of the CONTRARY TO LAW.6
same crime by the trial court, and adjudged the same sentence as
Trestiza. The trial court acquitted Trestiza, Manrique and Pineda in On 15 April 2004, Trestiza was acquitted of the crime charged in
Criminal Case Nos. 03-766 and 04-1311. Criminal Case No. 02-3394.7 The Affidavit of Arrest stated that the
serial number of the firearm seized was 035481, while the firearm itself
The Facts had a serial number of BRG-768. The trial court rejected the
explanation that the difference between the serial numbers was a
The following charges were brought against Trestiza, Manrique and mere typographical error.
Pineda on 20 November 2002:
An order8 of the trial court dated 16 April 2004 in Criminal Case Nos. Withdrawal of Information for Kidnapping Charge with Entry of
02-3393, 02-3394, 03-766 and 04-1311 recounted the circumstances Appearance as Private Prosecutor." They alleged in said Motion that
involved in the filing of the charges against Trestiza, Manrique and they were not furnished clear and certified true copies of the
Pineda. Resolution dated 03 January 2003 to enable them to file their
Opposition/Comment to the Motion to Withdraw.
Criminal Case No. 02-3393 for Kidnapping against accused PO1
Froilan Trestiza y Lacson (PO1 Trestiza), PS/Insp. Loriemar L. On 05 March 2003, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Makati Branch
Manrique (PS/Insp. Manrique) and Rodie Pineda y Jimenez (Pineda) 135 sent a letter dated 26 February 2003 addressed to the Branch
and Criminal Case No. 02-3394 for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Clerk of this Court ostensibly transmitting the Release Order of PO1
Ammunitions against accused PO1 Trestiza alone were filed before Trestiza dated 22 February 2003 together with other pertinent
this Court on 20 November 2002. Surprisingly, however, SPO2 documents in connection with Criminal Case No. 02-3394, which was
[Reynel] Jose was not included as an accused in the Kidnapping case duly approved by the Hon. Francisco B. Ibay, Presiding Judge of said
although in the original Information, Prosecutor Andres N. Marcos Court.1âwphi1
mentions him as someone who mutually helped all the other accused
in the willful, unlawful, felonious kidnapping of private complainants The Order of Release dated 22 February 2003 signed by Judge Ibay
Lawrence Yu y Lim (Yu) and Ma. Irma Navarro (Navarro). A Motion for directed the Jail Warden of Makati Police Station, Makati City to
Reinvestigation dated 21 November 2002 was then filed by "all" three discharge from his custody the person of said accused as the latter
accused while a separate Motion for Reinvestigation and/or was able to file the corresponding bail bond in the amount of two
Preliminary Investigation dated 22 November was filed by accused hundred thousand pesos (PHP200,000.00) thru the Plaridel Surety
PS/Insp. Manrique. and Insurance Company provided "there exists no order in any
other case to the effect that he shall remain confined under your
Then Acting Presiding Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos issued the custody." He set the arraignment of the accused on 14 March 2003
Order dated 26 November 2002 granting the Motions filed by all at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.
accused. In the said Order, he directed the Public Prosecutor to
conduct a Preliminary Investigation of the cases filed and to furnish Before the scheduled hearing of the Motion to Withdraw at 2:00 o’clock
the Court with his Report within sixty (60) days from said date. in the afternoon of 06 March 2003, the Private Prosecutor filed her
Opposition thereto at 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon of said date. She
On 21 February 2003, Public Prosecutor Andres N. Marcos filed a alleged therein that while the Motion to Withdraw filed by Public
Motion to Withdraw Information of Kidnapping with Ransom and to Prosecutor Marcos prays for the withdrawal of the Information for
Admit Information for Robbery with attached Resolution dated 03 Kidnapping with Ransom and the substitution thereof with an
January 2008. He pointed out therein that after he conducted a Information for Robbery, the latter Information was filed immediately
preliminary investigation, he found no probable cause exists to warrant with the Criminal Cases Unit of the Office of the Clerk of Court on the
the indictment of the accused for the crime of Kidnapping with same date that the Motion to Withdraw was filed with this Court on 21
Ransom. He added that they should be charged instead for the crimes February 2003. Subsequently, said "Information for Robbery" was
of Robbery and Grave Threats. The Court set the hearing of this raffled to RTC Branch 57 on 03 March 2003 yet there was a scheduled
Motion to 06 March 2003. hearing of the Motion to Withdraw on 06 March 2003. She added that
the complainants were in a quandary why the alleged "substituted"
On 03 March 2003, private complainants appearing through Private Information for Robbery was raffled to another Court and docketed as
Prosecutor Teresita G. Oledan filed an "Urgent Motion to Hold Criminal Case No. 03-766, when this Court has already acquired
jurisdiction over the original cases filed. The same case was thereafter
consolidated with this Court on 26 March 2003 as per Order dated 24 they averred that the City Prosecutor’s Office has approved the
March 2003 rendered by the Honorable Reinato G. Quilala, Presiding findings of the reinvestigating Assistant City Prosecutor on the
Judge thereat. Accused PS/Insp. Manrique, PO1 Trestiza, and Pineda downgrading of the original complaint. Both accused prayed that said
posted bail in this case, which was duly approved by Judge Ibay, while motion be heard on 28 May 2003.
accused SPO2 Jose’s bail was approved by Judge Napoleon E.
Inoturan, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 133. On 9 June 2003, the Private Prosecutor filed an Ex-Parte Opposition
to Accused’s Motion for Withdrawal of Original Information with Motion
At the hearing to the Motion to Withdraw, then Acting Presiding Judge for Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest against accused SPO2 Jose. She
Abad Santos gave counsel for the accused time within which to file his alleged therein that "it is true that one of the accused’s right is the right
comment/objection to the Urgent Motion to Hold Withdrawal of to speedy trial. However, where, as in this case, the stench of
Information for Kidnapping filed by the private complainants, furnishing "something fishy" already was evident when suddenly the robbery
the Private Prosecutor a copy thereof, who was given the same case as amended by Prosecutor Marcos and more recently "affirmed"
number of days to file her Reply, if necessary. The Court likewise by Prosecutor Sibucao, there should be further in-depth investigation
ordered the "re-commitment" of all three (3) accused, who were then as the circumstances on how the three accused were able to post bail
present at that hearing, to the custody of the Makati City Jail despite without the knowledge and approval of this Honorable Court, which
the fact that they have already posted bail, considering that the Motion had already acquired jurisdiction over the case. In fact, a Petition for
to Withdraw was still pending resolution. Review from the Resolution of Prosecutor Sibucao denying the Private
Complainants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the 03 January 2003
Counsel for the accused filed his Comment to the Opposition dated 10 Resolution of Prosecutor Marcos duly approved by the City Prosecutor
March 2003 alleging that the same did not bear the conformity of the has been seasonably filed." She further alleged that, the Urgent
Public Prosecutor who has direct control and supervision over the Motion allegedly filed by accused PO1 Trestiza and PS/Insp. Manrique
Private Prosecutor as provided for under the Rules of Criminal does not include accused SPO2 Jose, also a member of the Police
Procedure. Said Comment, to his mind, is thus a mere scrap of paper Force. However, the records show that the latter also "post bail" for
which did not deserve any consideration by the Court. the Robbery case and was in fact "outside" the Chamber of this
Honorable Court when the hearing was being conducted. "However,
when she went out to look for him, SPO2 Jose was able to do a
On 13 March 2003, the Court was furnished by the private
‘Houdini’ and disappeared from view." Private Prosecutor Oledan
complainants a copy of their "Motion for Reconsideration of the
prayed for the deferment of the proceedings herein until the final
Resolution dated January 03, 2003 but Released on February 20,
resolution of the Petition for Review.
2003" which they filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati
City.
Referring back to the Urgent Motion to Resolve by accused PO1
Trestiza and PS/Insp. Manrique, considering that the latter prayed for
xxx
it to be heard on 28 May 2003, but filed said Motion the following day
only, the same was then set for hearing on 10 June 2003. On the same
On 29 May 2003, accused PO1 Trestiza and PS/Insp. Manrique filed date, the Private Prosecutor furnished the Court a copy of their Petition
an Urgent Motion to Resolve Motion for Withdrawal of Original for Review which they filed with the Department of Justice. In the
Information claiming that said Original Informations have meantime, the Branch Clerk of this Court issued a Certification to the
subsequently been amended by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and effect that Acting Presiding Judge Abad Santos was on official leave
just "needs the court/judge[‘s] approval of the Motion to Withdraw until 15 July 2003 and that there is an Urgent Motion to be resolved.
Complaint and for Admission of the Amended Information." Moreover, Pairing Judge Manuel D. Victorio, acting on the Urgent Motion, issued
the Order of even date directing the City Prosecution Office to submit maintains that the correct and appropriate charges to be filed against
to the Court the complete records of its Preliminary Investigation within accused should be for ROBBERY and GRAVE THREATS but for two
five (5) days from notice, thereafter the same shall be considered for (2) counts each, and NOT for KIDNAPPING as initially filed. Thus, it
resolution. prayed for this Court to be allowed to withdraw the present Information
for Kidnapping "considering that the appropriate charges of two (2)
On 23 June 2003, accused PO1 Trestiza filed an Ex-Parte Motion for counts of Robbery and two (2) counts of Grave Threats in lieu of the
Early Resolution of the Pending Motion to Resolve, reiterating the charge of KIDNAPPING have already been filed with the proper
grounds stated in his previous Motion. Courts."

Before the issue could be resolved by the Pairing Judge, however, the To justify the Prosecution’s withdrawal of the Information for
Honorable Estela Perlas Bernabe, took over this Court as Assisting KIDNAPPING, Public Prosecutor Edgardo G. Hirang states, in the
Presiding Judge, after the Honorable Salvador S. Abad Santos Order attached to the said Motion, that, to wit:
requested the Supreme Court to be relieved of his assignment herein.
Judge Bernabe issued the Order dated 27 June 2003 holding in "A careful re-evaluation of the pieces of evidence adduced by both
abeyance the Resolution of the Prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw parties shows that the offense of Kidnapping shall not prosper against
Information for a period of sixty (60) days from the filing of the Petition all the accused. As correctly stated in the Resolution issued on
for Review by private complainants with the Reviewing Office. On 08 February 20, 2003, one of the essential elements for the crime of
July 2003, she denied the Motion to Dismiss Criminal Case No. 02- Kidnapping for Ransom defined and penalized under [Article] 267 of
3394 for Illegal Possession of Firearms filed against accused PO1 the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is that [the] offender must be a
Trestiza on the grounds that the allegations raised by said accused private individual which does not obtain in the case at bar as
are defenses proper for determination in a full-blown trial and set the respondents Trestiza, Manrique, and Jose are public officers being
pre-trial of the same to 24 July 2003. Trial on the merits for this police officers who at the time the complainants were allegedly
particular Criminal Case ensued until the Prosecution rested its case divested of their cash money and personal belongings by herein
and said accused filed his Demurrer to Evidence on 05 March 2004. respondents, were conducting a police operation to enforce the
provision of the Dangerous Drug Law (R.A. 9165).
In the meantime, without any word yet as to the outcome of the Petition
for Review filed with the DOJ relative to Criminal Case No. 02-3393, All accused were in the place of the incident to conduct such operation
Judge Bernabe issued the Order dated 28 August 2003, directing the is shown not only by the existence of coordination between them and
City Prosecution Office to conduct a re-assessment and re-evaluation the police authorities but also by the declaration of the complainants
of the evidence presented and to submit its report and that they were able to verify the plate number of the vehicle of the
recommendation within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of said accused from the Makati Police Station.
Order. The Resolution of the subject Motion was again held in
abeyance. Hence, they should be charged with the offense of Robbery under
Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code and Grave
On 02 March 2004, the Prosecution filed a "Motion to Resolve (Motion Threats as recommended by this Office in its Resolution issued on
to Withdraw Information of Kidnapping) with attached Order dated 19 February 20, 2003. Considering that there are two (2) complainants,
February 2004. It alleged therein that it conducted a thorough re- the respondents should be charged with two (2) counts of Robbery
assessment and re-evaluation of the evidence obtaining in this case and Grave Threats."
in compliance with the Order of this Court dated 28 August 2003 and
The Prosecution filed on the same date a Motion to Amend Information 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three
and to Admit Attached Amended Information in Criminal Case No. 02- days;
766 alleging that the Criminal Information therein for Robbery should
only be limited to private complainant Yu’s complaint and not to 2. If it shall have committed simulating public authority;
Navarro’s. Counsel for the accused, Atty. Jose Ma. Q. Austria, filed an
Urgent Motion to calendar the hearing of the Motion to Amend
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the
Information and to Admit Amended Information which the Court
person kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been
granted in its Order dated 25 March 2004. made;

In the meantime, Criminal Case No. 04-1311 for Robbery which was
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when
filed on the strength of the Complaint of Navarro was consolidated with
the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
similar cases pending before this Court, upon the Order dated 12
March 2004 by the Honorable Ma. Cristina J. Cornejo, Presiding
Judge of RTC Branch 147. The Court finds this unmeritorious. Even a public officer can commit
the said crime within the context of the aforesaid legal provision. This
is settled in our jurisprudence in the case of People vs. ALIPIO
After study, the Court resolves to:
SANTIANO, JOSE SANDIGAN, et al. (GR No. 123979[,] December 3,
1998) which provides in part:
1. DENY the Motion to Withdraw Information for Kidnapping under
Criminal Case No. 02-3393;
"The fact alone that appellant Pillneta is an organic member of the
NARCOM and appellant Sandigan a member of the PNP would not
2. To [sic] GRANT the Motion to Amend Information for Robbery; [and] exempt them from the criminal liability of kidnapping. It is quite clear
that in abducting and taking away the victim, appellants did so neither
3. To [sic] Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest in furtherance of official functions nor in the pursuit of authority vested
against SPO2 Jose in Criminal Case No. 02-3393 until after the in them. It is not, in fine, in relation to their office, but in purely private
Information relative thereto shall have been duly amended by the capacity that they have acted in concert with their co-appellant
Prosecution. Santiano and Chanco."

In its Motion to Withdraw Information for Kidnapping, the Public Even an eminent jurist, Justice Florenz B. Regalado elucidates on this
Prosecutor argues in essence that the crime of Kidnapping could not point clearly:
be possibly committed by the accused as they, except for one, are
police officers, who at the time the complainants were divested of cash "This article provides that the crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal
and other personal belongings were conducting a police operation to detention are committed by private individuals obviously because if
enforce the provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Law. This to the mind the offender is a public officer the crime is arbitrary detention under
of the movant runs counter to the provisions of Art. 267 of the Revised Art. 124, but passing sub silentio on the matter of kidnapping. It should
Penal Code which provides that any private individual who shall be understood however, that the public officer who unlawfully detains
kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his another and is punishable by Art. 124 is one who has the duty to
liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: apprehend a person with a correlative power to detain him. If he is only
an employee with clerical or postal functions, although the Code
considers him as a public officer, his detention of the victim is illegal
detention under this article since he is acting in a private, and not an 1. DENY the Motion to Withdraw Information for Kidnapping [under
official, capacity. If a policeman kidnaps the victim, except when Criminal Case No. 02-3393];
legally authorized as part of police operations, he cannot also be said
to be acting in an official capacity, hence he is to be treated as a 2. GRANT the Motion to Amend Information for Robbery;
private individual liable under this article. (underscoring ours)
3. Hold in abeyance the Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest against
From the purpose and the formulation of R.A. 18 and R.A. 1084, it can accused SPO2 Jose in Criminal Case No. 02-3393 until after the
be deduced that the legislative intendment was to put all forms of Information relative thereto shall have been duly amended by the
kidnapping under Art. 267 when Congress amended it together with Prosecution.
Art. 270. There appears to have been some oversight, however, in the
related articles and these will be discussed at the proper juncture."
Set these cases for arraignment on 27 April 2004 at 8:30 o’clock in the
(Florenz B. Regalado, Pages 488 and 489, Criminal Law Conspectus, morning.1âwphi1 The Amended Information for Robbery duly
First Edition, March 2000) attached in the Motion is hereby ADMITTED.

As to whether or not the accused were indeed engaged in the

SO ORDERED.
performance of a legitimate police operation at the time the private
complainants were allegedly deprived of their liberty and personal
belongings is a matter which at this stage can only be considered as Atty. Jose Ma. Q. Austria (Atty. Austria) withdrew as counsel for
a defense that calls for further factual support in the course of judicial Manrique and Pineda. Atty. Austria also manifested that he would file
proceedings. Was there a Mission Order? Are there documents to an Omnibus Motion relative to the 16 April 2004 Order of the trial court.
show that police-to-police coordinations were indeed made? Are there The arraignment was reset to 25 May 2004,9 which was further reset
corroborations to these claims whether documentary or testimonial? to 28 June 2004,10 19 July 2004,11 23 August 2004,12 and finally on 31
The need for further evidence supportive of this claim gains August 2004.13
significance in the light of the emphatic assertions to the contrary by
the private complainants and their witnesses. Atty. Austria filed his Omnibus Motion for Trestiza: motion for
reconsideration of the 16 April 2004 Order, motion to quash the
As there appears to be probable cause for the inclusion of accused informations, and motion to allow Trestiza to post bail.14 Complainants
SPO2 Jose in Criminal Case No. 02-3393 for Kidnapping considering opposed the Omnibus Motion.15 The corresponding reply16 and
that the latter was specifically mentioned in the body of the Information rejoinder17 were also filed. In its 19 August 2004 Order,18 the trial court
as someone who conspired, confederated and mutually helped the denied the Omnibus Motion. It ruled that the trial court has the
other accused in this case, the Court resolves to await for the authority to deny a Motion to Withdraw Information relative to a
Prosecution to amend the same before issuing a Warrant of Arrest criminal case filed before it. Moreover, the quashal of the informations
against said accused. against the accused goes into the determination of the nature of the
arrest, which, in turn, goes into the merits of the case. Finally, the
charge of kidnapping is a non-bailable offense.
Lastly, the Court finds the sought amendment of the Information for
Robbery to be well-taken.
When the case was called for arraignment, Trestiza, Manrique and
Pineda all pleaded not guilty to the following charges:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:
Criminal Case No. 02-3393: d. One (1) men’s ring worth ₱15,000.00;

That on or about the 7th day of November 2002, in the City of Makati, e. Two (2) cellphone[s] described as Nokia 9210 & 3310;
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, PO1 Froilan Trestiza y Lacson and f. One (1) Philip Chariole [sic] watch worth ₱150,000.00;
P/S Insp. Loriemar L. Manrique, both active members of the Philippine
National Police, and Rodie Pineda y Jimenez, a private individual[,] all g. One (1) Philip Chariole [sic] bracelet worth ₱75,000.00;
of them armed with firearms, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping one another with one PO2 Reynel Jose, a member of the
Philippine National Police, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and h. One (1) solo diamond studded [sic] (3K) worth ₱500,000.00;
feloniously kidnap Lawrence Yu y Lim and Maria Irma Navarro, or
otherwise deprive them of their liberty by then and there kidnap without i. One (1) women’s ring gold worth ₱12,000.00;
legal grounds for the purpose of extorting money for their safety and
immediate release as in fact said accused demanded the amount of j. One (1) necklace gold [sic] worth ₱20,000.00;
₱1,000,000.00 as ransom money from them.
k. One (1) [sic] cellphone[s] described as Nokia 7650 & 8855; and,
CONTRARY TO LAW.
l. Cash money amounting to more or less ₱300,000.00
Criminal Case No. 03-766: to the damage and prejudice of the said complainants.

That on or about the 7th day of November 2002, in the City of Makati, CONTRARY TO LAW."
Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, PO1 Froilan Trestiza y Criminal Case No. 04-1311:
Lacson and P/S Insp. Loriemar L. Manrique, PO2 Reynel Jose, all
active members of the Philippine National Police, and Rodie Pineda y
That on or about the 7th day of November 2002, in the City of Makati,
Jimenez, a private individual[,] all of them armed with firearms,
Metro Manila, Philippines a place within the jurisdiction of this
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with intent
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
to gain by means of force and violence or intimidation, did then and
confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another,
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob and divest Lawrence Yu
with intent of gain and by means of force and violence or intimidation,
y Lim and Maria Irma Navarro of the following items to wit:
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob and divest
Irma Maria A. Navarro of the following items to wit:
a. One (1) piece of necklace (gold) with pendant amounting to
₱50,000.00;
a. One (1) Chariol (sic) watch
b. Two (2) pieces bracelet (gold) worth more or less ₱70,000.00;
b. One (1) Gold ring
c. One (1) Rolex watch worth ₱270,000.00;
c. One (1) Chariol (sic) bracelet
d. One (1) pair diamond earring (sic) 7. None of the items allegedly lost by the complainants were recovered
from accused Froilan Trestiza.22
e. One (1) gold necklace
The trial court summarized the testimonies during trial as follows:
f. One (1) cellphone 7650 Nokia
The prosecution sought to establish its case by presenting the
g. One (1) cellphone 8855 Nokia following witnesses: Ma. Irma A. Navarro, Lawrence Yu y Lim, PO2
Rodolfo Santiago, PO3 Rosauro P. Almonte, John Paul Joseph P.
Suguitan, Angelo Gonzales, PO3 Edward C. Ramos, Schneider R.
h. Cash money amounting to ₱120,000.00
Vivas, PSInsp. Salvador V. Caro, and Chief Insp. Roseller Fabian.
to the damage and prejudice of the complainant.

