This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
KIDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL DETENTION .......................2 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAIDA TOMIO alias SATO TOSHIO and NAKAJIMA TAGAHIRO alias YAMADA TAKAO, accused-appellants. ................................................2 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARMEN LIM @ "MAMENG LIM", defendantappellant. ............................................................ 11 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO PADICA y LORICA, LESLIE GANS y MELENDRES, FLORENTINO FABRIGAS, ROMEO PRADEZ, LEONARDO MARAJAS, LEOPOLDO MARAJAS and LEON MARAJAS, JR. y RAMOS, ** accused. LEON MARAJAS, JR. y RAMOS, accusedappellant. ............................................................ 15 KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR ..... 22 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICENTE TY and CARMEN TY, Accused-Appellants. 22 ABANDONMENT OF ONE’S VICTIM ........................... 26 ANTONIO A. LAMERA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. ....................... 26 GRAVE THREATS ...................................................... 29 G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529 March 28, 1969 .................................................................... 29 ROSAURO REYES, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. .................................... 29 RONNIE CALUAG, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. .................................... 31 GRAVE COERCION .................................................... 34 JOSE "PEPITO" TIMONER, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, IV DIVISION, respondents. .... 34 G.R. No. 90423 September 6, 1991 ........................ 36 FRANCIS LEE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PELAGIA PANLINO DE CHIN, respondents. ......................................... 36 UNJUST VEXATION ................................................... 40 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiffappellee, vs. PROCOPIO REYES, POLICARPIO NACANA, FLORENTINO CLEMENTE, HERMOGENES MALLARI, MARCELINO MALLARI, CASTOR ALIPIO, and RUFINO MATIAS, defendants-appellants. ....... 40
TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
KIDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL DETENTION
G.R. No. 74630 September 30, 1991 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAIDA TOMIO alias SATO TOSHIO and NAKAJIMA TAGAHIRO alias YAMADA TAKAO, accused-appellants. G.R. No. 75576 September 30, 1991 IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF TADAHIRO NAKAJIMA and TOMIO MAEDA, petitioners. DAVIDE, JR., J.:p Appellants were arrested at about 3:45 o'clock in the afternoon of 12 May 1986 at the main branch of the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) in Makati, Metro Manila, while allegedly receiving the partial payment of the ransom money from Tatsumi Nagao, a Japanese tourist. On 15 May 1986, an Information for Kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom (Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code) was filed against them with the Regional Trial Court of Manila by Vivencio Dionido, Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 86-45055. The accusatorial portion of the Information reads: That on or about May 2, 1986, and subsequently thereafter, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together with six (6) others whose true names, real Identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, being then private individuals, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for the purpose of extorting ransom from the immediate family of TATSUMI NAGAO, kidnap or detain the latter and deprive him of his liberty, without legal justifications and against his will. Contrary to Law. The information was filed after an ex-parte preliminary investigation, conducted pursuant to General Order No. 39, since the offended party is a tourist. This General Order grants civil courts concurrent jurisdiction with the military tribunals over crimes where the offended party is a tourist or a transient, which the former has to dispose of within twenty-four (24) hours after their filing by the arresting officers. 1 On 16 May 1988, the trial court issued an Order setting the arraignment and trial of the appellants on 19 May 1986 an appointing Citizens Attorney Abdulkalim Askali of the CLAO (now PAO.) as counsel de officio for the accused. 2 On 19 May 1986, appellants, through a de parte counsel, Jose T. Arroyo, filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila a Very Urgent Motion For Re-investigations 3 alleging therein that the Information was filed without the benefit of a preliminary investigation and that they are innocent, which they can prove at a preliminary investigation. However, the records fail to show that Atty. Arroyo insisted on this motion. On the contrary, at the arraignment on 19 May 1986, he categorically stated that the appellants were ready for arraignment, and even requested for a Japanese interpreter, which was not favorably acted upon since the appellants understand and can speak English and Tagalog. 4 Both having entered a plea of not guilty, trial proceeded immediately. 5 At the trial on that day and the succeeding two days, the prosecution presented seven witnesses, namely: Pat. Eugenio Guillermo, Pat. Marlon Ursua, Cpl. Virgilio Cabural, complainant Tatsumi Nagao, Sgt. Jovito Gutierrez, Wally Martinez and Daishin Nagao, and offered documentary exhibits. For their defense, appellants relied on their own testimonies which they gave in open court on 22 May 1986. On 27 May 1986, the trial court promulgated a decision finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentencing each of them to suffer the death penalty and to pay the costs. 6 The case is now before Us for automatic review. The facts of the case, as established by the evidence for the prosecution and summarized by the Solicitor General in the Brief for the Appellee, are: Tatsumi Nagao, a Japanese national, arrived in Manila on April 29, 1986 for a five-day vacation tour and was billeted at the Holiday Inn (pp. 5-6, tsn, May 21, 1986). On May 2, 1986, while Nagao was having lunch alone at the coffee shop of the hotel, two (2) Japanese men approached his table and asked him if he were a Japanese to which he answered in the affirmative. Later, he came to know one of the men as Maida Tomio alias Sato Toshio and the other as Mitamura. They joined him at his table and informed him that they have been in the Philippines for quite a time and offered themselves as his guides in Manila. Thereafter, Mitamura brought him to the sauna bath of the hotel and a department store in Manila. Eventually, they ended up at the Leo's Restaurant located along Roxas Boulevard at around 7:30 o'clock in the evening where they had dinner. Before leaving the restaurant, Nagao's companion placed a pack of cigarettes on his (Nagao's) shirt pocket and him to just wait because he has to talk to a taxi driver. After taking few steps from the restaurant, Nagao was approached by five (5) plainclothesmen who Identified themselves as policemen. They bodily searched him and found the pack of cigarettes earlier given him which the policemen claimed contained marijuana. Thereafter, the policemen brought him to the Southern Police District Station (pp. 23-26 tan, May 20, 1986).
TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
While Nagao was at the police station, accusedappellant Tagahiro Nakajima alias Yamada arrived. Later, Sato Toshio alias Maida Tomio also arrived. Both acted as interpreters for him. One of them inform him that if he is found guilty of possession of marijuana, he can sentenced from six (6) to twelve (12) years imprisonment. The two (2) then suggested that Nagao give money to the policemen who, they claim, demanded U.S. $100,000.00 for his release. Nagao agreed. Thereafter, Toshio and Nakajima informed him that they had advanced the payment of the bribe money to the policemen who, accordingly, agreed to release him (pp. 36-41, tsn, May 20, 1986). Thereafter, Nagao returned to his hotel escorted by the appellants and a policeman. While there, his escorts did not allow him to leave the hotel. They also demanded that he immediately call up his parents in Japan for the money they allegedly advanced. Instead of calling up his parents, he called up a friend and told him of his predicament. The three escorts stayed with him in the hotel up to 10:00 o'clock the following morning. Thereafter, they checked out and transferred to the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati. Appellants again ordered Nagao to call up his parents. Later, appellants transferred Nagao to the Philippine Village Hotel where they again asked him to call up his father in Japan about the money. Nagao's father refused to pay the amount demanded but when Sato talked to him over the phone, he agreed to pay three million yen (pp. 17-31, tsn, May 21, 1986). From the Philippine Village Hotel, Nagao was brought by the appellants to the Virra Condominium in Makati. When he called up his father upon orders of the appellants, he learned that his father had already remitted money to the Rizal Commercial and Banking Corporation (RCBC) in Makati. Forthwith, appellants brought Nagao to RCBC where he withdrew U.S. $1,850.00 and gave it to them. Upon leaving the bank, they were met by policemen from the Western Police District whose help had been earlier sought on May 8, 1986 by the Japanese Embassy in Manila. Appellants and Nagao were brought to the Western Police District for investigation (pp. 38-40, tsn, May 19, 1986). Appellants were subsequently charged with the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. ... 7 Upon the other hand, the version of the accused-appellants, as testified to by them, is summarized by the trial court as follows: The version given by the defense in exculpation of the accused is as follows: On May 2, 1986, the accused NAKAJIMA TAGAHIRO alias YAMADA TAKAO met for the first time Tatsumi Nagao at the Southern Police District headquarters in Manila. Tatzumi had been arrested by the police earlier for possessing marijuana cigarettes and since he could not speak English very well he was contacted to act as Nagao's interpreter. Nagao intimated to him that he (Nagao) wanted to settle the case and offered money to the police. The accused MAIDA TOMIO alias SATO TOSHIO later came and together they requested the police to release Nagao because according to him the marijuana was not his but belonged to somebody who gave it to him. Nagao told the accused that he offered to pay the amount of US $100,000 to the police which he said he would borrow them from a friend. Yamada told Nagao that the amount was too much and suggested that he (Nagao) should call his father in Japan to send the money here. Nagao was ultimately released by the police for some reason not known to Yamada and he went back to his hotel at Holiday Inn together with the accused YAMADA and SATO. At the hotel Nagao called up his friend in Japan with the help of YAMADA who placed the call since Nagao cannot speak English. YAMADA did not have occasion to talk to Nagao's friend over the phone. After 30 minutes, another call was made by Nagao to Japan. That night of May 2 both accused slept with Nagao in the latter's room at Holiday Inn due to Nagao's request not to leave him inside the hotel. The following day, May 3, Nagao did not know where to go so the accused suggested they look for the cheapest hotel or one where they could stay on credit. The accused MAIDA then made arrangements with a travel agency and, after checking in at the Intercontinental Hotel, they checked out at Holiday Inn and transferred to the Intercontinental Hotel where they stayed up to May 7. At this hotel, Nagao made many phone calls to Japan the accused YAMADA always placing the calls for Nagao. During their stay at the hotel the accused and Nagao went on foot to see a movie at the Quad Theater and to eat at a Japanese restaurant. They also went to Maalicaya Sauna Bath in Quezon City about four times around 10:00 to 11:00 in the evening where Nagao was left alone in one of the rooms with his massage girl attendant. On some of those occasions Nagao would finish and would wait for the accused at the lobby. Twice Yamada brought Nagao to his house because Nagao requested him not to leave him. On one occasion, the three of them brought down a Filipina girl from their hotel room but only Nagao accompanied her outside the hotel for five to fifteen minutes to see her off and then he came back to the hotel. Yamada denies that he and Sato were always guarding Nagao. As a matter of fact, one time while they were at Virra Condominium the accused went out together to meet some Japanese in Roxas Boulevard around midnight and went back to the hotel almost 4:00 in the morning leaving Nagao alone in the hotel room in the meantime. At Virra Condominium they stayed for two (2) or three (3) days together in one room with Nagao sometimes holding the key to the room. There Nagao also would go out to buy something, eat meals and have some fun. He even bought Nagao, who was with him, a tshirt in Makati where there were many people. With the help of accused Maida, Nagao made an overseas call to Japan at Virra.
TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
The reason they went along with Nagao to the RCBC bank on May 12 was that he did not know how to go there so they brought him to the bank so that he could withdraw the remittance from Japan which was intended as payment for his hotel accommodation and other expenses. After their arrest at the bank they were brought to the WPD headquarters about 4:30 in the afternoon where he (Yamada) was hit by the policemen on his face, body and abdomen. He was also brought inside a room where his hands and feet were tied with a rope and his face covered with cloth after which water was poured on his nose and mouth while the police were asking him questions. In fact, they started hitting him at the bank while he was handcuffed. Besides, his watch costing around 250,000 yen, his 100 grams 18karat gold bracelet and his necklace were all taken from him and his Mustang car confiscated. His driver's license was also taken and he lost his money in the amount of almost P3,000.00. The police did not even want to accept the name that he gave them which was Nakajima Tagahiro but insisted on adopting Yamada as his name. When his statement was taken he was not asked to seek the assistance of a lawyer. It was the investigator who made the answers in the statement and he was not even allowed to read it but just to sign it which he did almost 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning already after being subjected to blows on his face. He declared that he never demanded money from Nagao for his release. On cross-examination Yamada admitted he is an immigrant and has stayed in the Philippines for almost 12 years but is always going back and forth to Japan. TOMIO MAIDA alias Sato Toshio also met Tatsumi Nagao for the first time on May 12, 1986 but at the coffee shop of Holiday Inn where Tatsumi was staying. SATO had a Japanese guest who needed to change his Philippine pesos to Japanese yen since he was going back to Japan and it was Tatsumi whom SATO saw at the coffee shop and whom he requested to make the currency exchange. Tatsumi was subsequently invited by a Mr. Mitamura to SATO's table where there were many Japanese. Sato left ahead for the airport leaving Tatsumi and Mitamura in conversion. When SATO saw Tatsumi again it was at the Southern Police District headquarters that same day being arrested for illegal possession of marijuana. He talked to the policemen and requested for an interpreter for Nagao since he cannot understand and speak English well. He found out Nagao had promised to pay the policemen $100,000 already but he was not able to put up the amount. Anyway, he went to the Holiday Inn and there discovered that Nagao had no more money and they talked about the hotel accommodation and other expenses starting the following day. Nagao tried and was able to speak over the phone with Mr. Nagao in Japan who asked him to explain what happened. From Holiday Inn they transferred to Intercontinental Hotel where Nagao was able to check in without his passport as SATO brought him an accommodation request from El Sol travel agency. While they were at the Intercontinental Hotel there was no reason Nagao could not leave the hotel as he was always free to leave it. They also went to Maalicaya Sauna Bath where they each had separate rooms. When he was arrested at the bank with his co-accused his watch, his wallet and his money totaling around P900.00 were taken by the policemen including his necklace and gold bracelet. They also boxed him. During the investigation they let him lie down on the table with his hands handcuffed and, while his face was covered with cloth, they poured water on it. Since he was afraid of what the policemen would do to him he just signed the statement. He did not even know the lawyer Bienvenido de los Reyes who was supposed to assist him during the investigation. He was not allowed to read the statement before he signed it. From Intercontinental Hotel they transferred to Virra condominium. He brought Tatsumi there because he requested him to look for a cheaper hotel. On cross-examination SATO disclosed that the Japanese Mitamura whom he met for the first time on May 2, 1986, informed him that a Japanese was arrested by the police for