CONTRARY TO LAW.19 The Prosecution’s main evidence relies heavily upon the accounts of
Irma and Lawrence who testified respectively as follows:
The trial court set the case for pre-trial conference on 14 September
On November 7, 2002 at about one o’clock in the morning, Irma and
2004,20 which was reset to 20 September 2004.21 The parties
stipulated on the following: her boyfriend Lawrence, both twenty-two (22) years old at the time of
the incident, were at the "Where Else Disco" in Makati attending a
party. They stayed thereat for around thirty (30) minutes only. Irma
1. That on November 7, 2002, the three (3) accused, Trestiza, however, went out ahead of Lawrence. When she was about to
Manrique and Pineda were using an Adventure van with plate no. proceed to where Lawrence’s Honda ESI car was parked, she noticed
XAU-298; that the said car was blocked by another vehicle which was a
Mitsubishi Adventure van. Three (3) armed men later on emerged from
2. That Loriemar Manrique was the team leader of the group the said van. As she was about to open the door of the Honda ESI,
comprising [sic] of Rodie Pineda and Reynel Jose on November 7, somebody hit her in [sic] the nape. When she turned her back, she
2002; saw the three (3) men in the company of Rodie Pineda alias "Buboy"
("Pineda"). She knew Pineda because the latter was her sister
3. That the incident started at the Hotel Intercon located in Makati City; Cynthia’s "kumpare," Pineda being the godfather of Cynthia’s child.
Furthermore, she saw Pineda in their residence the night of November
4. That Loriemar Manrique is a member of the PNP Drug Enforcement 6, 2002 as he visited his [sic] sister. She asked Pineda what was
Agency; happening but the latter replied "pasensya na, mare, trabaho lang"
("Bear with me, mare, this is just a job").
5. That accused Froilan Trestiza was the driver of the Adventure van
bearing plate no. XAU-298 on November 17, 2002; She was told that the three (3) whose identities she later on learned
as Capt. Lorieman Manrique, PO2 Reynel Jose and PO1 Froilan
Trestiza, were policemen. She asked why she was being accosted but
6. That after the operation was conducted, there was never any
she was handcuffed by Manrique. She was ushered inside the Honda
occasion that the accused Froilan Trestiza communicated with any of
ESI. Pineda asked her where Lawrence was but she was left inside
the complainants;
the car with Jose while Pineda, Trestiza and Manrique on the other
hand went away apparently to look for Lawrence. Pineda and
Manrique later on went back inside the Honda ESI. They drove later accused the picture of her child. She was cursed by Jose. Trestiza on
with Jose behind the wheels [sic] while Pineda occupied the the other hand told her that Lawrence’s transaction should better push
passenger seat. They followed the Mitsubishi Adventure van which through.
was then driven by Trestiza. Unknown to Irma, Lawrence was already
inside the van at the time. They just drove and drove around The two, John Paul Suguitan and Angelo Gonzales, later on arrived at
("umiikot"), passing through small alleys as they avoided major routes. the gas station. Lawrence took from them what appears to be a
She was asked later by Pineda to remove her jewelry. She was able package and handed the same to Pineda. Manrique thereafter called
to remove only her earrings as she was in handcuffs. Pineda himself Pineda asking "positive na ba?" to which Pineda replied "yes." The
removed her Philip Chariolle [sic] watch and bracelet. Her necklace amount raised by the friends of Lawrence was one hundred eighty
and ring followed. All these were later on turned over by Pineda to thousand pesos (Php 180,000.00). They (Irma and Lawrence) were
Manrique. Her bag where her wallet containing the amount of later brought to the Star Mall along Edsa. Their captors warned them
₱120,000.00 was likewise taken. not to report the matter to the authorities otherwise they will face dire
consequences. The items taken from Irma like the cash money,
Her two (2) cellphones, a 7650 and an 8855, were likewise taken by jewelry and cellphone were placed by the men inside the console box
Pineda. They stopped several times at the side streets and the of the Mitsubishi Adventure. When they reached Star Mall, the men
accused would talk to each other. Pineda would stay with her inside talked to them for thirty minutes. Again, they were warned about the
the vehicle while Jose would go out and talk to the occupants of the consequences of their reporting the incident to the police. Irma was
Mitsubishi Adventure. Later on, she and Lawrence were brought told that the men knew her address, the members of her family and
together inside the Mitsubishi Adventure van. It was there that they that they have the picture of her child. She was likewise warned not to
were told that they will not be released if they will not be able to report the matter to her father, Rod Navarro, who was an actor and a
produce one million pesos. These were all uttered by Jose and policeman, otherwise her daughter with Lawrence will be the one [to]
Manrique. It was somewhere in Blumentritt, San Juan where all the bear the consequences ("anak ko ang mananagot"). They were
accused stopped for the last time. She was crying all the while. released after thirty (30) minutes. Lawrence had to plead for their
gasoline from the accused and he was given Php 100.00.
She later on felt the call of nature, prompting her to ask permission if
she could possibly relieve herself. She was accompanied by Pineda Irma decided not to tell her mother about the incident as she was very
to a nearby Shell gas station in San Juan. When they returned to afraid. Lawrence however made a report to the Makati police station
where they stopped, she was asked as to whom she could possibly in the evening of 7 November 2002 where he was shown a
call so that the money that the accused were asking will be produced. "coordination sheet" pertaining to the plate number of the Mitsubishi
The accused later on asked Lawrence to make a call using his Adventure. Buboy Pineda in the meanwhile kept on calling them (Irma
cellphone with speaker phone. Lawrence was able to get in touch with and Lawrence) demanding for their "balance" of one million pesos
his friends John Paul Suguitan and Angelo Gonzales. The latter was (Php 1,000,000.00). Irma’s mother however soon learned of the
told that Lawrence figured in an accident and that he needs money incident because of a newspaper item. Her father likewise learned of
badly. Lawrence and his friends agreed that the money the two will the incident and lost no time in contacting authorities from the CIDG.
produce will be brought to the Caltex gas station along Ortigas corner They (Irma and Lawrence) were later investigated by the CIDG people
Wilson Street in Greenhills. They proceeded to the said place later to whom they gave their sworn statements on November 14, 2002. As
where they waited for the friends of Lawrence. She was told later by Buboy Pineda continued to call them for the alleged balance, an
Manrique that she better pray that the transaction pushes through. entrapment operation was planned on that date. Boodles of money
Manrique further warned her against reporting the incident to anyone were dusted with ultra-violet powder. On the same date, Buboy Pineda
lest her whole family will be held liable. She was even shown by the called Lawrence for purposes of meeting him that night in order to get
the remaining money. The entrapment operation which was conducted They resumed driving again. Jose asked him again about the money.
along the New World Hotel, and participated in by PO2 Almonte, was When he gave the same response, Jose put a plastic material over his
successful as Buboy Pineda was arrested. Recovered from the head which made him unable to breath [sic]. Jose strangled him,
possession of Pineda were a gold necklace without a pendant; a Nokia prompting him to shout later "okay na, okay na. Sige na, sige na
cellphone model 7650; a Toyota corolla car with plate number PNG magbibigay na ako" ("Okay, okay. I will give."). Jose stopped
214 color red and one (1) ignition key. The necessary strangling him and immediately removed the plastic material over his
acknowledgment receipt was duly signed by the said accused. A head. Jose remarked that had he cooperated earlier, he would not
pawnshop ticket was likewise recovered from his possession. have been hurt. Trestiza and Manrique told him that he should not
have kept the matter long. Later on, the four (4) men had a brief
Lawrence on the other hand narrated that during that fateful day of 7 huddle. He was later on approached by them saying "okay na ha,
November 2002 at around 1:30 o’clock in the morning, as he was isang milyon na" ("Okey ha, it’s one million). He could not recall
stepping out from the Where Else Disco, he was suddenly however who in particular made the remark. He was later on instructed
"sandwhiched" [sic] by two (2) persons, Manrique and Trestiza. by Manrique to call certain persons with the information that he figured
Pineda whom he likewise knew, held a gun and pointed the same to in [an] accident. He was made to use his 9210 model phone as the
him. He was later on "lifted" through his belt and loaded to a yellow same had a "speaker" thus enabling the accused to listen to the
Mitsubishi Adventure. He was made to occupy the passenger seat at conversation. He tried to get in touch with his siblings but failed. He
the back while Trestiza drove the said vehicle. Manrique occupied the was able to contact later on his friends John Paul Suguitan and Angelo
seat beside Trestiza. He asked the accused who they were and he Gonzales who were then in Libis. He told his friends that he needed
was told that they were policemen. At the time, Trestiza was wearing money very badly as he had an accident. He instructed his friends to
an outfit which was "hip hop" while Manrique was wearing a polo which proceed to the area given by Manrique which was at the Caltex gas
was "button down." He was cursed and told to shut up. He was asked station along Ortigas corner Wilson Street in Greenhills.
to bow down his head as they drove along. He remembers that the
accused dug into his pockets and his valuables consisting of Later on, Irma and Lawrence were allowed to be together inside the
cellphones, a 9210 and a 3310 models [sic] respectively, including his Mitsubishi Adventure. It was at that point where they were told to
wallet, cigarettes, watch bracelet, ring, necklace and a pair of earrings, produce the amount of One Million pesos (Php 1,000,000.00) that
were taken from him. He later on saw his Honda ESI car. He noticed night so they will be released. These very words were uttered by Jose
that the Mitsubishi Adventure they riding was following the said Honda and Manrique. Irma later on asked permission to answer the call of
ESI. Manrique later asked him how much money did he have. When nature and she was accompanied by Pineda to the Shell gas station
replied that his money was inside his car, Manrique allegedly retorted in San Juan where she relieved herself. Upon arriving at the said gas
"imposible." They later on stopped in Mandaluyong near an open station, Lawrence was directed to drive his Honda ESI car. He was in
canal. He was asked again by Manrique about his money. At that the company of Pineda while Irma on the other hand was with
point, another man whose name he later on learned was SPO2 Reynel Manrique, Trestiza and Jose inside the Mitsubishi Adventure. While
Jose, boarded also the Mitsubishi Adventure. Jose asked him about Irma was inside the Mitsubishi Adventure, she was told that if the
his money. When he replied that his money was inside his car, Jose person contacted by Lawrence will not show up, they will not be
got mad and boxed him on his face. They later on resumed driving released and if Lawrence will escape, she will be finished off.
around. When they stopped again, Jose asked him whether he has Manrique thereafter told Irma to better pray that the transaction will
thought of the money. When he again replied that the money was push through. She was warned that if she reports the incident, her
inside his car, he was boxed repeatedly by Jose. Manrique and family will be harmed. The said accused had her child’s picture at the
Trestiza were seated in the front seats but did not do anything. time. Jose was cursing her. Trestiza on the other hand was seated at
the driver side of the Mitsubishi Adventure van and remarked that
Lawrence’s transaction should push through so that they will be to who they gave their sworn statements on November 14, 2002. As
released. Buboy Pineda continued to call them for the alleged balance, an
entrapment operation was planned on that date. Boodles of money
Not long after, Lawrence alighted from his car and stood beside the were dusted with ultra-violet powder. On the same date, Buboy Pineda
vehicle. His friends’ vehicle later on arrived. Lawrence approached the called Lawrence for purposes of meeting him that night in order to get
vehicle that has just arrived and took something. Pineda remained the remaining money. The entrapment operation which was conducted
seated in Lawrence’s car while smoking. The door of the said car was along the New World Hotel, and participated in by PO2 Almonte, was
open at the time. Lawrence thereafter walked back to where Pineda successful as Buboy Pineda was arrested. Recovered from the
was and handed to him a package. It was already around 4: or 4:30 in possession of Pineda were a gold necklace without pendant; a Nokia
the morning. Lawrence’s friends thereafter went away, prompting cellphone model 7650; a Toyota corolla car with plate number PNG
Pineda to call Manrique. Manrique allegedly asked "positive na ba?" 214 color red and one (1) ignition key. The necessary
to which Pineda replied "yes." acknowledgment receipt was duly signed by the said accused. A
pawnshop ticket was likewise recovered from his possession.
The amount raised by the friends of Lawrence was one hundred eighty
thousand pesos (Php 180,000.00). They (Irma and Lawrence) were Early in the morning of the following day at the CIDG, Lorieman
later brought to the Star Mall along Edsa. Their captors warned them Manrique went to the said office looking for his co-accused Froilan
not to report the matter to the authorities otherwise they will face dire Trestiza. He (Manrique) was arrested thereat when the private
consequences. The items taken from Irma like the cash money, complainants who happened to be there as they were giving additional
jewelry and cellphone were placed by the men inside the console box statements identified him (Manrique) through a one-way mirror.
of the Mitsubishi Adventure. When they reached Star Mall, the men Trestiza was likewise arrested later as he was identified by his co-
talked to them for thirty minutes. Again, they were warned about the accused Rodie Pineda. During the arrest, Trestiza was found to be in
consequences of their reporting the incident to the police. Irma was possession of an unlicensed firearm for which the corresponding
told that the men knew her address, the members of her family and charge was filed. He (Trestiza) was likewise the subject of the
that they have the picture of her child. She was likewise warned not to complaint sheet filed by Irma and Lawrence and was likewise
report the matter to her father, Rod Navarro, who was an actor and a identified by his co-accused Pineda as one of the cohorts in the
policeman, otherwise her daughter with Lawrence will be the one [to] kidnapping of the former.
bear the consequences ("anak ko ang mananagot"). They were
released along Edsa after thirty (30) minutes. Lawrence had to plead The Defense on the other hand presented the following version:
for their gasoline from the accused and he was given Php 100.00.
Private complainants Irma Navarro and Lawrence Yu were known to
Irma decided not to tell her mother about the incident as she was very accused Rodie ‘Buboy’ Pineda, a freelance dance instructor prior to
afraid. Lawrence however made a report to the Makati police station his incarceration, and a godfather to the child of Irma’s sister, since
in the evening of 7 November 2002 where he was shown a 1997. The two (Irma and Lawrence) are known to Pineda as suppliers
"coordination sheet" pertaining to the plate number of the Mitsubishi of prohibited drugs, particularly ‘Ecstasy,’ ‘blue anchors,’ and ‘yeng-
Adventure. Buboy Pineda in the meanwhile kept on calling them (Irma yen.’ The two, Irma and Lawrence have been distributing these drugs
and Lawrence) demanding for their "balance" of one million pesos to various customers who [sic] frequented bars and disco pubs.
(Php 1,000,000.00). Irma’s mother however soon learned of the Pineda has been transacting with the two, particularly Lawrence, for a
incident because of a newspaper item. Her father likewise learned of profit. Realizing later that his involvement with the group of Lawrence
the incident and lost no time in contacting authorities from the CIDG. has become deeper and deeper, Pineda thought of causing the arrest
They (Irma and Lawrence) were later investigated by the CIDG people of the latter. He (Pineda) soon decided to report the matter to the
police authorities and contacted forthwith his long-time acquaintance, and Lawrence. Irma went hysterical and was loaded into the Honda
now his co-accused Froilan Trestiza on November 6, 2002 at 10:30 in ESI while Lawrence was made to board the Mitsubishi Adventure. It
the evening. At that time, Trestiza was a policeman under the Special was at that point when two (2) mobile cars arrived with policemen on
Action Unit, Group Director’s Office of the National Capital Region. board. A commotion immediately ensued between the police men
Pineda and Trestiza, who have known each other for the past ten aboard the mobile cars and Manrique’s men. Firearms were drawn
years, used to be dancers at the Equinox Disco along Pasay Road. and poked against each of the men (‘nagkatutukan ng baril’). Jose,
Upon learning the information from Pineda, Trestiza contacted his however, later on showed what appeared to be a document to the men
classmate PO2 Rolando de Guzman of the Philippine Drugs aboard the mobile car. One of the men later on made a call through
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) who in turn referred Trestiza to Captain his radio and then left afterwards.
Lorieman Manrique who was then the Deputy Chief of the Special
Enforcement Unit of the PDEA, Metro Manila Regional Office. Manrique later on instructed Trestiza to drive towards Edsa on their
Manrique was called later by Trestiza through cellphone and they way to Camp Crame. Along the way, Manrique conducted a tactical
agreed to meet the same night, at around midnight, at the parking lot interrogation against Lawrence and Irma about their drug-related
of the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati. Manrique prepared a Pre- activities. Upon reaching SM Megamall, however, Manrique told
Operation sheet for a possible narcotics operation. He likewise gave Trestiza to pull over. Manrique talked to Lawrence, Irma, Jose and
[the] plate number of the vehicle he was then driving which was a Pineda. Trestiza remained inside the van. Trestiza, however,
Mitsubishi Adventure van with plate number HAU-298. overheard that Lawrence was at that point was talking about his
supplier of ‘ecstasy.’ Thereafter, Manrique briefed anew Pineda and
During their ensuing meeting, Manrique was with PO2 Reynel Jose. Jose in the presence of Irma and Lawrence. It was understood among
Pineda and Manrique talked to each other. Manrique later on briefed them that Lawrence will wait for his alleged supplier whose name was
Pineda and Jose. Trestiza was about three to five meters away from allegedly ‘Jojo’ at the Caltex gas station along Wilson Street in
the three (3). After the briefing, Manrique asked Trestiza to drive the Greenhills. Lawrence told Manrique that this Jojo was really a big-time
Mitsubishi Adventure. Manrique told Trestiza that the buy-bust supplier of ecstasy and cocaine. Upon arriving at the gas station, the
operation has been pre-coordinated with the Makati police. Manrique group waited for Lawrence’s supplier for an hour but nobody
later joined Trestiza inside the Mitsubishi Adventure while Jose and appeared. Manrique became impatient and went to where Lawrence
Pineda were outside as though waiting for someone. Irma and was. Manrique later told his men that Lawrence might have alerted his
Lawrence later on arrived and they talked to Pineda and Jose. Pineda supplier. He (Manrique) then decided to bring the two (Irma and
introduced Jose to Irma and Lawrence as ‘the buyer.’ Jose was only Lawrence) to Camp Crame. Trestiza, however, pointed out to
wearing a t-shirt at the time and it seemed Lawrence and Irma doubted Manrique that nothing was taken from the possession of the two.
him. Jose told the two that he has the money with him and he would Manrique conferred anew with Jose. Jose remarked that the items
like to buy drugs. Irma however whispered something to Lawrence could have been thrown away. It was later on decided that Irma and
prompting the latter to vascillate [sic]. From where they are seated Lawrence will just be released. The two were indeed released near
inside the Mitsubishi Adventure, Trestiza and Manrique could see the [Manuela] Complex along Edsa.
what were [sic] going on among Irma, Lawrence, Jose and Pineda.
Later on, Jose approached Trestiza and Manrique and told them that Trestiza was later on arrested by the CIDG operatives in the early
the ‘pre-arranged signal’ is when he (Jose) scratched his head. morning of November 16, 2002 at the parking lot of the Club 5 Disco.
According further to Jose, his scratching of his head will mean a signal A gun was poked at him and he was shoved inside a vehicle. He was
to Trestiza to drive towards them the vehicle. As Jose later on boxed and placed on handcuffs. He was not shown any warrant of
scratched his head, Trestiza drove the vehicle towards the group as arrest. He told the arresting officers that he is also a policeman. He
instructed. Manrique thereafter alighted and effected the arrest of Irma was brought later to Camp Crame. While at Camp Crame, he was
shown to his co-accused Pineda and the latter was asked "di ba sya Also, while Manrique presented what appears to be a Pre-Operation
yung nag-drive noong may operation laban kina Irma Navarro?" ("Is Coordination Report, thus creating at first glance the impression that
he not the one who drove during the operation against Irma theirs was a legitimate police operation, this still does not detract from
Navarro?"). He (Trestiza) asked the authorities what were the grounds nor diminish the credibility of the complainants’ claim that they were
for detaining him but his queries were not answered. His watch, wallet subsequently abducted and money was demanded in exchange for
and cellphone were taken. Later on the same day, Irma arrived in their release. For even if the court is to indulge the claim of the defense
Camp Crame. The authorities thereat talked to Irma, afterwhich, a that the complainants were indeed drug-pushers and undeserving of
policeman told her "eto yung itinuturo ni Buboy na nag-drive." ("This is this court’s sympathy, the nagging doubt about the existence of a
the one pointed to by Buboy as the one who drove"). Several days prepared police operation as what Manrique and his co-accused refer
later, all the accused were presented to the press by the office of to, persists. For one, the said Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet
General Matillano. The Philippine Daily Inquirer covered the story and appears to be unreliable. Aside from the fact that the same was not
later on came out with an article entitled "We Were Framed." duly authenticated, the failure of the defense, particularly accused
Manrique, to summon the signatories therein who may attest to the
The defense likewise presented PO2 Rolando de Guzman who existence and authenticity of such document was not at all explained.
corroborated the claim of Trestiza that he was called by the latter Second, all the accused narrated about their almost-fatal encounter
concerning the information given by Pineda. No further evidence was with another group of policemen while they were allegedly in the act
presented.23 of conducting the supposed buy-bust operation against the
complainants. This event, to the view of this court, only invites the
The Trial Court’s Ruling suspicion that the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet was dubious if
not actually non-existent.
In its Joint Decision24 dated 24 July 2007, the trial court found Trestiza,
The accused likewise claimed that they released the two later along
Manrique, and Pineda guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals
Edsa as nothing was found on them. The manner of the release,
by direct participation of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom.
however, raises several questions: why were the complainants who
were earlier suspected of being drug-pushers not brought to the police
The trial court concentrated its ruling on the credibility of the precinct? Did not Lawrence volunteer the name of his alleged supplier
witnesses. It found the testimonies of the prosecution credible, with earlier during the tactical interrogation? Why were they unloaded just
their versions of the incident dovetailing with each other even on minor like that along Edsa at that ungodly hour? Was there an incident report
details. On the other hand, the defense’s testimonies taxed the on the matter considering that Manrique was mindful enough earlier to
credulity of the trial court. The trial court raised numerous questions first secure a Pre-Operation/Coordination sheet?25
about the defense’s story line:
The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Decision states:
x x x But this leads the court to wonder: if indeed Pineda was so
bothered by his involvement with the group of Lawrence, why did he
spill the beans against Irma and Lawrence only? Did he not state that WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in
it was a "group" that he was transacting with? Who were the other Criminal Case No. 02-3393 finding the accused PO1 FROILAN
TRESTIZA Y LACSON, P/INSP LORIEMAN L. MANRIQUE and
members of this group? What were their activities that were so dark
RODIE PINEDA Y JIMENEZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
and clandestine so as to make him suddenly shudder and opt for a
principals by direct participation of the crime of KIDNAPPING for
change of life? These were not answered by Pineda’s testimony.
RANSOM, and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA. In addition thereto, they are ordered to
pay, jointly and severally, the private complainants the sums of PHP allegedly heard Judge Galapate-Laguilles’ off-the-record remark. One
300,000.00 as actual damages, and PHP 300,000.00 as exemplary was Trestiza’s relative, while the other was a security escort who was
damages. All the accused are ACQUITTED in Criminal Cases Nos. supposed to stay outside the courtroom. Finally, the motion itself was
03-766 and 04-1311 both for Robbery respectively. filed late. The supplement to the motion, to which the affidavits of the
additional witnesses were attached, was filed two days after the finality
Send the records of this case to the archives in so far as accused PO2 of the trial court’s decision. Copies of the decision were furnished to
Reynel Jose, who continues to be at large, is concerned. Let, however, both prosecution and defense on 24 July 2007, which was also the
a Warrant of Arrest be issued against him. date of promulgation. The Motion for New Trial and Inhibition was
dated 27 July 2007, while the Supplement to the Motion which
included the witnesses’ affidavits was dated 10 August 2007.
SO ORDERED.26

The trial court held hearings on the twin motions. On 3 October 2007,
On the same date as the promulgation of its decision, the trial court
issued an Order of Commitment27 of Trestiza, Manrique, and Pineda the trial court issued an Order29 denying the Motion for New Trial and
to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections. for Inhibition. The evidence presented was merely corroborative, and
the prosecution was able to prove its case despite the judge’s alleged
off-the-record equivocal remark.
On 27 July 2007, Trestiza, Manrique, and Pineda filed a Motion for
New Trial and for Inhibition. Two witnesses, Camille Anne Ortiz y
Alfonso (Ortiz) and Paulo Antonio De Leon y Espiritu (De Leon), On 19 October 2007, Trestiza, Manrique, and Pineda filed a notice of
allegedly intimate friends of Navarro and Yu, will testify as to the appeal.30 The Order denying the Motion for New Trial and for Inhibition
was received on 18 October 2007, while the Motion for New Trial and
circumstances which took place in the early morning of 7 November
for Inhibition was filed on 27 July 2007 or three days after the
2002. Their testimonies, if admitted, will allegedly result in the acquittal
promulgation of the Decision on 24 July 2004. The trial court gave due
of Trestiza, Manrique, and Pineda. These witnesses are not known to
course to the notice of appeal.31 In their brief filed with the appellate
the accused, and they could not have been produced during trial.
Moreover, the accused are of the belief that trial court judge Zenaida court, Trestiza, Manrique, and Pineda assigned the following errors:
T. Galapate-Laguilles acted with bias against them. She allegedly
made an off-the-record remark and stated that the prosecution failed The trial court erred in convicting accused Trestiza despite the fact
to establish what they sought to prove, but then later on questioned that he was not part of the alleged conspiracy in that it was not
the existence of the defense’s Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet in stipulated during the pre-trial that he was just the driver and was not
her decision. Judge Galapate-Laguilles also failed to resolve the part of the team. Besides, he did not perform any act in furtherance of
Petition for Bail, and failed to point out discrepancies in the testimonies the alleged conspiracy.
of the defense’s witnesses, particularly those regarding the arrests of
Trestiza, Manrique, and Pineda. The trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of private
complainants Lawrence Yu and Irma Navarro as their demeanor in the
The prosecution opposed the Motion for New Trial and Inhibition.28 De witness stand show hesitation indicative of guilt of fabrication and their
Leon shared a cell with Manrique since July 2003, while the trial was testimonies lack spontaneity and were not straightforward.
ongoing, and hence De Leon’s supposed testimony should not be
considered "newly discovered" evidence. On the other hand, Ortiz’s The trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of
narration of events in her affidavit is full of inconsistencies. The prosecution witnesses John Paul Suguitan and Angelo Gonzales as
prosecution likewise questioned the credibility of the witnesses who
they alleged facts and circumstance that are contrary to human nature appellants made a demand for them to deliver a certain amount in
and experience. exchange for their release.

The trial court erred in convicting the accused despite the fact that the In fine, the Court rules and so holds that appellants’ guilt for the
complainants were arrested in a legitimate operation as evidenced by offense of kidnapping for ransom has been proven beyond moral
the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet which was authenticated by certainty of doubt.
accused-appellant Manrique.32
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED and
The Appellate Court’s Ruling this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

On 30 June 2008, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and SO ORDERED.33
affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Trestiza alone filed a Motion for Reconsideration34 of the appellate
In its recitation of facts, the appellate court quoted from the People’s court’s decision. In his Motion, Trestiza claimed that he alone, through
Brief for the prosecution and from the trial court for the defense. The counsel, filed an appeal brief. Trestiza further claimed that the
appellate court ruled that Trestiza’s contention that he was just the stipulations made during pre-trial established Trestiza’s limited
driver of the van and never communicated with the witnesses involvement, that is, he was merely a driver of the vehicle when the
deserves scant consideration. Yu identified Trestiza as one of the two alleged crime took place, he never communicated with the
men who sandwiched him as he left Where Else Disco, and insisted complainants, and none of the items allegedly taken from the
that Yu cooperate with Jose when Jose asked Yu for cash. Trestiza’s complainants were recovered from Trestiza’s possession. The trial
acts thus show that he acted in concert with his co-accused in the court did not mention nor discuss these stipulations in its decision.
commission of the crime. The appellate court relied on the trial court’s Even the trial court’s finding of facts shows Trestiza’s participation was
assessment of the reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses, and gave merely that of an invited driver in a legitimate Philippine Drug
credence to their testimonies. The appellate court declared that all the Enforcement Agency (PDEA) drug bust operation. Moreover, the
elements of kidnapping for ransom are present and thus affirmed the testimonies of witnesses of both prosecution and defense establish
trial court’s decision: that Trestiza was a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
when he allegedly committed the crime. Under the circumstances,
In any event, it was established that all the elements constituting the Trestiza claimed he should be held liable only for Arbitrary Detention.
crime of kidnapping for ransom in the case at bar are present. The Finally, Trestiza’s identification was not only improper for being
elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised suggested, but his warrantless arrest should also be held invalid.
Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) 7659 are as
follows: (a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a comment opposing
his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and (c) Trestiza’s Motion for Reconsideration. The stipulations do not discount
motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom for the release of the that Trestiza conspired with his co-appellants Manrique and Pineda in
victim (People vs. Raul Cenahonon, 527 SCRA 542). Here, Navarro committing the crime charged. The apprehension and detention of
and Yu testified how they were abducted at gun point from the parking Navarro and Yu were clearly effected for the purpose of ransom;
lot in Makati and confined inside the car and van respectively; that they hence, the proper crime really is Kidnapping with Ransom. Trestiza
were both handcuffed, hence, deprived of their liberty and that filed a Reply to the Comment35 on 20 October 2009.
The appellate court denied Trestiza’s Motion for Reconsideration in a IV. The Constitutional presumption of innocence of [Trestiza] has not
Resolution dated 11 November 2009.36 An examination of the been overwhelmed by the tainted testimony and total lack of credibility
appellants’ brief showed that the brief was filed for Trestiza, Manrique of Lawrence L. Yu and, in light of the supervening event, could not
and Pineda. The appellate court found no compelling reason to now be overcome by questionable testimonies presented by the
warrant consideration of its decision. prosecution.

Trestiza still filed a Notice of Appeal37 of the appellate court’s decision V. The conviction of an innocent man is a great injustice that affects
on 10 January 2010. The appellate court initially denied38 Trestiza’s the very foundations of humanity.
Notice of Appeal due to late filing, but eventually granted39 Trestiza’s
Motion for Reconsideration40 of the 16 February 2010 resolution VI. It was not sufficiently shown that all the accused in the above-
denying his Notice of Appeal. entitled case conspired in committing the crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom and the same was not proven by proof beyond reasonable
Trestiza filed the present supplemental brief 41 before this Court on 15 doubt.
August 2011. In his brief, Trestiza emphasized that Yu was
apprehended by agents of the PNP and PDEA on 30 June 2011 during VII. [Trestiza] has no malicious or evil intent in acquiescing to drive the
a raid of an illegal drugs laboratory. Yu was charged with the crime of vehicle used in the buy-bust operation.
manufacturing, possessing, and selling illegal drugs under Sections 8,
11, and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. VIII. [Trestiza] is innocent of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom.42

The Issues
The Court’s Ruling

Trestiza raised the following arguments against the appellate court’s At the outset, we declare that the 30 June 2011 arrest of Yu has no
decision: bearing on the present case. The two cases are independent of each
other and should be treated as such. Yu’s innocence or guilt regarding
I. The supervening event involving the apprehension of Lawrence L. his 30 June 2011 arrest does not affirm or negate the commission of
Yu as the head of a big-time drug syndicate throws his credibility as a the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom against him.
witness beneath the abyss of morass and decay that must be now
totally discarded.
Warrantless Arrest

II. The facts and circumstances surrounding the above-entitled case

These are the circumstances surrounding Trestiza’s arrest: Pineda
is consistent with the innocence of [Trestiza] rendering the evidence had been contacting Yu to follow up on the balance on the ransom.
presented insufficient and without moral certainty to support a Pineda was then arrested pursuant to an entrapment operation
conviction.
conducted in the early morning of 16 November 2002 at New World
Hotel. During the investigation at Camp Crame, Pineda revealed that
III. At the very least, the "equipoise rule" finds application in the case Trestiza could be found at Club 5 in Makati. Pineda and Yu
at bar, taking into consideration the supervening event that accompanied the arresting team to Club 5. Yu pointed out Trestiza to
demolished the credibility of the witnesses presented by the the arresting team while Trestiza was on his way to his black
prosecution. Hummer.43
Trestiza questioned the legality of his warrantless arrest in an Any objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition
Omnibus Motion44 filed before his arraignment. In its Order dated 19 by a court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be
August 2004, the trial court stated that the quashal of the informations opportunely raised before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection
on account of Trestiza’s illegal arrest is not warranted. The is deemed waived.45 Trestiza, being a policeman himself, could have
determination of the nature of the arrest goes directly into the merits immediately objected to his warrantless arrest. However, he merely
of the case, and needs a deeper judicial determination. Matters of asked for the grounds for his arrest. He did not even file charges
defense are not grounds for a Motion to Quash. The trial court, against the arresting officers. There was also a lengthy amount of time
however, did not make any ruling related to Trestiza’s warrantless between Trestiza’s arrest on 16 November 2002 and the filing of the
arrest in its 24 July 2007 Decision. Omnibus Motion objecting to Trestiza’s warrantless arrest on 11 May
2004. Although it may be argued that the objection was raised prior to
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure the entry of Trestiza’s plea of not guilty in the kidnapping for ransom
enumerates the instances when warrantless arrests are lawful. charge, it must be noted that the circumstances of the present case
make us rule otherwise. Trestiza was charged with two crimes at the
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. ‒ A peace officer or a time of his arrest: kidnapping with ransom under Criminal Case No.
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: 02-3393 and illegal possession of firearms under Criminal Case No.
02-3394. Trestiza did not question the legality of his warrantless arrest
nor the acquisition of jurisdiction of the trial court over his person, and
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, fully participated in the hearing of the illegal possession of firearms
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; case. Thus, Trestiza is deemed to have waived any objection to his
warrantless arrest. Under the circumstances, Trestiza’s Omnibus
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable Motion in the kidnapping for ransom case is a mere afterthought and
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or cannot be considered as a timely objection.
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
Assuming arguendo that Trestiza indeed made a timely objection to
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped his warrantless arrest, our jurisprudence is replete with rulings that
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment support the view that Trestiza’s conviction is proper despite being
or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped illegally arrested without warrant. In People v. Manlulu, the Court
while being transferred from one confinement to another. ruled:

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person [T]he illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive the State of its
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest right to prosecute the guilty when all other facts on record point to their
police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with culpability.46
section 7 of Rule 112.
Indeed, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for
It is clear that Trestiza’s warrantless arrest does not fall under any of setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint
the circumstances mentioned in Section 5, Rule 113. However, after a trial free from error.47 The fatal flaw of an invalid warrantless
Trestiza failed to make a valid objection to his warrantless arrest. arrest becomes moot in view of a credible eyewitness account.48

Kidnapping with Ransom

The trial court’s findings of facts, its calibration of the collective When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or
testimonies of witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum
evidence of the parties, as well as its conclusions anchored on the penalty shall be imposed.
said findings, are accorded great weight, and even conclusive effect,
unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent Before the present case was tried by the trial court, there was a
facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter significant amount of time spent in determining whether kidnapping for
the outcome of the case. This is because of the unique advantage of ransom was the proper crime charged against the accused, especially
the trial court to observe, at close range, the conduct, demeanor and since Trestiza and Manrique were both police officers. Article 267 of
the deportment of the witnesses as they testify.49 We see no reason the Revised Penal Code specifically stated that the crime should be
to overrule the trial court’s finding that Trestiza is guilty of kidnapping committed by a private individual.50 The trial court settled the matter
with ransom. by citing our ruling in People v. Santiano,51 thus:

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides: The fact alone that appellant Pillueta is an organic member of the
NARCOM and appellant Sandigan a member of the PNP would not
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. ‒ Any private exempt them from the criminal liability of kidnapping. It is quite clear
individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner that in abducting and taking away the victim, appellants did so neither
deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion in furtherance of official functions nor in the pursuit of authority vested
perpetua to death: in them. It is not, in fine, in relation to their office, but in purely private
capacity that they have acted in concert with their co-appellant
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three Santiano and Chanco.
days.
In the same order, the trial court asked for further evidence which
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. support the defense’s claim of holding a legitimate police operation.
However, the trial court found as unreliable the Pre-
Operation/Coordination Sheet presented by the defense. The sheet
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the
was not authenticated, and the signatories were not presented to
person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been
attest to its existence and authenticity.
made.

The second to the last paragraph of Article 267 prescribes the penalty
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when
of death when the extortion of ransom was the purpose of the
the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
kidnapping. Yu and Navarro were released only after they were able
to give various personal effects as well as cash amounting to
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was ₱300,000, with the promise to give the balance of ₱1,000,000 at a
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any later date.
other person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were
present in the commission of the offense.
Trestiza insists that his participation is limited to being a driver of the
Mitsubishi Adventure van. Yu testified otherwise.

Direct Examination of Lawrence Lim Yu

Atty. Oledan: A: Yes, ma’am.

Q: What happened [after you left Wherelse Disco]? COURT: Make it of record that the witness pointed to accused PO1
Froilan Trestiza, PSINP Loriemar Manrique and Rodie Pineda.
Witness:
ATTY. OLEDAN:
A: As soon as I stepped out of the Wherelse Disco, somebody bumped
me at my right side. And then later on, I was "sandwiched" by two (2) Q: (To Witness) Specifically, who among these three (3) "sandwiched"
persons and when I looked up, I noted the presence of one (1) man you?
immediately in front of me holding a gun.
WITNESS:
Q: And these men who "sandwiched" you and the third men [sic] who
held the gun in front of you, would you be able to identify them? A: It was PO1 Trestiza and Capt. Manrique.

A: Yes, ma’am. xxx

Q: Are they inside this Courtroom? Q: What happened after you were brought inside the Mitsubishi
vehicle?
A: Yes, ma’am.
A: Later on, Officer Trestiza and Capt. Manrique likewise boarded the
Q: Will you please identify them? Mitsubishi Adventure.

A: The three of them, ma’am. xxx

At this juncture, the witness is to pointing to the three (3) men, who Q: Who was driving the vehicle?
are the accused in this case, inside the Courtroom.
A: It was Froilan Trestiza, ma’am.
COURT: (To the Accused) Again, for the record, please stand up,
gentlemen. xxx

At this juncture, the three (3) accused stood up. Q: After [Reynel Jose] said [that had Yu cooperated earlier, he would
not have been hurt] and the plastic removed from your head, what did
COURT: (To Witness) Are you sure these were the three (3) men [sic] the two, Trestiza and Manrique, doing?
whom you are referring to?
A: They told me the same thing. They told me that I should not have
WITNESS: kept the matter long.
Q: What happened after that? A: After ten (10) minutes, Buboy approached me.

A: After that, Reynel Jose alighted again and we drove towards an Q: What did he say?
area, which I know now to be within San Juan. Right in front of the
Tambunting Pawnshop. A: He told me that they thought my money would be One Million Pesos
(₱1,000,000.00).
Q: What happened at the Tambunting Pawnshop? Did the vehicle stop
there? xxx

A: The two (2) vehicles parked there beside each other. Q: So, after that huddle, after you were told by Buboy that "okay na
‘yong one million" and that was confirmed by one of the three (3) men
Q: What happened when you were there at Tambunting Pawnshop? who said "isang million na," what happened?

A: After parking in front of the Tambunting Pawnshop, they boarded A: I was talking to Buboy at that time and I was telling him, "Why do
Irma and have her sat [sic] beside me. Then after which, the door at you have to do this to me? You are the ‘kumpare’ of the elder sister of
my left side was opened. Irma."

Q: What else happened? Q: What did Buboy say to that?

A: They told me not to make any move, that I just keep on sitting there. A: Buboy retorted, "Pare, pasensya na, pera pera lang ‘yan."
Afterwards, the men huddled with each other ("nagkumpul-kumpol po
sila"). Q: After Buboy said that, what happened?

Q: Where did they huddle? A: I told him that he need not do that, because if he needs money, I
can always lend him.
A: They huddled in an area close to me, almost in front of me.
Q: What did Buboy say?
Q: Who among the accused huddled together?
A: After saying this to Buboy, he told me to just shut up and then he
A: The four (4) of them, ma’am. later on handed over to me a cell phone and told me to contact a
person, who can give me money.
Q: How long did they huddle?
Q: Who handed you your cell phone?
A: For a while only, ma’am, around (10) ten minutes.
A: It was Froilan Trestiza, ma’am.
Q: After ten (10) minutes, what happened?
xxx
Q: After that, were you told to go home already? WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. H.C. No. 03119 promulgated on 30 June 2009, as
A: Not yet, ma’am. Before letting us go, they threatened us. They well as the Resolution promulgated on 11 June 2010, is AFFIRMED
reminded us that they have our IDs, the pictures of our children and with MODIFICATION. Froilan L. Trestiza is guilty beyond reasonable
the members of our family. doubt of Kidnapping in Criminal Case No. 02-3393 and is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as well as the accessory
penalties provided by law. In addition to the restitution of ₱300,000 for
Q: What did you do after that?
the ransom, Trestiza is ordered to pay Lawrence Yu and Irma Navarro
₱75,000 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000 as moral damages, and ₱30,000
A: We just kept on saying yes because we wanted to go home already. as exemplary damages.

Q: What time was that? Costs against Froilan L. Trestiza.

A: It was almost daybreak ("mag-uumaga na"). I have no watch SO ORDERED.

already at that time, ma’am.

Q: So, what did you do after that?

A: After that, Froilan Trestiza handed to me my sim card telling me that

they will be calling me in my house concerning my alleged balance.52

We agree with the appellate court’s assessment that Trestiza’s acts

were far from just being a mere driver. The series of events that
transpired before, during, and after the kidnapping incident more than
shows that Trestiza acted in concert with his co-accused in committing
the crime. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more
persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment.53

Trestiza’s civil liability is joint and several with Manrique and Pineda.
They are liable for the ₱120,000 taken from Navarro and the ₱180,000
raised by Yu. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,54 Trestiza is also
liable for ₱75,000 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime
warrants the imposition of death penalty; ₱75,000 as moral damages
because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, without
need of proof; and ₱30,000 as exemplary damages.
G.R. No. 172604 August 17, 2010 damages in such amounts as may be awarded to them under the
(Formerly G.R. Nos. 155345-47) provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, CONTRARY TO LAW.[3

vs.
VENANCIO ROXAS y ARGUELLES, Appellant. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-54286 for Carnapping –

DECISION That on or about January 12, 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
PERALTA, J.: accused, conspiring together, confederating and mutually helping one
another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence against
On appeal by way of automatic review is the Decision1 dated January and intimidation of person and at gunpoint, did then and there, willfully,
13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00666, unlawfully and feloniously, take and carry away one Nissan Sentra
affirming the Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting Model 1993 with Plate No. TKR-837, then driven by Agnes Guirindola
appellant Venancio Roxas y Arguelles (appellant) for the crimes of but owned by her mother Elvira G. Guirindola, to the damage and
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Frustrated Murder, prejudice of said Agnes Guirindola and Elvira G. Guirindola in such
Violation of Republic Act (R.A.) 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of amount as may be awarded to them under the Civil Code of the
1972, and Theft. The Informations alleged – Philippines.

In Criminal Case No. Q-94-54285 for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Detention with Frustrated Murder –
and -
That on or about January 12, 1994 in Quezon City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named In Criminal Case No. 94-54287 (amended) for Robbery –
accused, conspiring together, confederating and mutually helping one
another, did then and there by means of force, violence against and That on or about January 12, 1994 in Quezon City, Philippines, and
intimidation of person and at gunpoint, willfully, unlawfully, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
feloniously kidnap, carry away and detain AGNES GUIRINDOLA, a accused, conspiring together, confederating and mutually helping one
female, thereby depriving her of her liberty, and thereafter bring her to another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence against
an uninhabited place in Barangay Bagong Pook, San Jose, Batangas and intimidation of person and at gunpoint, did then and there, willfully,
and then and there, with intent to kill and with treachery, evident unlawfully and feloniously, while on board the motor vehicle of AGNES
premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, willfully, unlawfully and GUIRINDOLA, a 1993 Nissan Sentra with Plate No. TKR-837, and in
feloniously shoot her in the face with a hand gun, thus performing all the course of its trip, divested and robbed said Agnes Guirindola of the
the acts of execution which would produce the crime of MURDER as following cash, check and personal belongings, to wit:
consequence, but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the accused, that is, the able and
Cash ₱1,000.00
timely medical assistance given to said Agnes Guirindola which
prevented her death, resulting to her utmost grief, sorrow, sufferings
and sleepless night, compensable in actual, moral and exemplary Check 3,000.00
Pieces of jewelry valued at 34,000.00 street, and upon reaching the corner, Roxas pointed to her the one-
way sign and looked for the traffic aide he had told Agnes about. The
and in the course of execution thereof, shoot and fatally wounded traffic aide was not there. Agnes asked Roxas where she could drop
Agnes Guirindola with a handgun, which is clearly unnecessary in the him. Roxas told Agnes to make a left turn from the corner of the street
commission of the crime, to the damage and prejudice of said Agnes and that he will alight somewhere in Mother Ignacia. Agnes obliged
Guirindola, in such amount as may be awarded to her under the and made a left turn and stopped the car. Thinking that Roxas was
provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines. waiting for a bribe, Agnes took out her wallet, pulled a ₱50.00 bill and
gave it to Roxas. After receiving the money, Roxas returned to Agnes
CONTRARY TO LAW.5 her driver’s license.9

Upon returning the driver’s license to Agnes, Roxas immediately

The antecedent facts as culled from the records are as follows:
switched off the engine of the car and poked a gun at her saying "Miss,
kailangan ko ang kotse mo." Agnes, terrified and shocked by Roxas’
On January 12, 1994, around 3:00 p.m., Agnes Guirindola (Agnes), actions, cried and pleaded with him to let her go and just take the car.
while cruising along Panay Avenue, Quezon City, on board a red 1993 Roxas continued to poke a gun at her, unmindful of what Agnes was
model Nissan Sentra sedan with plate number TKR-837, was telling him.10
suddenly flagged down by a man wearing a PNP reflectorized vest.
The man signaled her to make a U-turn. Agnes complied and made
the U-turn. The man walked in front of her car and proceeded to the After a while, Agnes heard a knock from outside the car. Roxas
right side of the car.6 Agnes, later on, identified the man in open court opened the rear door and then someone boarded the car, occupying
the back seat. The second passenger immediately reclined the driver’s
as appellant, Venancio Roxas (Roxas).
seat and pulled Agnes towards the back seat. Agnes identified this
man as Roberto Gungon (Gungon). Subsequently, Roxas took the
Agnes opened the right front window of the car and asked Roxas, who driver’s seat and drove the car while Gungon held Agnes on the
had positioned himself at the front passenger side, "Ano ang shoulder with one hand, and her leg with the other.11
problema?" Roxas replied, "Miss, one way street po ito." Agnes
explained to the man that she usually passed by the same street and
Agnes then heard Gungon say: "Boss, dalhin natin sya sa Philcoa."
it was only that day that she had been caught. Roxas told her that the
After crossing Mother Ignacia Street, Gungon got his beeper and told
street had been made a one-way street because a girl figured in an
Roxas: "Boss, dalhin na natin siya sa dati, doon na natin siya i-s."
accident in the same street two days ago.7
Agnes became more frightened as she understood "s" to mean
"salvage," a lingo for summary execution.12
Roxas then asked for Agnes' driver’s license. After taking the driver’s
license, Roxas handed her a piece of paper which she was asked to
Along the way, Roxas stopped the car and went to a sari-sari store.
sign. Agnes noticed that it was not the usual traffic citation ticket but,
nevertheless, she pretended to sign the same by making a check Gungon was left behind, holding Agnes, and would tighten his grip
thereon.8 every time she made a slight move and sometimes would poke a gun
at her. Upon returning to the car, Roxas offered Agnes a bottle of soft
drink and Skyflakes biscuit. Agnes refused so Roxas handed the
When Agnes handed back the paper to Roxas, the latter asked her to softdrink to Gungon and told him: "Mamaya painom mo sa kanya at
open the door of the car so that he could show her the one-way sign pakainin mo siya." Gungon took the bottle of softdrink and tried to force
and the other traffic aide at the corner of the street. Agnes let Roxas Agnes to drink the contents thereof. Agnes refused because she saw
enter the car. Roxas then instructed Agnes to drive to the corner of the
tablets floating inside the bottle. Roxas resumed driving, while Gungon Afterwards, Agnes told Roxas and Gungon that she was hungry and
held Agnes.13 wanted to eat a McDonald’s sandwich. Gungon replied that they were
in the province and that there was no McDonald’s there. Roxas told
Agnes testified that she planned to escape, but could not make a Agnes that they will just drop by a restaurant to buy something to eat.
single move because every time she made a slight move, Gungon Roxas then stopped by a bakery and alighted from the car, while
would poke the gun at her. The windows of the car were tinted and Gungon held Agnes. It was at this point that Agnes noticed the
remained closed.14 signboard of the bakery which read something like Sto. Tomas or San
Jose, Batangas. After a while, Roxas came back with a "taisan" cake
Around 5:00 p.m., Agnes noticed that they were already at the South and offered it to Agnes which she refused. At that instance, Agnes felt
dizzy and fell asleep.19
Superhighway. 15

When Agnes woke up, she found herself lying at the back seat with
Along the superhighway, Roxas stopped the car in order to urinate.
Gungon guarded Agnes by holding her. When Roxas returned, her legs on the lap of Gungon. The car was at a standstill. She noticed
Gungon alighted to relieve himself too. While Gungon was out of the from the car’s clock on the dashboard that it was about 9:30 or 10:00
p.m. She also found out that her jewelries consisting of bracelets, pair
car, Roxas sat at the driver’s seat facing Agnes and poked his gun at
of earrings, necklace and a watch worth around ₱30,000.00 to
her. Shortly thereafter, Gungon came back to the car and Roxas
₱40,000.00, as well as her pair of shoes, were already gone. When
resumed driving. When Agnes took the prayer leaflet from her wallet,
she asked Gungon about them, the latter told her that they were just
Gungon looked at her wallet and saw the picture of her sister. When
asked if she was the one in the picture, Agnes told Gungon that it was keeping the same for her. Agnes also lost her wallet containing a
her sister. Out of the blue, Gungon also took his wallet and showed check in the amount of ₱3,000.00 and cash in the amount of
₱1,000.00.20
Agnes three (3) pictures which, according to him, were the pictures of
his niece, her girlfriend and that of Roxas and a lady with a little child.
After showing the same to Agnes, Gungon returned the said pictures Agnes also noticed that there was already a third man sitting in front
to his wallet.16 Agnes planned to escape at that time but the car was of the car beside Roxas who was still driving. She then asked them if
running at a speed of 80 to 100 kilometers per hour. Agnes just she could relieve herself. Gungon asked Roxas if Agnes would be
continued to pray.17 allowed to relieve herself to which Roxas answered in the affirmative.
Agnes fixed her hair and then asked Gungon for her shoes. Gungon
put the shoes on her feet. Roxas alighted from the car and opened the
At this point, Gungon again offered the softdrink to Agnes. When she
refused, Gungon became mad and tightened his hold on Agnes, rear door. Gungon alighted first from the car followed by Agnes.
Gungon then led Agnes to a nearby grassy area and told her, "O, dyan
forcing her to drink it. Sensing that Gungon was already furious, Agnes
ka na lang umihi." After Agnes relieved herself, and as she was about
took the softdrink. After Agnes drank it, Roxas told Gungon, "Ipainom
mo pa itong dalawang tablets dahil malaki sya, mahina iyong dalawa to get up and return to the car, she saw white sparks at her right side
para sa kanya." Gungon took the tablets from Roxas and forced Agnes and then she fell down. When she opened her eyes, she saw Roxas
walking back towards the car with a gun in his hand. She did not see
to swallow the same. Out of fear, Agnes took the tablets, but did not
swallow them. She placed the tablets under her tongue. When Roxas Gungon at that particular time. Then she lost consciousness.21
and Gungon were not looking, she took her handkerchief and spat out
the tablets into the handkerchief.18 When Agnes regained consciousness, she was all alone. Roxas,
Gungon and the third man, as well as the car, were no longer there. It
was very dark. She followed a "sparkling light" that led her to a small
house. Upon reaching the house, she opened the door and saw two
(2) children and a teenager singing. She asked for their help but upon January 19, 1994, another group of NBI agents went to the hospital
seeing her, they ran away. She then saw a lady standing at the stairs and showed her 3 to 4 pictures of Gungon who was subsequently
of the house carrying a baby. Agnes asked for her help but the lady arrested in Davao City. On February 1, 1994, Agnes positively
went upstairs and locked herself inside the room. Agnes followed her identified Gungon at the NBI in a police lineup consisting of 5 to 6 men.
and knocked at the door of the room asking for help, but still the lady Likewise, Agnes was able to identify certain personal effects
did not come out of the room. She then went downstairs and lied down recovered from Gungon such as her rosary beads,26 jewelry
on the sofa. Only then did she notice that blood was profusely oozing purse,27 key chain with a key to the lock of her Nissan Sentra
from her face and there were "holes" in the left side of her neck and car,28 and the check taken from her, which were all presented in
her right cheek.22 evidence in the trial of Gungon as well as in the trial of the instant case
against Roxas.29
After a while, Agnes heard a vehicle arrive and also heard voices
saying: "May taong duguan sa loob ng bahay, tulungan natin siya!" In the meantime, the NBI conducted a manhunt for Roxas. On
Agnes was then carried to a Fiera motor vehicle and brought to the September 11, 1995, Roxas was arrested by elements of the NBI
Batangas Regional Hospital, where she was treated for her wounds inside the municipal hall of Taysan, Batangas, where he was working
and given first aid.23 Agnes sustained the following injuries: under the Office of the Mayor using the aliases "Joe Villamor" and
"Marianito Villamor."
Gunshot wound, POE, Zygomatic area (R), POX Sudmandibular area
(L); Fx, zygomatic arch & condylar area, (R) Sec to GSW; Agnes further testified that the name of appellant Venancio Roxas was
Submandibular Gland involvement with sinus tract. (Exhibit "A," supplied by the NBI, but she was very sure that he was the person
Medical Certificate dated February 1, 1994 signed by attending who fatally shot her. She positively identified Roxas on January 12,
physician Dr. Lauro R. San Jose, Captain MC, Neurosurgery 4-A, p. 1994 during a police line-up at the NBI as the perpetrator other than
177, Volume III, Record) Gungon, of the crimes charged. She told the NBI agents that the
person in the picture was the one who had flagged her down and shot
The following day, about 3:00 a.m. of January 13, 1994, the parents her on January 12, 1994.
of Agnes and the rest of the family arrived at the hospital. Her parents
immediately arranged for her transfer to the V. Luna General Hospital For the defense, appellant denied committing the crimes charged
(now AFP Medical Center) in Quezon City, where she was treated against him. He claimed that it was impossible for him to be at the
further, operated on and confined for forty-three (43) days.24 Agnes place of incident on January 12, 1994. He narrated that on that same
incurred actual damages amounting to ₱36,161.83 for her day, at around 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., he and a certain Tranquilino
hospitalization, surgical operation and medical treatment, and suffered Mangiliman and two others were installing an antenna on the roof of
moral damages the amount of which she cannot readily quantify, as a his house. He added that he never left his house that evening. Both
result of the ordeal she underwent on that fateful day of January 12, Mangiliman and his wife, Hermogena Roxas, testified that on January
1994.25 12, 1004, Roxas was in his house at Feria Compound, Commonwealth
Town Homes, Quezon City.
Upon transfer of Agnes to the V. Luna General Hospital, her parents
immediately reported the incident to the National Bureau of Subsequently, in a Decision30 dated September 5, 2002, the court a
Investigation (NBI) in Manila, which promptly conducted an quo, found Roxas guilty of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
investigation. On January 17, 1994, some NBI agents visited her for with frustrated murder, carnapping and theft, the dispositive portion of
the taking of the cartographic sketches of Roxas and Gungon. On which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in these cases finding presence of then Justice Secretary Hernando Perez showed the
accused Venancio Roxas y Arguelles guilty beyond reasonable doubt: court's predisposition to convict him of the offenses charged. Roxas
contended that he was robbed of his right to due process because the
In Criminal Case No. Q-94-54285 for Kidnapping and serious illegal Judge Demetrio Macapagal, Sr. had lost the cold neutrality of an
detention with frustrated murder, and sentences him to suffer the impartial judge required of him in trying and resolving cases.
maximum penalty of DEATH.
In an Order32 dated October 8, 2002, the RTC denied appellant’s
In Criminal Case No. Q-94-54286, for Carnapping, and sentences him motions for inhibition and reconsideration.
to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 18 years, as
minimum, to 25 years, as maximum; Meanwhile, appellant's co-accused Roberto Gungon y Santiago was
found guilty of the same charges in a Decision 33 dated March 19,
In Criminal Case No. Q-94-54287, for the crime of Theft, and 1998. Roxas was at-large during the trial and was arrested only after
sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment the RTC rendered the judgment of conviction against Gungon. Thus,
from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, the cases, as far as they concerned Roxas, was archived until he was
to 8 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum, plus 1 eventually arrested on September 11, 1995.
year for the additional ₱10,000.00 in excess of ₱20,000.00 value of
the property taken or a total of 9 years, 8 months and 1 day, as The records of this case were originally elevated to this Court for
maximum. automatic review. Conformably with our ruling in People v.
Mateo,34 however, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals for
The accused shall be credited in full of his preventive imprisonment. intermediate review.

Accused Roxas is also liable to pay the offended party Agnes In its Decision35 dated January 13, 2006, the appellate court
Guirindola, moral and exemplary damages in the amount of affirmed in toto the decision of the court a quo.
₱1,000,000.00 and ₱500,000.00, respectively, actual damages in the
amount of ₱36,161.83, representing her hospitalization and related Thus, this appeal, raising the following arguments:
expenses, and ₱38,000.00 representing the value of the articles taken
from her. Accused Roxas is likewise ordered to pay Mrs. Elvira I
Guirindola the amount of ₱250,257.90.00, representing the cost of
repair of the subject vehicle. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RENDERING
IN THE ABOVE-TITLED CASE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
SO ORDERED. PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT A QUO HAS LOST THE COLD
NEUTRALITY OF AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE, THEREBY VIOLATING
August 29, 2002, Quezon City.31 THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO DUE PROCESS.

Roxas moved for a reconsideration of the September 5, 2002 decision II

of the court a quo. Likewise, noting the well-attended promulgation of
the court a quo’s decision, Roxas also moved for the inhibition of the WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE
Honorable Judge Demetrio Macapagal, Sr. He argued that the ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSES OF (1)
KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION WITH We have painstakingly examined the records of the case, particularly
FRUSTRATED MURDER, (2) CARNAPPING, AND (3) THEFT. the testimonies for the prosecution and the defense. However, after
much examination, we find no persuasive much less compelling
Roxas challenged the RTC judge’s neutrality as he invoked that he reason to depart from the findings of the trial court.
was deprived of his right to due process because of the "unexplained
presence" of the former Secretary of the Department of Justice, Agnes not only positively identified her abductors, she also graphically
Hernando Perez, in court. He contended that the RTC was already narrated what happened on January 12, 1994. Actual restraint of the
predisposed to convict him even before trial. victim's liberty was evident in the instant case from the moment Agnes
was taken from Panay Avenue to a remote place in Batangas. Agnes
We are unconvinced. testified, thus:

The Court finds no basis for appellant's allegation that he was deprived Q - After Roberto Gungon pulled you towards the back seat, what
of due process of law and that the trial conducted was far from happened?
impartial and fair. The imputation of bias and partiality is not supported
by the record. The fact that the trial judge opted to believe the A - Venancio Roxas took the driver seat and started the car, sir. I
prosecution's evidence rather than that of the defense is not a sign of mean, he took the driver seat and started the car.
bias.36
Q – What was Roberto Gungon doing after Venancio Roxas started
Even if the RTC had allowed the presence of then Secretary Hernando the car?
Perez and the media, there is no sufficient basis to show that their
presence or pervasive publicity unduly influenced the court's A – He was holding me sir.
judgment. Before we could conclude that appellant was prejudiced by
the presence of the media and Secretary Perez, he must first show Q – How was he holding you?
substantial proof, not merely cast suspicions. There must be a
showing that adverse publicity indeed influenced the court's
decision.37 We found none, in this case. A – One hand on my shoulder and the other one is (sic) on my leg, sir.

Appellant further argued that the RTC erred in finding him guilty of the xxxx
crimes charged against him.
Q – What did Gungon do with the bottle?
Time and again, we have ruled that the findings of the trial court on
the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the A – He still forced me but when I refused he just placed it down in the
highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of car, sir.
any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance Q – After that what happened?
which would have affected the result of the case. The trial court is in a
better position to decide the question of credibility, having seen and A – Roxas still drove and Gungon was still holding me, then after that
heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and we went to this gasoline station to gas up, sir.
manner of testifying.38
xxxx xxxx

Q – Why were you not able to escape while you were seated and Q - After Roxas alighted from the car, where were you at that time?
crying?
A - I was still sitting at the car, with Gungon, sir.
A – Because Gungon was holding me and everytime I just made a
slight move, he poked the gun at me, sir.39 Q- What was Gungon doing at that time?

xxxx A- Yes, we were waiting for Roxas and he was holding my leg, sir.40

Q – While you were praying, do you know what Gungon and Roxas xxxx
were doing at that time?
Q – Previously, you testified that Gungon was holding you and
xxxx everytime you made a slight movement he would grips (sic) you firmly
and poke a gun at you. My question is – for how long had Gungon
A – Yes, Roxas was driving and Gungon was still holding me and he been doing this?
asked Roxas if he could relieve himself, sir.
A - Ever since he pulled me from the driver seat to the back seat up to
xxxx the time when we were cruising along South Superhighway, sir.

Q – After your car stopped, what happened? Q - Up to that while you were driving?

A – He told Gungon that he'll take a leak (sic) first before Gungon so A – Yes, sir.
Roxas alighted from the car and took a leak (sic), sir.
Q – When you reached Batangas, in the bakery, what was Gungon's
Q – How about Gungon, where was he? (sic) doing to you, if any?

A - He was seated beside me, he was still holding me, sir. A- He kept on holding me although from time to time and only when I
made a slight move, sir.41
Q - After Roxas finished leaking (sic), do you know what did he do
(sic), if any? Thus, based on the foregoing testimony of Agnes, the trial court did
not err in convicting appellant of the crime of kidnapping and serious
A- Yes, he went back to the car, he sat at the driver's seat, he faced illegal detention. Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code defines the
in front of me (sic), took the gun and poked it at me and then Gungon crime, thus:
alighted from the car and he was the next one who took a leak (sic),
sir. Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private
individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner
deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua appellant in the head with a gun. There was no opportunity for her to
to death; defend herself, since appellant, suddenly and without provocation,
shot her as she was about to get up. The essence of treachery is the
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter
days. unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the
suddenness and severity of the attack. This criterion applies whether
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority; the attack is frontal or from behind.43

Moreover, the requisites of evident premeditation was likewise duly

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the
established in this case, to wit: (a) the time when the accused
person kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been
determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that
made;
the accused has clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse
of time between such determination and execution to allow him to
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when reflect upon the consequences of his act.44
the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
The prosecution's evidence particularly the testimony of Agnes
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was demonstrated that Gungon and Roxas had indeed planned to kill her
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any from the time they took the car. As testified to by Agnes:
other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned
were present in the commission of the offense.
Q- You said that Roxas returned with a biscuit and a bottle of softdrink,
what was done with the biscuit and bottle of softdrink, if you know?
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or
is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum
penalty shall be imposed. (As amended by Sec. 8, Republic Act No. A – I refused to accept it, he insisted but still I refused so he just
handed it to Gungon. He just told Gungon "mamaya painom mo sa
7659).42
kanya at pakainin mo siya," sir.
The evidence likewise reveal, undoubtedly, the commission of
frustrated murder as qualified by the circumstances of treachery and Q – Why did you refuse the softdrink?
evident premeditation. The medical findings show that had it not been
due to the timely and proper medical attention given to the victim, the A- Simply because when he handed it to me I saw tablets floating
gunshot wound sustained by the victim would have been fatal. inside the bottle, sir.45

Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against xxxx
persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk Q – At about 5:00 and 6:00 in the evening of January 12, 1994 where
to himself, arising from the defense which the offended party might were you at that time?
make. As narrated by Agnes, she could not have been aware that she
would be attacked by appellant. In the darkness of the night while she xxxx
just finished relieving herself and still trying to get up, she was shot by
A- Actually we were not really there, its (sic) we were headed towards A – Yes, he got mad and furious, he held me so tight and forced me
South Superhighway. I mean I don’t know the exact place but I am to drink it, sir.
familiar that we were heading towards South super highway, sir.
Q - Now, because he was furious and he was angry at you, what did
xxxx you do?

Q – When you reached the South Superhighway at that time what A - I took the softdrink, sir.
happened?
Q- After you drank that softdrink, what happened?
A – While we were in the car Gungon got his beeper and then he told
Roxas "Boss, negative Philcoa," sir. xxxx

xxxx A – Yes, sir, after drinking it Roxas offered two (2) more tablets to
Gungon, he told to Gungon "ipainom mo pa sa kanya itong dalawang
Q – While you were driving along South super highway at that time, tabletas dahil malaki siya, mahina iyong dalawa para sa kanya".47
do you know what happened inside the car between the three of you?
xxxx
A – Yes, sir. That time Gungon was still holding me and then he told
Roxas "boss, dalhin na natin siya sa dati, doon na natin siya i-s." Q – Do you know what time was it when you woke up?

Q – After you heard that remark of Gungon, what did you do? A - I guess it was about 9:30 or 10:00 in the evening, sir.

A – Well, of course I was shocked and I asked them if they were going Q – How were you able to place the time?
to rape me or kill me or just leave me somewhere, I do not know, sir.
A - There is a watch on the dashboard of the car, sir.48
Q – After you uttered those words, do you know if Gungon answered?
Thus, from the foregoing, it is evident that the commission of the
A – Yes, sir, he told me that don’t give us ideas (sic).46 killing, albeit frustrated, was formed from the moment the accused
took the victim in Quezon City until she was ultimately "executed" in
xxxx Batangas. The lapse of more than eight hours, that is, approximately
from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., satisfies the last requisite for the
Q – What did you do when the bottle of softdrink was being offered to appreciation of evident premeditation as there was sufficient time for
you? meditation and reflection before the commission of the crime yet
appellant proceeded with the same.
A - I refused to get it, sir.
Likewise, we agree that Roxas is also guilty of violation of the Anti-
Carnapping Law. R.A. 6539, otherwise known as An Act Preventing
Q – When you refused to drink it, do you know what did Gungon do?
and Penalizing Carnapping, defines carnapping as the taking, with
intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the As to the imposable penalty, we sustain the findings of the RTC, as
latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of affirmed by the appellate court, with modification as to the penalty for
persons, or by using force upon things." More specifically, the the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated
elements of the crime are as follows: murder and the awarding of damages.

1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle; The crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention has been
correctly complexed by the RTC with frustrated murder. A complex
2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle; crime is committed when a single act constitutes two or more, grave
or less grave, felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other.
3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;

4. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that In a complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. Since the
kidnapping and serious illegal detention is the more serious crime, the
of persons, or by using force upon things.
proper penalty under Article 26750 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by R.A. 7659, should be applied in its maximum period; thus,
A careful examination of the evidence presented would show that all the penalty should be death. However, in light of R.A. 9346, or
the elements of carnapping were proven in this case. It cannot be the Anti-Death Penalty Law, which prohibits the imposition of the
denied that the 1993 Nissan Sentra with plate number TKR-837 was death penalty, the imposition of the penalty of reclusion
unlawfully taken from Agnes without her consent and by means of perpetua instead of death is, thus, proper and ineligible for parole.
force or intimidation, considering that he and his co-accused
alternately poked a gun at Agnes. After shooting her, appellant also
Likewise, in accordance with current jurisprudence, we modify the
flee with the subject vehicle which shows his intent to gain. Agnes also
award of damages, and apply People of the Philippines v. Richard O.
positively identified appellant and Gungon as the ones who took the
subject vehicle from her. Sarcia51 where we said:

The principal consideration for the award of damages, under the ruling
Finally, we likewise agree that Roxas is only guilty of theft and not
in People v. Salome and People v. Quiachon is the penalty provided
robbery as initially charged.
by law or imposable for the offense because of its heineousness, not
the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.
From the records, it appears that the jewelries and cash were taken
from Agnes without the attendance of violence or intimidation upon her
xxxx
person. Agnes herself testified that when she regained
consciousness, she already found her necklace, pair of earrings,
watch and cash, to be missing.49 While it was proven beyond It should be noted that while the new law prohibits the imposition of
reasonable doubt that appellant took Agnes' personal things, there the death penalty, the penalty provided for by law for a heinous offense
was no evidence, however, that the taking was employed with the use is still death and the offense is still heinous. Consequently, the civil
of force, violation and intimidation. indemnity for the victim is still Php75,000.00.

PENALTIES People v. Quiachon also rationcinates as follows:

With respect to the award of damages, the appellate court, following
prevailing jurisprudence, correctly awarded the following amounts:
₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime is qualified
by circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty;
₱75,000.00 as moral damages because the victim is assumed to have
suffered moral injuries, hence, entitling her to an award of moral
damages even without proof thereof, x x x.

Even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on the appellant

because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity of
₱75,000.00 is still proper because, following the rationcination in
People v. Victor, the said award is not dependent on the actual
imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended
the commission of the offense. The Court declared that the award of
₱75,000.00 shows "not only a reaction to the apathetic societal
perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time but
also the expression of the displeasure of the court of the incidence of
heinous crimes against chastity."1avvphi1

The litmus test therefore, in the determination of the civil indemnity is

the heinous character of the crime committed, which would have
warranted the imposition of the death penalty, regardless of whether
the penalty actually imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua. 52

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the

Court of Appeals, dated January 13, 2006, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
00666, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, insofar as to sentence
appellant Venancio Roxas y Arguelles to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with
Frustrated Murder, and to declare him ineligible for parole. Appellant
is, likewise, ordered to pay Agnes Guirindola ₱75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 as
exemplary damages. Costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 158797 July 29, 2005 CONTRARY TO LAW.4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, Both pleaded "not guilty" to the charge during arraignment. Trial
vs. ensued.
ELPIDIO ENRIQUEZ, JR. and EMILIANO ENRIQUEZ, Appellants.
The prosecution evidence shows that at about 6:50 p.m. of January
DECISION 24, 1985, Rogelio Andico, Edwin Pugay, Esmi Saquilayan, and
twenty-one-year old Alexander Pureza were conversing in front of
PUNO, J.: the Barangay Hall of Silangan, Rosario, Cavite. Appellant Elpidio
Enriquez, Jr., alias "Bonggo," who was dressed in military fatigue
pants, camouflage jacket, brown hat, and wearing dark glasses,
Elpidio Enriquez, Jr. and Emiliano Enriquez were convicted of
kidnapping by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite City, Branch arrived on board a tricycle driven by appellant Emiliano Enriquez, alias
16, and each was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of "Emil Tate." After Bonggo alighted, Emil parked the tricycle about ten
seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion (10) meters away from the group. Bonggo then pulled out a .38 caliber
revolver from his jacket and warned the group, "Huwag kayong
temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua as maximum.1 They
tatakbo, awtoridad ako." He singled out Alexander Pureza, poked his
appealed to the Court of Appeals which not only affirmed their
gun at him and ordered him, "Sama ka sa ‘kin." He dragged Alexander
convictions but imposed upon each of the appellants the penalty
of reclusion perpetua.2 The Court of Appeals refrained from entering to the tricycle, and forced him to board the same. The tricycle sped off.
judgment and certified the case to us pursuant to the second Alexander Pureza was never seen again or heard from since then.
paragraph of Sec. 13 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.3
Rogelio Andico, who was left behind after his companions scampered
away, hurried to Alexander’s house and informed his parents about
On July 8, 1985, Elpidio Enriquez, Jr. and Emiliano Enriquez were
charged with kidnapping in the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, the incident. At about midnight of the same day, Rogelio gave his
statement5 to the police upon the advice of his uncle, Atty. Ernesto
Branch 16. The Information reads:
Andico, the Vice-Mayor of Rosario, Cavite. Rogelio executed two
other statements on January 25 and 29, 1985. 6
That on or about the 24th day of January 1985, in the Municipality of
Rosario, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, Feliciano Castro, a resident of Rosario, Cavite, corroborated Rogelio’s
testimony. He testified that at about 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. of January 24,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with the use of
1985, he was waiting for a ride when he saw Alexander Pureza being
firearm (nickel plated revolver), motor vehicle (tricycle) and by
pushed by appellant Elpidio Enriquez, Jr. into a waiting tricycle driven
simulating public authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
by appellant Emiliano Enriquez.7 Alexander was struggling to free
feloniously, forcibly kidnapped Alexander Pureza y Mendoza by the
point of [a] gun (revolver) and forcibly loaded said Alexander M. himself. Feliciano did not do anything to help or tell anyone what he
Pureza to (sic) a yellow colored tricycle (Hazel) with Plate No. MTC witnessed. He feared for his life because Bonggo was the grandson of
then Mayor Calixto Enriquez of Rosario, Cavite. At that time, many
H8242 and brought somewhere else and detained in an undisclosed
people just disappear or get killed in Rosario. It was only in July 1987
place for more than five (5) days since the kidnapping took place and
when Mayor Calixto Enriquez was no longer mayor that he revealed
up to the present time could not be located, with the aggravating
the above information to P/Lt. Col. Rogelio Pureza, the victim’s father.
circumstances of the use of a firearm, force, motor vehicle and
simulation of public authority.
The two appellants had a different story to tell. They denied any imposed upon the appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
involvement in the kidnapping and interposed the defense of alibi. dispositive portion of the Decision of the appellate court reads:
Appellant Elpidio Enriquez, Jr. testified that he was in Bulan, Sorsogon
from January 21 to 24, 1985 with his live-in partner visiting her sick WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The assailed decision
father. He left Sorsogon in the morning of January 24 and arrived at dated May 28, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch
Rosario, Cavite at about 11:00 p.m. to midnight of the same day. He 16 finding herein accused-appellants Elpidio Enriquez,
went to sleep immediately upon arrival, and was awakened at 1:00 Jr. and Emiliano Enriquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
a.m. when the police picked him up for investigation. crime of kidnapping is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in that
We hereby sentence them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Appellant Emiliano Enriquez claimed that he did not leave his house
during the night in question as he was taking care of his child. He also Accordingly, let this case be certified and the entire records hereof
alleged that his tricycle had a broken shock absorber. elevated to the Supreme Court for review pursuant to Sec. 13 (2), Rule
124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.9 (emphasis
In addition, appellant Elpidio Enriquez, Jr. ascribed improper motive supplied)
on the part of prosecution witnesses Andico and Castro. He alleged
that Rogelio Andico testified against him because he caused the arrest Appellants state a lone assignment of error in their Appellant’s
of Rogelio’s uncle, Antonio Andico, known as the "king pusher" of Brief, viz: that the lower court gravely erred in finding them guilty
Rosario, Cavite. He also charged that Feliciano Castro testified beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping despite the
against him because Castro is a trusted employee and bodyguard of insufficiency of the evidence. More specifically, appellants assail the
Jose Abutan, the uncle of Col. Pureza. He further alleged that Col. credibility of prosecution witness Rogelio Andico because he did not
Pureza filed the case at bar against him in retaliation for having been give his eyewitness account of the alleged kidnapping in one sworn
implicated in the case involving the killing of his (Elpidio’s) father. statement only but executed two supplemental statements as well.
They allege that the execution of three statements to the police shows
After trial, appellants were found guilty as charged and meted that Andico was a coached witness. They argue that Andico’s excuse
indeterminate prison terms, to wit: for the piecemeal testimony, i.e., he was nervous and confused at the
time he gave his first statement to the police, is not worthy of belief
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused considering that he gave his statement to Col. Pureza’s men.
Elpidio Enriquez, Jr. alias Bonggo and Emiliano Enriquez alias Tate Appellants likewise contend that prosecution witness Feliciano Castro
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping as does not deserve credence because it took him two (2) years to report
defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code the incident which is counter to the natural tendency of a person who
and hereby sentences them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of witnessed a crime to report the same at the earliest possible
imprisonment consisting of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and opportunity.
one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to reclusion perpetua,
as maximum, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim ₱50,000.00. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
(underlining supplied)8
We hold that the execution of not one but three statements to the
Appellants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which affirmed police does not necessarily render prosecution witness Andico
with modification the decision of the trial court. As aforestated, the incredible. Andico testified in court and was cross-examined by
appellate court did not apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law but counsel for appellants. Andico testified in a clear and straightforward
manner detailing how Alexander Pureza was taken at gunpoint and Appellants’ attempt to discredit Andico by imputing improper motive
spirited away by appellants on the night of January 24, 1985, never to upon him for testifying in the case, i.e., that Andico testified to avenge
be seen or heard from again. His testimony was given credence both his "Uncle" Antonio Andico who was apprehended by Narcom agents
by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. We find no reason to disturb at the instigation of appellant Elpidio Enriquez, Jr., cannot succeed.
their calibration of the credibility of Andico’s testimony. For one, the exact relationship between Rogelio and Antonio Andico
was not proved. The uncle-nephew relationship was merely
To be sure, the first statement, by itself, executed by Andico at speculated from the fact that Rogelio called Erning Andico, the brother
midnight of January 24, 1985 sufficiently proved the elements of the of Antonio, as "mama" or uncle.18 Appellant Elpidio Enriquez, Jr.,
crime of kidnapping charged against the appellants. In this admitted that he does not know the exact relationship between
statement,10 Andico categorically narrated how his friend Alexander Rogelio and Antonio Andico.19 But even if Antonio was Rogelio’s
Pureza, a private citizen, was taken at gunpoint by appellant Elpidio uncle, their relationship is not enough reason for Rogelio to avenge
Enriquez, Jr., who did not have authority to do so, with the connivance Antonio’s apprehension. On the other hand, there is reason to believe
and participation of a tricycle driver. The victim was never seen or that the natural interest of Rogelio, who is a friend of the victim, in
heard from again. In his second statement executed on January 25, securing the conviction of the guilty would deter him from implicating
1985,11 Andico merely added that appellant Elpidio Enriquez, Jr., a person other than the true culprit.20 Col. Pureza’s alleged motive for
aside from being dressed in military-like clothes, likewise introduced filing this case against appellant Elpidio Enriquez, Jr., i.e., Col. Pureza
himself to them as someone in authority. This addition is a superfluity filed this case in retaliation for having been implicated in the case
for the purpose of proving the crime of kidnapping against the involving the killing of Elpidio’s father, is equally tenuous. The facts
appellant. It is undisputed that at the time the Information was filed on show that Col. Pureza had been cleared of any involvement in the
July 8, 1985,12 the victim had been missing for more than five (5) killing of Elpidio’s father by the Investigating Panel of the Judge
months, more than the five (5) days’ deprivation of liberty required Advocate General’s Office.21 A contrario, it is Elpidio who may have
under the former Art. 26713 of the Revised Penal Code. Alexander the reason to retaliate at Col. Pureza who walked away from the
Pureza has not been seen again or heard from since his abduction on charge.
January 24, 1985. The former Art. 267 mentioned four circumstances
for the crime of kidnapping to be committed,14 but they need not be We join the lower courts in rejecting appellants’ alibi. In the case of
present simultaneously as the presence of just one circumstance is Elpidio, we find it incredible that he did not inform the police about his
enough to establish the crime.15 Hence, the added circumstance of alibi when he was brought in for questioning just hours after he came
simulation of public authority alleged in Andico’s second sworn back from Bulan, Sorsogon. Neither did his mother, who followed him
statement was unnecessary. Examining the third supplemental sworn to the police station, nor his live-in partner, who was allegedly his
statement,16 Andico merely supplied the name of the tricycle driver companion in Sorsogon, say anything to the police to defend him.
whom he saw but did not immediately recognize. This is not fatal as Their silence was deafening. It was almost a month later or only on
there is the testimony of Feliciano Castro who identified appellant February 20, 1985 that Elpidio foisted the defense of alibi in his
Emiliano Enriquez as the tricycle driver to corroborate Andico’s counter-affidavit22 submitted during the preliminary investigation of the
account. Although Castro reported the incident only two (2) years after case. We have repeatedly ruled that alibi is an inherently weak
the incident, his reason for not reporting the same immediately, i.e., defense because it is easy to fabricate and is highly unreliable,23 more
fear for his life, is reasonable considering that one of the appellants is so when corroborated only by relatives and friends. 24 It cannot stand
the grandson of the incumbent mayor. His initial reluctance is not against the positive identification of appellant by a credible witness to
unusual and is a matter of judicial notice.17 the crime.25 On the other hand, appellant Emiliano alleged that he was
in his house taking care of his child when the kidnapping took place,
and that his tricycle, which was allegedly used in the crime, had a
broken shock absorber. However, he admitted that his house was a This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with
mere ten (10) minutes away from the place of the incident. 26 He also death penalty or life-imprisonment x x x x
conceded that a vehicle can run even without a broken shock
absorber, although he qualified that his tricycle’s shock absorber was Indeed, in People v. Asturias,33 Serrano v. Court of
seriously broken.27 We reiterate the age old rule that for alibi to Appeals,34 People v.
prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere
else when the crime was committed; he must also demonstrate that it
Lampaza35 and People v. Tan,36 to name a few cases, we in effect
was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the equated the penalty of reclusion perpetua as synonymous to life-
crime at the time of its commission.28 In the case at bar, appellant
imprisonment for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and
Emiliano failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to
ruled that the latter law does not apply to persons convicted of
have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission
offenses punishable with the said penalty. Consequently, we affirm the
considering that his house was a mere ten (10) minutes’ drive away
Court of Appeals in not applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and
from the barangay hall where the victim was abducted.
in imposing upon appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead.

In sum, we find that the guilt of appellants has been proven beyond IN VIEW WHEREOF, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals
reasonable doubt by the prosecution. All the elements of the crime of
in CA-G.R. CR No. 23589 convicting Elpidio Enriquez, Jr. and
kidnapping, to wit: (1) the accused is a private individual; (2) the
Emiliano Enriquez of the crime of kidnapping.
accused kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the
latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances SO ORDERED.
mentioned in Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code are present, 29 have
been proven through the eyewitness account of Rogelio Andico,
corroborated by Feliciano Castro, who have not been shown to have
any improver motive in testifying in this case.

Finally, we come to the correctness of the penalty. The 1987

Constitution prohibits the imposition of the death penalty unless for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, Congress provides for
it.30 Republic Act No. 765931 which classified kidnapping as a heinous
crime punishable by death took effect on December 31, 1993. The
crime at bar was committed in 1985. We have ruled that R.A. No. 7659
cannot be applied to a crime that transpired prior to its effectivity under
the principle of non-retroactivity of penal laws which are unfavorable
to the accused.32 Consequently, reclusion perpetua is the only penalty
that can be imposed against the appellants. As correctly argued by the
Solicitor General, Act No. 4103, otherwise known as
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, cannot be applied in the case of
appellants considering the proscription in Sec. 2 thereof, viz:
G.R. No. 123979 December 3, 1998 of six (6) to seven (7) meters from the NARCOM Office (pp. 10, 38-
39, ibid.). Since their arrest, they were detained at the Naga City Jail
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, (ibid.).
vs.
ALIPIO SANTIANO, JOSE SANDIGAN, ARMENIA PILLUETA and Sometime in July 1993, appellant Alipio Santiano was detained at the
JOSE VICENTE (JOVY) CHANCO, accused-appellants. Naga City Jail (pp. 4-5, ibid.). He was detained in the same cell
occupied by the victim (p. 6, ibid.). When appellant Santiano was
mauled by the inmates of Cell 3, the victim was one of those who
participated in mauling him (p. 16, ibid.).
VITUG, J.:
After the release of Santiano, he returned to the City Jail in November
1993 accompanied by one Lt. Dimaano (pp. 7-8, ibid.). Thereat, the
Accuse-appellants Alipio Santiano, Jose Sandigan, Armenia Pillueta
and Jose Vicente (Jovy) Chance were indicted for the kidnapping with victim was pointed to by appellant Santiano as the one who
mastermind his mauling (ibid.).
murder of Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr., a detention prisoner at the Naga
City Jail, in an amended Information, docketed Criminal Case No. P-
2319, filed with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Pili, Branch 32, On December 27, 1993, at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening, the victim
Camarines Sur. asked permission from a jail trustee to allow him to buy viand outside
the jail (pp. 7-9, ibid.). When he left, the victim was wearing a fatigue
jacket and short pants (p. 9, ibid.).
When arraigned, the four accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The trial thereupon ensued.
As the victim emerged from the PNP store, he was accosted by
The evidence submitted by the prosecution, disclosing its version of appellants Sandigan and Santiano (p. 7, TSN, April 25, 1994). The two
the case, is narrated by the Solicitor General in the People's brief. (2) appellants held the victim between them and thereafter hurriedly,
proceeded towards the NARCOM Office situated at a distance of
about twenty-five (25) meters away (pp. 7, 38-41, ibid.). Upon
On May 13, 1993, the kidnap victim, Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr. and his reaching the door of the NARCOM office, the victim was pushed inside
live-in partner, Loida Navidad were arrested by appellants Jose (pp. 7-8, ibid.). Once the victim was already inside the NARCOM
Sandigan and Armenia Pillueta and several other NARCOM agents Office, appellant Sandigan proceeded to and took his place at Plaza
for alleged illegal possession of marijuana (p. 32, TSN, April 20, 1994). Barlin facing the PNP Police Station (pp. 8-12, ibid.). The victim was
made to sit and thereafter mauled by appellant Santiano (pp. 8-
After the arrest, they were brought to the NARCOM Office situated at 11, ibid.). Santiano got hold of a handkerchief, rolled it around his fists
the compound of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Headquarters, and continued to punch the victim for almost fifteen (15) minutes (p.
Naga City (p. 32, ibid.). Thereat, they were at first warned by appellant 16, ibid.). As the victim was being mauled, appellant Pillueta stood by
Pillueta not to contact a lawyer (p. 35, ibid.). Appellant Pillueta likewise the door of the NARCOM office, her both hands inside her pockets
reminded them that "it is only a matter of P10,000.00" (p. 35, ibid.). while looking to her right and left, acting as a lookout (ibid.).

When Navidad's brother nonetheless arrived accompanied by a At this time, appellant Chanco who owned and drove his trimobile,
lawyer, appellant Pillueta got angry (p. 38, ibid.). At once, the victim parked it in front of the door of the NARCOM Office (pp. 15, 17, TSN,
and Navidad were dragged to the Naga City Jail situated at a distance
April 25, 1994). Thereafter, he proceeded inside the NARCOM Office Jose Vicente "Jovi" Chanco are amongst the active Civilian
(pp. 15, 17, ibid.). Volunteer/Assists of the NARCOM.

After a few minutes, appellant Chanco went out of the NARCOM Office That at or about 5:00 o'clock P.M. of December 27, 1993, accused-
and started the trimobile (p. 21, ibid.). His co-appellant Santiano and appellant Sandigan was in front of the Advent theater; that while
Pillueta followed him. Inside the trimobile, appellant Pillueta occupied thereat, he saw accused-appellant Santiano and he invited the latter
the back seat (p. 21, ibid.). Santiano occupied the reserved seat in for a snack at the Mang Donald's, a burger house, situated just beside
front of the passenger seat which was occupied by the victim (ibid.). the Advent theater; that after taking their snacks, they decided to go
to the NARCOM office; that while on their way to the NARCOM office,
As appellant Chanco was about to start his trimobile, appellant they saw accused-appellant Chanco emerging from the Nehrus
Sandigan, who was at Plaza Barlin, transferred to and stationed Department Store where the latter bought something; that this Nehrus
himself at the Century Fox in front of the GSIS building situated at the Department Store is located in front of the Naga City Police Head
corner of General Luna and Arana Streets (p. 23, ibid.). Quarters which is also near the NARCOM office, that the three of them
(Sandigan, Santiano and Chanco) proceeded to the NARCOM office;
that when they arrived, accused-appellant Pillueta, SPO3 Lorna
The trimobile proceeded towards the direction of San Francisco
"Onang" Fernandez, Tet Deniega and the NARCOM, District
Church (p. 40, TSN, April 23, 1994). When it passed the Panganiban
Commander P/Insp. Del Socorro were at the NARCOM office while
Drive, Naga City, on its way towards the direction of Palestina, Pili,
accused-appellant. Chanco's trimobile was parked in front of the
Camarines Sur, the victim was still aboard the trimobile seated at the
passenger seat nearest the driver (p. 4, TSN, May 24, 1994). NARCOM office; that while in the NARCOM office, accused-appellant
Santiano and Chanco were joking with each other, like kids, such that
accused-appellants Santiano would sling accused-appellant Chanco
When prosecution witness Rañola heard over the radio that a person with his handkerchief; that, as it was intermittently raining, accused-
was found dead at the canal in Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur, he lost appellants Sandigan, Santiano and Chanco left the NARCOM office
no time in informing a policeman Prila of the Pili Police Department past 6:00 P.M. aboard the trimobile of accused-appellant Chanco,
that the descriptions of the dead person he heard over the radio fit not while accused-appellant Pillueta together with SPO3 Lorna Fernandez
only the person he saw being hauled to and thereafter mauled at the and Tet Deniega left the NARCOM office at or about 8:00 P.M. and
NARCOM Office but likewise the same person who was on board the proceeded to the Sampaguita Music Lounge to watch a lady band
trimobile driven by appellant Chanco (p. 13, TSN, May 6, 1994). performing at the Sampaguita Music Lounge, leaving behind P/Insp.
Nelson Del Socorro at the NARCOM office.
Robert Dy Kow identified the man found dead in Palestina, Pili,
Camarines Sur, as his brother Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr.1 That upon leaving the NARCOM office and while on board the
trimobile accused-appellants Sandigan, Santiano and Chanco were
The defense presented its own account of the facts hereunder deciding whether to see a movie or have a round of drink and, after
expounded by it; viz: failing to decide whether to see a movie or a round of drink, accused-
appellants Sandigan and Chanco conducted accused-appellant
Accused-appellant Armenia Pillueta is an organic member of the Santiano to the jeepney terminal for Milaor, Camarines Sur and
NARCOM, Naga City, Command. Accused-Appellant Jose Sandigan thereupon, accused-appellant Chanco also conducted accused-
is a regular member of the PNP but, he was a former organic member appellant Sandigan to the Philtranco terminal where the latter boarded
of the NARCOM. On the other hand, Accused Alipio Santiano and a bus to Bato, Camarines Sur where he resides.
That between 6:30 and 7:00 o'clock P.M. of the same date, accused- 27, 1993, where she (SPO3 Fernandez) told Major Idian that accused-
appellant Santiano was in Milaor, Camarines Sur, a Municipality less appellant Pillueta was with her (SPO3 Fernandez) at the Sampaguita
than four kilometers away from Naga City, and fetched Ms. Arcadia Music Lounge; that Major Idian did not ask her (SPO3 Fernandez) to
Paz, a traditional mid-wife (komadrana), from the latter's residence to execute an affidavit of what she told him instead, Major Idian
conduct/perform a pre-natal therapy (hilot) upon his (Santiano) requested her not to tell accused-appellant Pillueta about what he
pregnant wife; that Ms. Paz and accused-appellant Santiano asked her.
proceeded to and arrived at the latter's house in Naga City about past
7:00 o'clock in the evening where Ms. Paz conducted a pre-natal That on January 20, 1994, accuse-appellants Pillueta, Santiano and
therapy upon appellant Santiano's wife; that Ms. Paz finished the pre- Chanco, reported and submitted themselves to their superior officer,
natal therapy at or about 9:00 o'clock P.M.; that she (Paz) left the Col. Norberto Manaog, Deputy Director of the NARCOM at Camp
house of accused-appellant Santiano and was accompanied for home Crame, Quezon City, wherein they reported that they were suspected
by latter at or about 10:00 o'clock of the same evening; that from past of having killed Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr. and requested that they be
7:00 o'clock when Paz and Santiano arrived at the latter's house until placed under his custody; that Col. Manaog referred them to the legal
past 10:00 o'clock when they left Santiano's house, accused-appellant officer of the NARCOM, Major Acpal; that after being informed by
Santiano was all the time present at and never left his house; accused-appellants Pillueta, Santiano and Chanco that they did not
have any idea of whether a warrant of arrest was already issued
That on the other hand, SPO3 Fernandez, Deniega and accused- against them, Col. Manaog, in consultation with Major Acpal, told them
appellant Pillueta, upon leaving the NARCOM office, went directly to that there is no yet basis for them to be placed under custody, so that,
the Sampaguita Music Lounge and watched the lady band perform Col. Manaog instructed them just get in touch with him so that if a
thereat; that Roy Cabral, a common acquaintance of SPO3 warrant of arrest comes out, the same could be served upon them;
Fernandez, Deniega and accused-appellant Pillueta, even saw and that Col. Manaog directed Major Acpal to proceed to Pili, Camarines
approached them (SPO3 Fernandez, Deniega and Pillueta) at their Sur to determine the status of the investigation and to know whether
table inside the Sampaguita Music Lounge; that the three of them a warrant of arrest was already issued; that on January 24, 1994,
(SPO3 Fernandez, Deniega and Pillueta) left the Sampaguita Music Major Acpal went to Pili, Camarines Sur and found out that a warrant
Lounge at or about 2:00 A.M. of December 28, 1993, and thereupon, of arrest against accused-appellants, Sandigan, who was already
they went to their respective homes. arrested, Pillueta and Santiano has been issued on January 21, 1994;
that on January 25, 1994, Major Acpal, being a lawyer and the Legal
That on December 27, 1993, at any time of the day, the late Ramon officer of the NARCOM filed before the Municipal Trial Court, Pili,
John Dy Kow, Jr. was neither seen by the accused-appellants nor was Camarines Sur, a motion to quash the warrant of arrest; that on
he in the NARCOM office more specifically and particularly between January 23, 1994 accused-appellant Pillueta informed Col. Manaog
6:00 to 7:00 P.M. of the same date; that the late Ramon John Dy Kow, that she was hospitalized due to a car accident and that she may be
Jr. was known to SPO3 Fernandez and his (Dy Kow, Jr.) height and placed under his custody should a warrant for her arrest be issued; on
body built is almost the same or similarly the same as that of accused- January 26, 1994, she was placed under the custody of her superior,
appellant Chanco; that she (SPO3 Fernandez) also known William Col. Manaog of the NARCOM. On the other hand, accused-appellants,
Rañola whom she usually see drunk/under the influence of liquor; Santiano and Chanco were, from time to time, contacting Col. Manaog
to determine whether a warrant of arrest was already issued but, since
That in the first week of January, 1994, during the investigation of the Col. Manaog was always out of his office, they were able to contact,
via telephone facility, Col. Manaog only on April 16, 1994; and
case conducted by the PNP Pili, Camarines Sur, SPO3 Fernandez
accused-appellants Chanco and Santiano went to the office of
was asked by major Ernesto Idian, chief of PNP Pili, Camarines Sur,
NARCOM, Camp Crame, Quezon City, voluntarily surrendered, and
of accused-appellant Pillueta's whereabouts in the night of December
Maj. Acpal placed them under the custody of the NARCOM and were Bullet route: from the point of entrance extending backwards to the
detained at PNP NARCOM Cell, Camp Crame, Quezon City. The left, piercing the heart and left lung and lodging on the anterior aspect
records of this case show that no warrant of arrest was issued against or surface of the sub scapular area, left
accused-appellant Chanco (Order dated Sept. 5, 1994), however, he
voluntarily surrendered and submitted to the custody of the NARCOM Point of exist: None
and to the trial court.2
Bullet slug: Recovered
Appellant Jovy Chanco had this further statement in his supplemental
appeal brief; thus:
CAUSE OF DEATH: INTERNAL HEMORRHAGE

On December 28, 1993, a cadaver of an unknown person was SECONDARY TO GUNSHOT WOUND.4
discovered somewhere in the vicinity of Barangay Palestina,
Municipality of Pili, Province of Camarines, by Danilo Camba, the
Barangay Captain of said locality. The corpse was later on identified Evaluating the evidence before it, the trial court found all four accused
by Robert Dy Kow as that one of his brother, Ramon John Dy Kow, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping, defined and penalized
Jr. 3 under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code; the court adjudged:

Dr. Thomas S. Gonzales performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the UPON THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this Court FINDS
victim. His findings revealed that Dy Kow, Jr., had fatally sustained the FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and finds all of the
following injuries: accused, Jose Sandigan, Armenia, aka Armie Pillueta, Alipio
Santiano, and Jose Vicente Chanco, aka Jovy, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of KIDNAPPING as defined and
Eye: Contusion, upper lid extending to the outer canthus, right; penalized under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being
no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, hereby sentences each
Ear: lacerated wound ripping off the lowest pole of the lobule, right; and all of them to suffer imprisonment, RECLUSION PERPETUA, with
serrated border all the accessories of the penalty, and to indemnify the heirs of Ramon
John Dy Kow, Jr. the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos, and to pay the
Sub-occipital region: lacerated wound, 0.9 cms. in length, centrally costs; they are credited in full for the preventive imprisonment.5
located;
Accused-appellants filed the instant appeal.
Neck: punctured wound, 3-4 mm deep, semi-circular with serrated
border, base of neck at the sternomastoid border, right; Assailing the decision of the court a quo, appellants would insist that
the amended information under which they were arraigned, tried and
Chest: Gunshot wound convicted, although so captioned as an indictment for the complex
crime of kidnapping with murder, was, in reality a mere indictment for
point of entrance: 2nd ICS, sternal border, right, 12 mm in diameter murder. According to appellants, the use of the words "abducted" and
"kidnapping" in the amended information was not in itself indicative of
the crime of kidnapping being charged but that, from the averments of
the information, it could be apparent that Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr.,
was "abducted or kidnapped" not for the purpose of detaining but of That on or about the 27th day of December 1993 between 6:00
liquidating him. Hence, the defense theorized, the conviction for o'clock to 7:00 o'clock in the evening at Barangay Palestina,
kidnapping had no legal ground to stand on. Municipality of Pili, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
Let it not be said that the contention lacks remarkableness accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
nevertheless, it is a legal proposition that can here hardly be accepted. another with intent to kill, with treachery, superior strength and
The amended information reads: evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously abduct kidnap and bring into a secluded place at
Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur one RAMON JOHN DY KOW, JR.
The undersigned 1st Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines
and while thereat attack and shoot with firearm the said Ramon
Sur accuses JOSE SANDIGAN, ALIPIO SANTIANO, ARMIE
John Dy Kow, Jr. for several times hitting him on the different
PILLUETA and JOVY CHANCO of the crime of KIDNAPPING WITH
parts of his body causing his instantaneous death. 8
MURDER, defined and penalized under Article 267 and Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
The accused have gone through trial without any objection
thereover. Exceptions relative to the statement or recital of fact
That on or about the 27th day of December 1993 between 6:00 o'clock
constituting the offense charged ought be presented before the
to 7:00 o'clock in the evening at Barangay Palestina, Municipality of
trial court; if none is taken and the defective or even omitted
Pili, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
averments are supplied by competent proof, it would not be error
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
for an appellate court to reject those exceptions on appeal.9
confederating and mutually helping one another with intent to kill, with
treachery, superior strength and evident premeditation, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abduct, kidnap, and bring The issue is next posed: When a complex crime has been
into a secluded place at Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur, one RAMON charged in an information and the evidence fails to support the
JOHN DY KOW, JR. and while thereat attack and shoot with firearm charge on one of the component offenses, can the defendant still
the said Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr. for several times hitting him on the be separately convicted of the other offense? The question has
different parts of his body causing his instantaneous death. long been answered in the affirmative. In United States vs.
Lahoylahoy and Madanlog, 10 the Court has ruled to be legally
feasible the conviction of an accused on one of the offenses
That as a consequence of the death of the victim Ramon John Dy
included in a complex crime charged, when properly established,
Kow, Jr. his heirs suffered damages. 6
despite the failure of evidence to hold the accused guilty of the
other charge.
The information is not so wanting as to render it legally inadequate for
the purpose it has been intended by the prosecution. It should be
Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code, prior to its amendment by
sufficient for an information to distinctly state the statutory designation
Section 8 of Republic Act 7659, 11 reads:
of the offense and the acts or omissions complained of as being
constitutive of that offense.7 A reading of the amended information
readily reveals that the charge is for "kidnapping with murder, Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private
defined and penalized under Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious individual who shall kidnap or detain another; or in any other
Illegal Detention) and Article 248 (Murder) of the Revised Penal manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty
Code" Evidently, appellants have been properly apprised of the of reclusion perpetua to death;
charges, the information did go on to state thus —
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five morning of 28 December 1993. Don Gumba corroborated
days. Rañola's testimony. Gumba was positive that he had seen the
victim at around eight o'clock in the evening of 27 December 1993
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. with appellants Santiano and Pillueta on board the trimobile
driven by appellant Chanco on its way towards the direction of
Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur, where, the following morning the
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon
victim was found dead evidently after succumbing to several
the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall
have been made. gunshot wounds.

Appellants have not shown any nefarious motive on the part of

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female,
the witnesses that might have influenced them to declare falsely
or a public officer.
against appellants; the Court sees no justification to thereby
deny faith and credit to their testimony. 13 The Court likewise
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was shares the view of the Solicitor General in pointing out that —
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or
any other person, even if none of the circumstances above
1. There is no question that the victim, who was on the date in
mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
question detained at the Naga City Jail, asked permission from
the jail trustee in order to buy viand outside. It was while he was
The elements of the offense, here adequately shown, are (a) that emerging from the PNP store that he was accosted by appellants
the offender is a private individual; (b) that he kidnaps or detains Santiano and Sandigan.
another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
(c) that the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (d) that,
2. From the moment that the victim was accosted in Naga City,
in the commission of the offense, any of the following
circumstances is present, i.e., (i) that the kidnapping or detention he was at first dragged to the NARCOM Office where he was
lasts for more than 5 days, or (ii) that it is committed simulating mauled. This circumstance indicated the intention to deprive him
of his liberty for sometime, an essential element of the crime of
public authority, or (iii) that any serious physical injuries are
kidnapping.
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill
him are made, or (iv) that the person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer. 12 3. The victim did not only sustain serious physical injuries but
likewise died as indicated in the autopsy report, thus, belying
appellants' claim that none of the circumstances in Article 267 of
Prosecution witness William Rañola testified that he had seen the
the Revised Penal Code was present.
victim being accosted, held and thereafter dragged to the
NARCOM office by appellants Santiago and Sandigan. Inside the
NARCOM office the victim was mauled by Santiano. For several 4. Witness Don Gumba was positive when he declared that he
minutes, Santiano continued to batter him with punches while saw the victim at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of December
Pillueta stood by the door and so acted as the "lockout." The 27, 1993 with appellant Chanco on its way towards the direction
appellants then took the victim away on a trimobile owned and of Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur where the victim was found
driven by Chanco. Rañola positively identified the fatigue jacket dead. 14
worn by the victim on the evening of his abduction on 27
December 1993 and when his lifeless body was found in the
The fact alone that appellant Pillueta is "an organic member of
the NARCOM" and appellant Sandigan a regular member of the
PNP would not exempt them from the criminal liability for
kidnapping. 15 It is quite clear that in abducting and taking away
the victim, appellants did so neither in furtherance of official
function nor in the pursuit of authority vested in them. It is not,
in fine, in relation to their office, but in purely private capacity
that they have acted in concert with their co-appellants Santiano
and Chanco.

The crime of kidnapping cannot be here absorbed by the charge

of murder since the detention of the victim is not shown to have
been for the purpose of liquidating him. Appellants themselves,
in fact, all deny having killed the victim. And while the evidence
may have thus been found to be wanting by the trial court so as
to equally hold appellants responsible for the death of the victim,
the Court is conviced that the court a quo did not err in making
them account for kidnapping. The circumstances heretofore
recited indicate the attendance of conspiracy among the
appellants thereby making them each liable for the offense.

The claim of appellants that they cannot be held liable for

indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 because the prosecution
did not present evidence to prove damages is without merit. The
indemnity awarded by the trial court clearly refers to the civil
indemnity for the offense 16 and not for actual damages
sustained.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 121519 October 30, 1996 suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. The accused are hereby
ordered to pay the private complainant the sum of P100,000.00 by way
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, of moral damages caused by anxiety, by her being emotionally drained
vs. coupled by the fact that up to this date she could not determine the
VICENTE TY and CARMEN TY, accused-appellants. whereabouts of her child Arabella Sombong.

SO ORDERED.2
KAPUNAN, J.:p
The accused now interpose this appeal alleging the ensuing
Vicente Ty and Carmen Ty were charged with the crime of kidnapping assignment of errors, viz:
and failure to return a minor in an information filed by 2nd Assistant
City Prosecutor of Kalookan City Rosauro J. Silverio, the accusatory I
portion of which reads:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANTS
That on or about the month of April 1989, in Kalookan. City, Metro "DELIBERATELY FAILED TO RESTORE THE CHILD TO HER
Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- MOTHER," AND CONVICTING THEM UNDER ART. 270 OF THE
named accused, being then the owners, proprietors, managers and REVISED PENAL CODE, AND SENTENCING THEM TO
administrators of Sir John Clinic and as such said accused had the "RECLUSION PERPETUA";
custody of Arabella Sombong, a minor, conspiring together and
mutually helping one another and with deliberate intent to deprive the II
parents of the child of her custody, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously fail to restore the custody of said Arabella THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CRIME
Sombong to her parents by giving said custody of subject minor to COMMITTED, IF ANY, IS THAT DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER
another person without the knowledge and consent of her parents.
ART. 277 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE;

Contrary to Law.1
III

Both accused were arrested, and then arraigned on October 27, 1992
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT RECOMMENDING EXECUTIVE
when they pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
CLEMENCY PURSUANT TO PRECEDENT IN "PEOPLE vs.
GUTIERREZ," 197 SCRA 569; and
After trial, on May 31, 1995, a decision was rendered by the Regional
Trial Court of Kalookan City, Branch 123, the decretal portion of which
IV
disposes as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING "COMPLAINANT THE
WHEREFORE, this Court finds both accused Spouses Vicente Ty and SUM OF P100,000.00 BY WAY OF MORAL, DAMAGES."3
Carmen Ty guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping
a minor and failure to return the same as defined and penalized by
Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences them to The relevant antecedents surrounding the case are as follows:
On November 18, 1987, complainant Johanna Sombong brought her In 1992, complainant came back to claim the daughter she abandoned
sick daughter Arabella, then only seven (7) months old, for treatment some five (5) years back.
to the Sir John Medical and Maternity Clinic located at No. 121 First
Avenue, Grace Park, Kalookan City which was owned and operated When her pleas allegedly went unanswered, she filed a petition
by the accused-appellants. Arabella was diagnosed to be suffering for habeas corpus against accused-appellants with the Regional Trial
bronchitis and diarrhea, thus complainant was advised to confine the Court of Quezon City. Said petition was however denied due course
child at the clinic for speedy recovery. About three (3) days later, and was summarily dismissed without prejudice on the ground of lack
Arabella was well and was ready to be discharged but complainant of jurisdiction, the alleged detention having been perpetrated in
was not around to take her home. A week later, complainant came Kalookan City.
back but did not have enough money to pay the hospital bill in the
amount of P300.00. Complainant likewise confided to accused-
Thereafter, the instant criminal case was filed against accused-
appellant Dr. Carmen Ty that no one would take care of the child at
appellants.
home as she was working. She then inquired about the rate of the
nursery and upon being told that the same was P50.00 per day, she
decided to leave her child to the care of the clinic nursery. Complainant likewise filed an administrative case for dishonorable
Consequently, Arabella was transferred from the ward to the nursery. 4 conduct against accused-appellant Dr. Carmen Ty before the Board
of Medicine of the Professional Regulation Commission. This case
was subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Thereafter, hospital bills started to mount and accumulate. It was at
this time that accused-appellant Dr. Ty suggested to the complainant
that she hire a "yaya" for P400.00 instead of the daily nursery fee of On October 13, 1992, complainant filed a petition for habeas
P50.00. Complainant agreed, hence, a "yaya" was hired. Arabella was corpus with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, this time against
then again transferred from the nursery to the extension of the clinic the alleged guardians of her daughter, namely, Marietta Neri Alviar
which served as residence for the hospital staff.5 and Lilibeth Neri. On January 15, 1993, the trial court rendered a
decision granting the petition and ordering the guardians to
immediately deliver the person of Cristina Grace Neri to the
From then on, nothing was heard of the complainant. She neither
complainant, the court having found Cristina to be the complainant's
visited her child nor called to inquire about her whereabouts. Her
child. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, however, said decision was
estranged husband came to the clinic once but did not get the child.
reversed on the ground that the guardians were not unlawfully
Efforts to get in touch with the complainant were unsuccessful as she
withholding from the complainant the rightful custody of Cristina after
left no address or telephone number where she can be reached. This finding that Cristina and complainant's daughter are not one and the
development prompted Dr. Ty to notify the barangay captain of the same person. On January 31, 1996, this Court in Sombong v. Court of
child's abandonment.6 Eventually, the hospital staff took turns in taking Appeals9 affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.
care of Arabella.7
In this appeal, accused-appellants would want us to take a second
Sometime in 1989, two (2) years after Arabella was abandoned by look and resolve the issue of whether or not they are guilty of
complainant, Dr. Fe Mallonga, a dentist at the clinic, suggested during kidnapping and failure to return a minor. Accused-appellants of course
a hospital staff conference that Arabella be entrusted to a guardian
contend that they are not guilty and the Solicitor General agrees. In its
who could give the child the love and affection, personal attention and
Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Appellee's Brief, the Office of the
caring she badly needed as she was thin and sickly. The suggestion
Solicitor General recommends their acquittal.
was favorably considered, hence, Dr. Mallonga gave the child to her
aunt, Lilibeth Neri.8
We agree. demeanor towards the minor Cristina. She made the following
personal but relevant manifestation:
As we have mentioned above, this Court in Sombong v. Court of
Appeals10 affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the The undersigned ponente as a mother herself of four children, wanted
trial court's ruling that complainant has rightful custody over the child, to see how petitioner as an alleged mother of a missing child
Cristina Grace Neri, the latter not being identical with complainant's supposedly in the person of Cristina Neri would react on seeing again
daughter, Arabella. The Court discoursed, thusly: her long lost child. The petitioner appeared in the scheduled hearing
of this case late, and she walked inside the courtroom looking for a
Petitioner does not have the right of custody over the minor Cristina seat without even stopping at her alleged daughter's seat; without
because, by the evidence disclosed before, the court a quo, Cristina even casting a glance on said child, and without even that tearful
has not been shown to be petitioner's daughter, Arabella. The embrace which characterizes the reunion of a loving mother with her
evidence adduced before the trial court does not warrant the missing dear child. Throughout the proceedings, the
conclusion that Arabella is the same person as Cristina. undersigned ponente noticed no signs of endearment and affection
expected of a mother who had been deprived of the embrace of her
little child for many years. The conclusion or finding of
xxx xxx xxx
undersigned ponente as a mother, herself, that petitioner-appellee is
not the mother of Cristina Neri has been given support by aforestated
In the instant case, the testimonial and circumstantial proof observation. . .
establishes the individual and separate existence of petitioner's child,
Arabella, from that of private respondents' foster child, Cristina.
xxx xxx xxx
We note, among others, that Dr. Trono, who is petitioner's own
Since we hold that petitioner has not been established by evidence to
witness, testified in court that, together with Arabella, there were
several babies left in the clinic and so she could not be certain whether be entitled to the custody of the minor Cristina on account of mistaken
it was Arabella or some other baby that was given to private identity, it cannot be said that private respondents are unlawfully
withholding from petitioner the rightful custody over Cristina. At this
respondents. Petitioner's own evidence shows that, after the
juncture, we need not inquire into the validity of the mode by which
confinement of Arabella in the clinic in 1987, she saw her daughter
private respondents acquired custodial rights over the minor, Cristina.
again only in 1989 when she visited the clinic. This corroborates the
testimony of petitioner's own witness, Dra. Ty, that Arabella was
physically confined in the clinic from November, 1987 to April, 1989. xxx xxx xxx
This testimony tallies with her assertion in her counter-affidavit to the
effect that Arabella was in the custody of the hospital until April, 1989. Under the facts and ruling in Sombong, as well as the evidence
All this, when juxtaposed with the unwavering declaration of private adduced in this case accused-appellants must perforce be acquitted
respondents that they obtained custody of Cristina in April, 1988 and of the crime charged, there being no reason to hold them liable for
had her baptized at the Good Samaritan Church on April 30, 1988, failing to return one Cristina Grace Neri, a child not conclusively shown
leads to the conclusion that Cristina is not Arabella. and established to be complainant's daughter, Arabella.

Significantly, Justice Lourdes K. Tayao-Jaguros, herself a mother and The foregoing notwithstanding, even if we were to consider Cristina
the ponente of the herein assailed decision, set the case for hearing Grace Neri and Arabella Sombong as one and the same person, still,
on August 30, 1993 primarily for the purpose of observing petitioner's the instant criminal case against the accused-appellants must fall.
Before a conviction for kidnapping and failure to return a minor under As a Verb
Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code can be had, two elements must
concur, namely: (a) the offender has been entrusted with the custody The word is derived from two Latin words which mean literally
of the minor, and (b) the offender deliberately fails to restore said minor "concerning" and "to weigh;" it implies the possession of a mind
to his parents or guardians. The essential element herein is that the capable of conceiving a purpose to act, and the exercise of such
offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor but what is actually mental powers as are called into use by the consideration and
punishable is not the kidnapping of the minor, as the title of the article weighing of the motives and the consequences of the act; and has
seems to indicate, but rather the deliberate failure or refusal of the been defined as meaning to consider, reflect, take counsel, or to weigh
custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or the arguments for and against a proposed course of action; to consider
guardians.11 Said failure or refusal, however, must not only be and examine the reasons for and against, consider maturely, ponder,
deliberate but must also be persistent as to oblige the parents or the reflect upon, or weigh in the mind; to reflect, with a view to make a
guardians of the child to seek the aid of the courts in order to obtain choice; to weigh the motives for an act and its consequences, with a
custody.12 The key word therefore of this element is deliberate and view to a decision thereon.
Black's Law Dictionary defines deliberate as:
As an Adjective
Deliberate, adj. Well advised; carefully considered; not sudden or
rash; circumspect; slow in determining. Willful rather than merely
The word, used adjectively, implies action after thought and reflection,
intentional. Formed, arrived at, or determined upon as a result of
and relates to the end proposed; indicates a purpose formed in a mind
careful thought and weighing of considerations, as a deliberate capable of conceiving a purpose; and is based upon an intention
judgment or plan. Carried on coolly and steadily, especially according accompanied by such circumstances as evidence a mind fully
to a preconceived design; given to weighing facts and arguments with
conscious of its own purpose and design. It has been defined as
a view to a choice or decision; careful in considering the
meaning carefully considered; circumspect; entered upon after
consequences of a step; slow in action; unhurried; characterized by
deliberation and with fixed purpose, formed after careful consideration,
reflection; dispassionate; not rash. People v. Thomas, 25 Cal. 2d 880,
and fully or carefully considering the nature or consequences of an act
156 P.2d 7, 17, 18. or measure; maturely reflected; not sudden or rash, carefully
considering the probable consequences of a step; premeditated; slow
By the use of this word, in describing a crime, the idea is conveyed in determining; weighing facts and arguments with a view to a choice
that the perpetrator weighs the motives for the act and its of decision; well-advised.
consequences, the nature of the crime, or other things connected with
his intentions, with a view to a decision thereon; that he carefully Under some circumstances, it has been held synonymous with, or
considers all these, and that the act is not suddenly committed. It
equivalent to, "intentional," "premeditated," and "willful."
implies that the perpetrator must be capable of the exercise of such
mental powers as are called into use by deliberation and the
consideration and weighing of motives and consequences. 13 Under other circumstances, however, it has been compared with, or
distinguished from, "premeditated," "sudden," and "willful."14
Similarly, the word deliberate is defined in Corpus Juris Secundum as:
Essentially, the word deliberate as used in the article must imply
something more than mere negligence; it must be premeditated,
DELIBERATE.
obstinate, headstrong, foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously
wrong.
In the case at bar, it is evident that there was no deliberate refusal or Q: Were (sic) you informed (of) the exact address of the guardian, did
failure on the part of the accused-appellants to restore the custody of you informed (sic) the PAO?
the complainant's child to her. When the accused-appellants learned
that complainant wanted her daughter back after five (5) long years of A: Yes, mam.
apparent wanton neglect, they tried their best to help herein
complainant find the child as the latter was no longer under the clinic's
ATTY. WARD:
care. Accused-appellant Dr. Ty did not have the address of Arabella's
guardians but as soon as she obtained it from Dr. Fe Mallonga who
was already working abroad, she personally went to the guardians' Q: Then, what happened next, madam witness?
residence and informed them that herein complainant wanted her
daughter back. Dr. Ty testified as follows: A: I was the one who went to the address to be sure that the child was
really there, mam.
Q: Now, since you said a while ago that when you placed the child
under the (sic) guardianship, you are (sic) aware that the natural Q: And did you see the child?
mother will get back the child, why did you not return the minor to the
natural mother? A: Yes, mam.

A: During that time mam, the resident physician who will (sic) Q: What did you do with the child?
discharged the baby was not present because she was abroad.
A: I just tell (sic) the child, "Ay ang laki mo na pala," I just told the child
Q: But then madam witness, are you aware where the child was and like that and I've (sic) talked also to the guardian during that time,
to whom it was given? mam.

A: The exact address was not given to me, mam, before the resident Q: And what did you tell the guardian?
physician left for abroad so, I asked the PAO to give me one month to
have (sic) a long distance call to this doctor and asked her for the A: I told the guardian that the rightful mother was claiming for the child
whereabout(s) of the child. and that we should talked (sic) with each other at the PAO for the
decision, mam.
Q: And where you granted the thirty-day period by the Officer of the
PAO? Q: Did the guardian bring the child to the PAO's Office (sic)?

A: Yes, mam. A: No mam, she did not appear.

Q: What happened if any during that thirty-day period? Q: Why?

A: I was able to talk to Fe Mallonga in Bahrain and she told me the A: They told me first that they are (sic) going to contact a lawyer but
exact address of the guardian, mam. for (sic) several days, she did not respond anymore, mam. 15
When the guardians refused to return the child, accused-appellant Dr. Q: You stated a while ago that there was no written agreement
Ty sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) between you or your hospital and the guardian of the minor, is that
which conducted a conference among the parties but since a case was correct?
yet to be filed, the custody of the minor remained with the guardians.
This fact is evident from the following testimony, thus: A: Yes, mam.

Q: You testified on cross-examination that you located the Q: For what reason if you know, why (did) the guardian did (sic) not
whereabouts of the child sometime later, what steps did you take up follow you or obey you when you want (sic) to get back the child?
(sic) after you found the child?
A: I don't know of any reason, mam. 17
A: I explained to the guardian that the verbal agreement between the
supposed to be guardianship was only a plain guardianship and not The efforts taken by the accused-appellants to help the complainant
as an adoption, sir. in finding the child clearly negate the finding that there was a
deliberate refusal or failure on their part to restore the child to her
Q: You said you went to the NBI after you found the child, why did you mother. Evidence is simply wanting in this regard.
go to the NBI?
It is worthy to note that accused-appellants' conduct from the moment
A: Because the guardian are (sic) not willing to surrender the child to the child was left in the clinic's care up to the time the child was given
the PAO's Office (sic), that is why I asked their help, sir. 16 up for guardianship was motivated by nothing more than an earnest
desire to help the child and a high regard for her welfare and well-
... being.

Q: Now, when you informed the present custodian that the natural WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is
mother is now claiming the child, why were you not able to get the hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-
minor? appellants VICENTE TY and CARMEN TY are hereby ACQUITTED
of the crime charged and are ordered to be released immediately
A: I was not able to get the minor so I asked the help of the NBI to unless they are being detained for other lawful causes. Costs de oficio.
have the child surrender (sic), mam.
SO ORDERED.
ATTY. WARD:

Q: And what happened when you get (sic) the assistance of the NBI?

A: They were the ones who asked the guardian to surrender the child,
mam.
G.R. No. 163898 December 23, 2008 Aggrieved, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for Grave Coercion
against TPI and its officers, David Go, Robert Castanares, Buddy
ROBERTO BARBASA, petitioner, Mariano, Art Brondial, and herein private respondents before the
vs. Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.4 The complaint dated July 13,
HON. ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO, in his capacity as Secretary of the 1999 alleged that TPI and its officers cut off the electricity in
Department of Justice, GRACE GUARIN, NESTOR SANGALANG, petitioner’s stalls "in a violent and intimidating manner" 5 and by
VICTOR CALLUENG, respondents. unnecessarily employing "several armed guards to intimidate and
frighten"6 petitioner and his employees and agents.
DECISION
The respondents in the criminal complaint filed separate counter-
QUISUMBING, J.: affidavits7 which presented a common defense: that the July 1, 1999
cutting off of electrical supply was done peacefully; that it was an act
performed in the lawful performance of their assigned duties, and in
Petitioner assails the Decision1 dated July 29, 2003 and the accordance with the covenants set forth in the written agreements
Resolution2 dated May 21, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. previously executed between petitioner and TPI; that petitioner was
SP No. 62610, which dismissed his petition for certiorari and denied not present when the alleged acts were committed; and that petitioner
his motion for reconsideration, respectively. The appellate court had had outstanding accumulated unpaid rentals, CUSA billings, electrical
found no reason to reverse the Resolution3 of the Secretary of Justice and water bills, unpaid interest and penalty charges (from June 1998
ordering the City Prosecutor of Manila to move for the dismissal of to May 1999) in the amount of P267,513.39 for all his rented stalls, as
Criminal Case No. 336630 against private respondents. reflected in three Interest-Penalty Reports8 duly sent to him. Petitioner
was likewise given demand letter-notices in writing at least three times
Petitioner avers that he is the president of Push-Thru Marketing, Inc., wherein it was stated that if he did not settle his arrears in full,
which leases commercial stalls CS-PL 05, 19 and 30 in Tutuban electricity would be cut.9 Of the total amount due from him, petitioner
Center, owned by Tutuban Properties, Inc., (TPI). On June 30, 1999, paid only P127,272.18 after receipt of the third notice. Accordingly,
Angelina Hipolito, merchandising officer of Push-Thru Marketing, private respondents proceeded with the power cut-off, but only after
received a notice of disconnection of utilities from private respondent sending a "Notice of Disconnection of Utilities"10 to petitioner’s stalls
Grace Guarin, the Credit and Collection Manager of TPI, for failure of informing him of the impending act.
Push-Thru Marketing to settle its outstanding obligations for Common
Usage and Service Area (CUSA) charges, utilities, electricity and Private respondents also pointed out that aside from the above
rentals. arrears, petitioner has outstanding accountabilities with respect to
"Priority Premium Fees" in the amount of P5,907,013.10.11
Petitioner settled the charges for CUSA, utilities and electricity, which
payment was accepted by private respondent Guarin, but petitioner They likewise stressed that their Agreement12 with petitioner contains
failed to pay the back rentals. Thus, on July 1, 1999, private the following stipulations:
respondents Guarin, Nestor Sangalang, engineering manager of TPI,
and Victor Callueng, TPI head of security, together with several armed
CONTRACT OF LEASE
guards, disconnected the electricity in the stalls occupied by Push-
Prime Block Cluster Stall
Thru Marketing.

xxxx
PRIORITY PREMIUM : P *2,367,750.00 xxxx

xxxx In cases where payments made by the LESSEE for

any given month is not sufficient to cover all
RENT PER MONTH : P *******378.00 per sq. outstanding obligations for said period, the order of
m (Plus P*******37.80 10% VAT) priority in the application of the payments made is as
follows:
xxxx
a. Penalties
OTHER FEES AND EXPENSES CHARGEABLE
TO THE LESSEE: b. Interests

xxxx c. Insurance

B. COMMON USAGE AND SERVICE AREA (CUSA) d. CUSA Charges

CHARGES
e. Rent
Minimum rate of P190.00/sq. m./mo. to cover expenses
stipulated in Section 6 hereof, subject to periodic review and f. Priority Premium
adjustment to reflect actual expenses.
xxxx
C. INDIVIDUAL UTILITIES
ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION : metered + reasonable 21. PENALTY CLAUSE
service
xxxx
(meter to be provided
by the LESSOR, for the account of It is also expressly agreed that in case the LESSEE fails
the LESSEE) to pay at any time the installments on the priority
premium, lease rentals or CUSA and utility charges
OTHER SERVICES : metered and/or reasonable corresponding to a total of three (3) months, even if not
consecutively incurred, the LESSOR is hereby granted
service charge the option to cut off power and other utility services to
the LESSEE until full payment of said charges, expenses,
xxxx penalty and interest is made, without prejudice to any
other remedies provided under this Contract, including
the termination of this Contract.
7. PAYMENTS

x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioner filed his Reply Affidavit,13 claiming that Go, Castanares, Petitioner raises the sole issue of whether private respondents’ act of
Mariano, Brondial, Guarin and Sangalang, while not personally disconnecting the supply of electricity to petitioner’s stalls and the
present at the scene at the time, were to be held liable as the authors manner by which it was carried out constitute grave coercion.
of the criminal design since they were the ones who ordered the
cutting off of petitioner’s electricity. Petitioner admitted that none of the After carefully considering petitioner’s appeal, we are in agreement to
armed personnel drew his gun, much more aimed or fired it, but deny it for utter lack of merit.
insisted that he was unduly prevented from using electricity to the
detriment of his business and his person. He claimed that the officers The crime of grave coercion has three elements: (a) that a person is
of TPI were unable to show the amount and extent of his unpaid bills; prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or
that as to the electric bills, the same were paid; and that there was an
compelled to do something against his or her will, be it right or wrong;
ongoing negotiation with respect to the matter of rentals and for
(b) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, either by
reformation of the lease agreements.14
material force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and,
consequently, control over the will of the offended party; and (c) that
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, through Prosecutor Venus the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to
D. Marzan, dismissed the complaint against David Go, Roberto do so; in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of
Castanares, Buddy Mariano and Art Brondial but found probable law or in the exercise of any lawful right.17
cause against private respondents Grace Guarin, Nestor Sangalang
and Victor Callueng. On January 13, 2000, an Information15 for grave
Petitioner’s appeal gives us no sufficient reason to deviate from what
coercion was filed in court, but proceedings therein were deferred has already been found by the Secretary of Justice and the Court of
when the private respondents filed an appeal to the Secretary of Appeals.
Justice.
The records show that there was no violence, force or the display of it
On August 23, 2000, the Secretary of Justice reversed the City
as would produce intimidation upon petitioner’s employees when the
Prosecutor’s Resolution, as follows: cutting off of petitioner’s electricity was effected. On the contrary, it
was done peacefully and after written notice to petitioner was sent. We
WHEREFORE, the assailed resolution is do not subscribe to petitioner’s claim that the presence of armed
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The City Prosecutor is guards were calculated to intimidate him or his employees. Rather, we
directed to move, with leave of court, for the dismissal of are more inclined to believe that the guards were there to prevent any
Criminal Case No. 336630 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of untoward or violent event from occurring in the exercise of TPI’s rights
Manila and to report the action taken within ten (10) days from under the lease agreements. If the respondents desired a violent
receipt hereof. result, they would have gone there unannounced or cut petitioner’s
electricity through less desirable and conspicuous means.
SO ORDERED.16
It is likewise clear from the penalty clause in the Contracts of Lease
His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner assailed entered into by the parties that TPI is given the option to cut off power
the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice before the Court of Appeals and other utility services in petitioner’s stalls in case petitioner fails to
through a petition for certiorari, which was, however, dismissed by the pay at any time the installments on the priority premium, lease rentals
appellate court for lack of merit. The appellate court likewise denied or CUSA and utility charges corresponding to a total of three months
his motion for reconsideration. Hence this petition. until full payment of said charges, expenses, penalty and interest is
made.18 The stipulation under said clause is clear; there is no Quite common in lease contracts, this clause functions to
ambiguity in what is stated. There could be no grave coercion in the strengthen the coercive force of the obligation and to
private respondents’ act of exercising in behalf of TPI a right afforded provide, in effect, for what could be the liquidated damages
to TPI under the solemn and unequivocal covenants of a contract to resulting from a breach. There is nothing immoral or illegal in
which petitioner had agreed and which he did execute and sign. such indemnity/penalty clause, absent any showing that it was
forced upon or fraudulently foisted on the obligor.20 (Emphasis
As held by this Court in a previous case which we find instructive: supplied.)

Contracts constitute the law between the parties. They must In this connection, counsels must be reminded that equally important,
be read together and interpreted in a manner that reconciles as their duty to clients, is their duty as officers of the court to see to it
and gives life to all of them. The intent of the parties, as shown that the orderly administration of justice is not unduly impeded or
by the clear language used, prevails over post delayed. Counsel needs to advise a client, ordinarily a layman
facto explanations that find no support from the words unaccustomed to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, concerning
employed by the parties or from their contemporary and the objective merit of his case. If counsel finds that his client’s cause
subsequent acts showing their understanding of such lacks merit, then it is his bounden duty to advise accordingly. Indeed
contracts.19 a lawyer’s oath to uphold the cause of justice may supersede his duty
to his client’s cause; for such fealty to ethical concerns is
indispensable to the success of the rule of law.21
We could not see how the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila,
through Prosecutor Venus D. Marzan, could have made a finding of
probable cause to file a criminal case for grave coercion against WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
private respondents, in light of the evidence then and now prevailing, July 29, 2003 and the Resolution dated May 21, 2004 of the Court of
which will show that there was a mutual agreement, in a contract of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62610 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
lease, that provided for the cutting off of electricity as an acceptable against petitioner.
penalty for failure to abide faithfully with what has been covenanted.
Although the propriety of its exercise may be the subject of SO ORDERED.
controversy, mere resort to it may not so readily expose the lessor TPI
to a charge of grave coercion. Considering that petitioner owed TPI
the total amount of more than P5 million, which was undisputed, we
find that the resort to the penalty clause under the lease agreements
was justified. As held in Pryce Corporation v. Philippine Amusement
and Gaming Corporation:

A penal clause is "an accessory obligation which the

parties attach to a principal obligation for the purpose of
insuring the performance thereof by imposing on the
debtor a special prestation (generally consisting in the
payment of a sum of money) in case the obligation is not
fulfilled or is irregularly or inadequately fulfilled."
G.R. No. 113006 November 23, 2000 "IN VIEW THEREOF, this Court finds the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of unjust vexation provided under
ONG CHIU KWAN, petitioner, Article 287 par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences him to
vs. suffer a penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) days and to pay private
COURT OF APPEALS, and the PEOPLE OF THE complainant the following:
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
P10,000.00 - moral damages
DECISION
P 5,000.00 - exemplary damages
PARDO, J.:
P 5,000.00 - attorney’s fees and to pay the cost of this suit."
What is before the Court for consideration is the decision of the Court
of Appeals affirming the conviction of accused Ong Chiu Kwan, for "SO ORDERED.
unjust vexation.1
"Bacolod City, Philippines, September 1, 1992.
On January 31, 1991, Assistant City Prosecutor Andres M. Bayona of
Bacolod filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Bacolod City an "(SGD.)RAFAEL O. PENUELA
information charging petitioner with unjust vexation for cutting the Judge"8
electric wires, water pipes and telephone lines of "Crazy Feet," a
business establishment owned and operated by Mildred Ong.2
On appeal to the Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, the latter court in
a decision dated December 8, 1992, simplistically adopted the
On April 24, 1990, at around 10:00 in the morning, Ong Chiu Kwan decision of the lower court in toto, without stating the reasons for doing
ordered Wilfredo Infante to "relocate" the telephone, electric and water so.9
lines of "Crazy Feet," because said lines posed as a
disturbance.3 However, Ong Chiu Kwan failed to present a permit from
On April 22, 1993, by petition for review, Ong Chiu Kwan elevated the
appropriate authorities allowing him to cut the electric wires, water case to the Court of Appeals.10 On August 16, 1993, the Court of
pipe and telephone lines of the business establishment.4 Appeals promulgated its decision dismissing the appeal,11 agreeing
with the lower court’s finding that petitioner was guilty beyond
After due trial, on September 1, 1992, the Municipal Trial Court found reasonable doubt of unjust vexation.
Ong Chiu Kwan guilty of unjust vexation,5 and sentenced him to
"imprisonment for twenty days."6 The court also ordered him to pay Hence, this petition for review.12
moral damages, finding that the wrongful act of abruptly cutting off the
electric, water pipe and telephone lines of "Crazy Feet" caused the
interruption of its business operations during peak hours, to the The Court notes that in the decision of the Regional Trial Court which
detriment of its owner, Mildred Ong. The trial court also awarded the Court of Appeals affirmed peremptorily without noticing its nullity,
exemplary damages to complainant "as a deterrent to the accused not the Regional Trial Court merely quoted the decision of the Municipal
to follow similar act in the future and to pay attorney’s fees."7 The trial Trial Court in full and added two paragraphs, thus:
court disposed of the case as follows:
"This Court, in accordance with the rules, required the parties to decision. However, considering that this case has been pending for
submit their corresponding memorandum or brief. The prosecution sometime, the ends of justice will be fully served if we review the
filed its memorandum, and also with the defense. evidence and decide the case.

"After a careful perusal of the record of the case and evaluating the Petitioner admitted having ordered the cutting of the electric, water
evidence thereto and exhibits thereof, this Court finds no ground to and telephone lines of complainant’s business establishment because
modify, reverse or alter the above-stated decision and hereby affirms these lines crossed his property line. He failed, however, to show
the decision of the lower court in toto."13 evidence that he had the necessary permit or authorization to relocate
the lines. Also, he timed the interruption of electric, water and
The Constitution requires that "[N]o decision shall be rendered by any telephone services during peak hours of the operation of business of
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the the complainant. Thus, petitioner’s act unjustly annoyed or vexed the
law on which it is based."14 The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as complainant. Consequently, petitioner Ong Chiu Kwan is liable for
amended, provides that "[T]he judgment must be written in the official unjust vexation.
language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed
by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts Regarding damages, we find the award of moral and exemplary
proved or admitted by the accused and the law upon which the damages and attorney’s fees to be without basis. Moral damages may
judgment is based."15 be recovered if they were the proximate result of defendant’s wrongful
act or omission.18 An award of exemplary damages is justified if the
Although a memorandum decision is permitted under certain crime was committed with one or more aggravating
conditions, it cannot merely refer to the findings of fact and the circumstances.19 There is no evidence to support such award. Hence,
conclusions of law of the lower court. The court must make a full we delete the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and
findings of fact and conclusions of law of its own.16 attorney’s fees.

Consequently, the decision of the regional trial court is a nullity. Very WHEREFORE, the decisions of the lower courts are REVERSED and
recently, speaking of a similarly worded decision of a regional trial SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, accused Ong Chiu Kwan is hereby
court, we said: sentenced to pay a fine of P200.00, and the costs. The award of moral
and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees is hereby deleted.
"[I]t is starkly hallow, otiosely written, vacuous in its content and trite
in its form. It achieved nothing and attempted at nothing, not even at SO ORDERED.
a simple summation of facts which could easily be done. Its
inadequacy speaks for itself."17

Judges similarly disposed to pay lip service to their work must rethink
their place in the judiciary or seriously take refresher courses on
decision writing. We warn them of stiff sanctions for such lackadaisical
performance.

Consequently, the case may be remanded to the lower court for

compliance with the constitutional requirement of contents of a
G.R. No. 138033 February 22, 2006 To prove its case, the prosecution presented thirteen (13) witnesses.
Among them were private complainant Martina Lourdes Albano
RENATO BALEROS, JR., Petitioner, (Malou), and her classmates, Joseph Bernard Africa, Rommel Montes,
vs. Renato Alagadan and Christian Alcala. Their testimonies, as narrated
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. in some detail in the decision of the CA, established the following facts:

DECISION Like most of the tenants of the Celestial Marie Building (hereafter
"Building", …) along A.H. Lacson Street, Sampaloc, Manila, MALOU,
GARCIA, J.: occupying Room 307 with her maid, Marvilou Bebania (Marvilou), was
a medical student of the University of Sto. Tomas [UST] in 1991.
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner Renato Baleros, Jr.
assails and seeks the reversal of the January 13, 1999 decision1 of In the evening of December 12, inside Unit 307, MALOU retired at
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 17271 as reiterated in around 10:30. Outside, right in front of her bedroom door, her maid,
Marvilou, slept on a folding bed.
its March 31, 1999 resolution2 denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
Early morning of the following day, MALOU was awakened by the
The assailed decision affirmed an earlier decision of the Regional Trial smell of chemical on a piece of cloth pressed on her face. She
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 91-101642 struggled but could not move. Somebody was pinning her down on the
bed, holding her tightly. She wanted to scream for help but the hands
finding petitioner Renato Baleros, Jr. y David (CHITO) guilty of
covering her mouth with cloth wet with chemicals were very tight (TSN,
attempted rape.3
July 5, 1993, p. 33). Still, MALOU continued fighting off her attacker
by kicking him until at last her right hand got free. With this …the
The accusatory portion of the information4 dated December 17, 1991 opportunity presented itself when she was able to grab hold of his sex
charging petitioner with attempted rape reads as follow: organ which she then squeezed.

That about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December The man let her go and MALOU went straight to the bedroom door
1991 in Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the and roused Marvilou. xxx. Over the intercom, MALOU told S/G Ferolin
above-named accused, by forcefully covering the face of Martina that: "may pumasok sa kuarto ko pinagtangkaan ako" (Ibid., p. 8). Who
Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with it was she did not, however, know. The only thing she had made out
dizzying effects, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously during their struggle was the feel of her attacker’s clothes and weight.
commenced the commission of rape by lying on top of her with the His upper garment was of cotton material while that at the lower
intention to have carnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform portion felt smooth and satin-like (Ibid, p. 17). He … was wearing a t-
all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other shirt and shorts … Original Records, p. 355).
than his own spontaneous desistance, said acts being committed
against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.
To Room 310 of the Building where her classmates Christian Alcala,
Bernard Baptista, Lutgardo Acosta and Rommel Montes were staying,
Upon arraignment on February 5, 1992, petitioner, assisted by MALOU then proceeded to seek help. xxx.
counsel, pleaded "Not Guilty."5 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
It was then when MALOU saw her bed … topsy-turvy. Her nightdress (Exhibit "A-2")
was stained with blue … (TSN, July 5, 1993, pp. 13-14). Aside from
the window with grills which she had originally left opened, another That CHITO arrived at Room 306 at 1:30 A.M. of December 13, 1991
window inside her bedroom was now open. Her attacker had fled from was corroborated by Joseph Bernard Africa (Joseph), ….
her room going through the left bedroom window (Ibid, Answers to
Question number 5; Id), the one without iron grills which leads to Room
xxx xxx xxx
306 of the Building (TSN, July 5, 1993, p.6).
Joseph was already inside Room 306 at 9 o’clock in the evening of
xxx xxx xxx
December 12, 1991. xxx by the time CHITO’s knocking on the door
woke him up, …. He was able to fix the time of CHITO’s arrival at 1:30
Further, MALOU testified that her relation with CHITO, who was her A.M. because he glanced at the alarm clock beside the bed when he
classmate …, was friendly until a week prior to the attack. CHITO was awakened by the knock at the door ….
confided his feelings for her, telling her: "Gusto kita, mahal kita" (TSN,
July 5, 1993, p. 22) and she rejected him. …. (TSN, July 5, 1993, p.
Joseph noticed that CHITO was wearing dark-colored shorts and
22).
white T-shirt (Ibid., p. 23) when he let the latter in. …. It was at around
3 o’clock in the morning of December 13, 1991 when he woke up again
Meanwhile, according to S/G Ferolin, while he was on duty, CHITO later to the sound of knocking at the door, this time, by Bernard
arrived at the Building at 1:30 in the early morning of December 13, Baptista (Bernard), ….
1991, wearing a white t-shirt with “‘…a marking on the front of the T-
shirt T M and a Greek letter (sic) ΣΦ’ and below the quoted letters the
xxx. With Bernard, Joseph then went to MALOU’s room and thereat
word ‘1946’ ‘UST Medicine and Surgery’” (TSN, October 9, 1992, p.
was shown by Bernard the open window through which the intruder
9) and black shorts with the brand name “Adidas” (TSN, October 16,
supposedly passed.
1992, p.7) and requested permission to go up to Room 306. This Unit
was being leased by Ansbert Co and at that time when CHITO was
asking permission to enter, only Joseph Bernard Africa was in the xxx xxx xxx
room.
Later, at about 6 to 6:30 in the morning of December 13, 1991, Joseph
He asked CHITO to produce the required written authorization and was finally able to talk to CHITO …. He mentioned to the latter that
when CHITO could not, S/G Ferolin initially refused [but later, relented] something had happened and that they were not being allowed to get
…. S/G Ferolin made the following entry in the security guard’s out of the building. Joseph also told CHITO to follow him to Room 310.
logbook …:
CHITO did just that. He followed after Joseph to Unit 310, carrying his
"0130H Baleros Renato Jr. is a visitor of Ansbert Co who has not have gray bag. xxx. None was in Room 310 so Joseph went to their yet
(sic) a Request letter from our tenant of Unit #-306 Ansbert, but still I another classmate, Renato Alagadan at Room 401 to see if the others
let him inter (sic) for the reason that he will be our tenant this coming were there. xxx.
summer break as he said so I let him sign it here
People from the CIS came by before 8 o’clock that same morning ….
(Sgd.) Baleros Renato Jr." They likewise invited CHITO and Joseph to go with them to Camp
Crame where the two (2) were questioned ….
An occupant of Room 310 … Christian Alcala (Christian) recalled in xxx xxx xxx.
Court that in the afternoon of December 13, 1991, after their 3:30
class, he and his roommates, Bernard Baptista and Lutgardo Acosta The forensic Chemist, Leslie Chambers, of the Philippine National
(Gary) were called to the Building and were asked by the CIS people Police Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, having acted in response to
to look for anything not belonging to them in their Unit. While they were the written request of PNP Superintendent Lucas M. Managuelod
outside Room 310 talking with the authorities, Rommel Montes dated December 13, 1991, (Exhibit "C"; Original Records, p. 109.)
(Loyloy), another roommate of his, went inside to search the Unit. conducted laboratory examination on the specimen collated and
Loyloy found (TSN, January 12, 1993, p. 6) a gray "Khumbella" bag submitted…. Her Chemistry Report No. C-487-91 (Exhibit "E"; Ibid., p.
cloth type (Ibid, pp. 44-45) from inside their unit which they did not 112) reads in part, thus:
know was there and surrender the same to the investigators. When he
saw the gray bag, Christian knew right away that it belonged to CHITO
"SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
(Ibid, p. 55) as he had seen the latter usually bringing it to school inside
the classroom (Ibid, p. 45).
xxx xxx xxx:
In their presence, the CIS opened the bag and pulled out its contents,
among others, a white t-shirt with a Taunu (sic) Sigma Phi sign (Ibid, 1) One (1) small white plastic bag marked ‘UNIMART’ with the
p. 7), a Black Adidas short pants, a handkerchief , three (3) white T- following:
shirts, an underwear, and socks (Ibid).
xxx xxx xxx
Christian recognized the t-shirt (Exhibit "D-4"), the Adidas short pants
(Exhibit "D-5"), and the handkerchief (Exhibit "D-3) to be CHITO’s Exh ‘C’ – One (1) night dress colored salmon pink.
because CHITO had lent the very same one to him …. The t-shirt with
CHITO’s fraternity symbol, CHITO used to wear on weekends, and the 2) One (1) small white pl astic bag marked ‘JONAS’ with the following:
handkerchief he saw CHITO used at least once in December.
Exh. ‘D’ – One (1) printed handkerchief.
That CHITO left his bag inside Room 310 in the morning of December
13, 1991, was what consisted mainly of Renato R. Alagadan’s Exh. ‘E’ – One (1) white T-shirt marked ‘TMZI’.
testimony.
Exh. ‘F’ – One (1) black short (sic) marked ‘ADIDAS’.
xxx xxx xxx.
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
The colored gray bag had a handle and a strap, was elongated to
about 11/4 feet and appeared to be full but was closed with a zipper
To determine the presence of volatime (sic), non-volatile and/or
when Renato saw it then (Ibid, pp. 19-20). At that time Christian, Gary,
metallic poison on the above stated specimens.
Bernard, and Renato went back to Room 310 at around 3 to 4 o’clock
that afternoon along with some CIS agents, they saw the bag at the
same place inside the bedroom where Renato had seen CHITO leave FINDINGS:
it. Not until later that night at past 9 o’clock in Camp Crame, however,
did Renato know what the contents of the bag were.
Toxicological examination conducted on the above stated specimens xxx CHITO had anticipated his turn … and was thus wearing his t-shirt
gave the following results: and long pants when he was dunked. Perla Duran, …, offered each …
dry clothes to change into and CHITO put on the white t-shirt with the
Exhs. ‘C’ and ‘D’ – POSITIVE to the test for chloroform, a volatile Fraternity’s symbol and a pair of black shorts with stripes. xxx .
poison.
Again riding on Alberto’s car and wearing "barong tagalog over a white
Exhs. ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ are insufficient for further analysis. t-shirt with the symbol TAU Sigma Phi, black short pants with stripe,
socks and shoes" (TSN, April 25, 1994, p. 15), CHITO left the party
with Robert Chan and Alberto at more or less past 1 A.M. of December
CONCLUSION:
13, 1991 and proceeded to the Building which they reached at about
1:30 A.M. (Ibid., p. 19). He had left his gray traveling bag containing
Exhs. ‘C’ and ‘D’ contain chloroform, a volatile poison." 6 (Words in "white t-shirt, sando, underwear, socks, and toothbrush (Ibid., pp. 17-
bracket added) 18) at room 306 in the afternoon of the previous day ….

For its part, the defense presented, as its main witness, the petitioner At the gate of the Building, CHITO knocked and …, S/G Ferolin,
himself. He denied committing the crime imputed to him or making at looking at his watch, approached. Because of this, CHITO also looked
any time amorous advances on Malou. Unfolding a different version of at his own watch and saw that the time was 1:30 (Ibid., p. 26). S/G
the incident, the defense sought to establish the following, as culled Ferolin initially refused CHITO entry …. xxx.
from the same decision of the appellate court:
S/G Ferolin called Unit 306 …. xxx. When S/G Ferolin finally let him
In December of 1991, CHITO was a medical student of … (UST). With in, already about ten (10) minutes had lapsed since CHITO first arrived
Robert Chan and Alberto Leonardo, he was likewise a member of the (Ibid., p. 25).
Tau Sigma Phi Fraternity …. MALOU, …, was known to him being also
a medical student at the UST at the time.
CHITO went up the floor, found the key left for him by Joseph behind
the opened jalousie window and for five (5) minutes vainly tried to open
From Room 306 of the Celestial Marie Building …, CHITO, wearing the door until Rommel Montes, … approached him and even
the prescribed barong tagalog over dark pants and leather shoes, commented: "Okey ang suot mo ha, di mo mabuksan ang pinto (Ibid.,
arrived at their Fraternity house located at … Dos Castillas, Sampaloc, pp. 26-29). Rommel tried to open the door of Unit 306 … but was
Manila at about 7 o’clock in the evening of December 12, 1991. He likewise unsuccessful. CHITO then decided to just call out to Joseph
was included in the entourage of some fifty (50) fraternity members while knocking at the door.
scheduled for a Christmas gathering at the house of their senior
fraternity brother, Dr. Jose Duran, at No. 3 John Street, North
Greenhills, San Juan. xxx. It took another (5) minutes of calling out and knocking before Joseph,
…, at last answered the door. Telling him, "Ikaw na ang bahala diyan"
Joseph immediately turned his back on CHITO and went inside the
The party was conducted at the garden beside [the] swimming pool bedroom. CHITO , …changed to a thinner shirt and went to bed. He
…. Soon after, … the four (4) presidential nominees of the Fraternity, still had on the same short pants given by Perla Duran from the
CHITO included, were being dunked one by one into the pool. xxx. fraternity party (TSN, June 16, 1994, p. 20).
At 6 o’clock in the morning of December 13, 1991, CHITO woke up …. between 8 to 9 P.M. when he and Joseph were brought before Fiscal
He was already in his school uniform when, around 6:30 A.M, Joseph Abesamis for inquest. One of the CIS agents had taken it there and it
came to the room not yet dressed up. He asked the latter why this was was not opened up in his presence but the contents of the bag were
so and, without elaborating on it, Joseph told him that something had already laid out on the table of Fiscal Abesamis who, however, made
happened and to just go to Room 310 which CHITO did. no effort to ask CHITO if the items thereat were his.

At Room 310, CHITO was told by Rommel Montes that somebody, The black Adidas short pants purportedly found in the bag, CHITO
whom MALOU was not able to identify, went to the room of MALOU denied putting in his gray bag which he had left at Room 306 in the
and tried to rape her (TSN, April 25, 1994, p. 36). xxx. early evening of December 12, 1991 before going to the fraternity
house. He likewise disavowed placing said black Adidas short pants
Joseph told him that the security guard was not letting anybody out of in his gray bag when he returned to the apartment at past 1:00 o’clock
the Building …. When two (2) CIS men came to the unit asking for in the early morning of December 13, 1991 (TSN, June 16, 1994, p.
Renato Baleros, CHITO presented himself. Congressman Rodolfo B. 24), nor when he dressed up at about 6 o’clock in the morning to go
Albano, father of MALOU, then asked him for the key to Room 306…. to school and brought his gray bag to Room 310 (Ibid. 25). In fact, at
any time on December 13, 1991, he was not aware that his gray bag
ever contained any black short Adidas pants (Ibid). He only found out
xxx xxx xxx
for the first time that the black Adidas short pants was alluded to be
among the items inside his gray bag late in the afternoon, when he
The CIS men looked inside the bedroom and on the windows. Joseph was in Camp Crame.
was told to dress up and the two (2) of them, CHITO and Joseph, were
brought to Camp Crame.
Also taking the witness stand for the defense were petitioner’s
fraternity brothers, Alberto Leonardo and Robert Chan, who both
When they arrived at Camp Crame …, Col. Managuelod asked Joseph testified being with CHITO in the December 12, 1991 party held in Dr.
inside his room and talked to him for 30 minutes. xxx. No one Duran’s place at Greenhills, riding on the same car going to and
interviewed CHITO to ask his side. coming from the party and dropping the petitioner off the Celestial
Marie building after the party. Both were one in saying that CHITO was
xxx xxx xxx wearing a barong tagalog, with t-shirt inside, with short pants and
leather shoes at the time they parted after the party.7 Rommel Montes,
Both CHITO and Joseph were taken to Prosecutor Abesamis who later a tenant of Room 310 of the said building, also testified seeing CHITO
instructed them to undergo physical examination at the Camp Crame between the hours of 1:30 and 2:00 A.M. of December 13, 1991 trying
Hospital ….. At the hospital, … CHITO and Joseph were physically to open the door of Room 306 while clad in dark short pants and white
examined by a certain Dr. de Guzman who told them to strip …. barong tagalog.

xxx xxx xxx On the other hand, Perla Duran confirmed lending the petitioner the
pair of short pants with stripes after the dunking party held in her
CHITO had left his gray bag containing, among others, the black father’s house.8 Presented as defense expert witness was Carmelita
striped short pants lent to him by Perla Duran (Exhibit "8-A", Original Vargas, a forensic chemistry instructor whose actual demonstration in
Records, p. 345), inside Room 310 at more/less 6:30 to 7 o’clock in open court showed that chloroform, being volatile, evaporates in thirty
the morning of December 13, 1991. The next time that he saw it was (30) seconds without tearing nor staining the cloth on which it is
applied.9
On December 14, 1994, the trial court rendered its 1. In not finding that it is improbable for petitioner to have committed
decision10 convicting petitioner of attempted rape and accordingly the attempted rape imputed to him, absent sufficient, competent and
sentencing him, thus: convincing evidence to prove the offense charged.

WHEREFORE, under cool reflection and prescinding from the 2. In convicting petitioner of attempted rape on the basis merely of
foregoing, the Court finds the accused Renato D. Baleros, Jr., alias circumstantial evidence since the prosecution failed to satisfy all the
"Chito", guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rape requisites for conviction based thereon.
as principal and as charged in the information and hereby sentences
him to suffer an imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO 3. In not finding that the circumstances it relied on to convict the
(2) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correctional, as Minimum petitioner are unreliable, inconclusive and contradictory.
to TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as Maximum, with all the
accessory penalties provided by law, and for the accused to pay the
4. In not finding that proof of motive is miserably wanting in his case.
offended party Martina Lourdes T. Albano, the sum of P50,000.00 by
way of Moral and exemplary damages, plus reasonable Attorney’s
fees of P30,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of 5. In awarding damages in favor of the complainant despite the fact
insolvency, and to pay the costs. that the award was improper and unjustified absent any evidence to
prove the same.
SO ORDERED.
6. In failing to appreciate in his favor the constitutional presumption of
innocence and that moral certainty has not been met, hence, he
Aggrieved, petitioner went to the CA whereat his appellate recourse
should be acquitted on the ground that the offense charged against
was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 17271.
him has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

As stated at the threshold hereof, the CA, in its assailed Decision Otherwise stated, the basic issue in this case turns on the question on
dated January 13, 1999, affirmed the trial court’s judgment of
whether or not the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC finding
conviction, to wit:
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted
rape.
WHEREFORE, finding no basis in fact and in law to deviate from the
findings of the court a quo, the decision appealed from is hereby
After a careful review of the facts and evidence on record in the light
AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against appellant.
of applicable jurisprudence, the Court is disposed to rule for
petitioner’s acquittal, but not necessarily because there is no direct
SO ORDERED.11 evidence pointing to him as the intruder holding a chemical-soaked
cloth who pinned Malou down on the bed in the early morning of
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the December 13, 1991.
CA in its equally assailed resolution of March 31, 1999.12
Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not
Petitioner is now with this Court, on the contention that the CA erred - per se to that of being an eyewitness to the very act of commission of
the crime. There are two types of positive identification. A witness may
identify a suspect or accused as the offender as an eyewitness to the
very act of the commission of the crime. This constitutes direct Chito was in the Building when the attack on MALOU took place. He
evidence. There may, however, be instances where, although a had access to the room of MALOU as Room 307 where he slept the
witness may not have actually witnessed the very act of commission night over had a window which allowed ingress and egress to Room
of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a suspect or 306 where MALOU stayed. Not only the Building security guard, S/G
accused as the perpetrator of a crime as when, for instance, the latter Ferolin, but Joseph Bernard Africa as well confirmed that CHITO was
is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victim wearing a black "Adidas" shorts and fraternity T-shirt when he arrived
immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. This at the Building/Unit 307 at 1:30 in the morning of December 13, 1991.
is the second type of positive identification, which forms part of Though it was dark during their struggle, MALOU had made out the
circumstantial evidence.13 In the absence of direct evidence, the feel of her intruder’s apparel to be something made of cotton material
prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to on top and shorts that felt satin-smooth on the bottom.
discharge its burden. Crimes are usually committed in secret and
under condition where concealment is highly probable. If direct From CHITO’s bag which was found inside Room 310 at the very spot
evidence is insisted under all circumstances, the prosecution of where witness Renato Alagadan saw CHITO leave it, were discovered
vicious felons who committed heinous crimes in secret or secluded the most incriminating evidence: the handkerchief stained with blue
places will be hard, if not well-nigh impossible, to prove.14 and wet with some kind of chemicals; a black "Adidas" satin short
pants; and a white fraternity T-shirt, also stained with blue. A different
Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides the conditions witness, this time, Christian Alcala, identified these garments as
when circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction. The belonging to CHITO. As it turned out, laboratory examination on these
provision reads: items and on the beddings and clothes worn by MALOU during the
incident revealed that the handkerchief and MALOU’s night dress both
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient – Circumstantial contained chloroform, a volatile poison which causes first degree burn
evidence is sufficient for conviction if – exactly like what MALOU sustained on that part of her face where the
chemical-soaked cloth had been pressed.
a) There is more than one circumstance;
This brings the Court to the issue on whether the evidence adduced
by the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt
b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
of the petitioner for the crime of attempted rape.
c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Solicitor General maintained that petitioner, by pressing on
Malou’s face the piece of cloth soaked in chemical while holding her
body tightly under the weight of his own, had commenced the
In the present case, the positive identification of the petitioner forms performance of an act indicative of an intent or attempt to rape the
part of circumstantial evidence, which, when taken together with the victim. It is argued that petitioner’s actuation thus described is an overt
other pieces of evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only act contemplated under the law, for there can not be any other logical
fair and reasonable conclusion, which is that petitioner was the conclusion other than that the petitioner intended to ravish Malou after
intruder in question. he attempted to put her to an induced sleep. The Solicitor General,
echoing what the CA said, adds that if petitioner’s intention was
We quote with approval the CA’s finding of the circumstantial evidence otherwise, he would not have lain on top of the victim.15
that led to the identity of the petitioner as such intruder:
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by a cloth in the mouth of Malou which would induce her to sleep as an
man who has carnal knowledge or intercourse with a woman under overt act that will logically and necessarily ripen into rape. As it were,
any of the following circumstances: (1) By using force or intimidation; petitioner did not commence at all the performance of any act
(2) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; indicative of an intent or attempt to rape Malou. It cannot be
and (3) When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. overemphasized that petitioner was fully clothed and that there was
Under Article 6, in relation to the aforementioned article of the same no attempt on his part to undress Malou, let alone touch her private
code, rape is attempted when the offender commences the part. For what reason petitioner wanted the complainant unconscious,
commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the if that was really his immediate intention, is anybody’s guess. The CA
acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of maintained that if the petitioner had no intention to rape, he would not
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.16 have lain on top of the complainant. Plodding on, the appellate court
even anticipated the next step that the petitioner would have taken if
Expounding on the nature of an attempted felony, the Court, speaking the victim had been rendered unconscious. Wrote the CA:
thru Justice Claro M. Recto in People vs. Lamahang,17 stated that "the
attempt which the Penal Code punishes is that which has a logical The shedding of the clothes, both of the attacker and his victim, will
connection to a particular, concrete offense; that which is the have to come later. His sexual organ is not yet exposed because his
beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the intended victim is still struggling. Where the intended victim is an
perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and consummation." educated woman already mature in age, it is very unlikely that a rapist
Absent the unavoidable connection, like the logical and natural relation would be in his naked glory before even starting his attack on her. He
of the cause and its effect, as where the purpose of the offender in has to make her lose her guard first, or as in this case, her
performing an act is not certain, meaning the nature of the act in unconsciousness.20
relation to its objective is ambiguous, then what obtains is an attempt
to commit an indeterminate offense, which is not a juridical fact from At bottom then, the appellate court indulges in plain speculation, a
the standpoint of the Penal Code.18 practice disfavored under the rule on evidence in criminal cases. For,
mere speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof
There is absolutely no dispute about the absence of sexual intercourse required to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable
or carnal knowledge in the present case. The next question that thus doubt.21
comes to the fore is whether or not the act of the petitioner, i.e., the
pressing of a chemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou, constitutes In Perez vs. Court of Appeals,22 the Court acquitted therein petitioner
an overt act of rape.1avvphil.net of the crime of attempted rape, pointing out that:

Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity or xxx. In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution
deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than to produce the felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the
a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual
termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by organ to the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other
external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however,
will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. 19 slight, is not completed.

Harmonizing the above definition to the facts of this case, it would be xxx xxx xxx
too strained to construe petitioner's act of pressing a chemical-soaked
Petitioner’s act of lying on top of the complainant, embracing and perceived to be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for
kissing her, mashing her breasts, inserting his hand inside her panty attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed, if not
and touching her sexual organ, while admittedly obscene and distressed by the acts of petitioner.
detestable acts, do not constitute attempted rape absent any showing
that petitioner actually commenced to force his penis into the The penalty for coercion falling under the second paragraph of Article
complainant’s sexual organ. xxx. 287 of the Revised Penal Code is arresto menor or a fine ranging from
₱5.00 to ₱200.00 or both.
Likewise in People vs. Pancho,23 the Court held:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming
xxx, appellant was merely holding complainant’s feet when his Tito that of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, is hereby REVERSED and
Onio arrived at the alleged locus criminis. Thus, it would be stretching SET ASIDE and a new one entered ACQUITTING petitioner Renato
to the extreme our credulity if we were to conclude that mere holding D. Baleros, Jr. of the charge for attempted rape. Petitioner, however,
of the feet is attempted rape. is adjudged GUILTY of light coercion and is accordingly sentenced to
30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of ₱200.00, with the
Lest it be misunderstood, the Court is not saying that petitioner is accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs.
innocent, under the premises, of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The
information filed against petitioner contained an allegation that he SO ORDERED.
forcefully covered the face of Malou with a piece of cloth soaked in
chemical. And during the trial, Malou testified about the pressing
against her face of the chemical-soaked cloth and having struggled
after petitioner held her tightly and pinned her down. Verily, while the
series of acts committed by the petitioner do not determine attempted
rape, as earlier discussed, they constitute unjust vexation punishable
as light coercion under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the
Revised Penal Code. In the context of the constitutional provision
assuring an accused of a crime the right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation,24 it cannot be said that petitioner was
kept in the dark of the inculpatory acts for which he was proceeded
against. To be sure, the information against petitioner contains
sufficient details to enable him to make his defense. As aptly observed
by then Justice Ramon C. Aquino, there is no need to allege malice,
restraint or compulsion in an information for unjust vexation. As it
were, unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or
compulsion for the reason that this term is broad enough to include
any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical
or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent
person.25 The paramount question is whether the offender’s act
causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the
mind of the person to whom it is directed.26 That Malou, after the
incident in question, cried while relating to her classmates what she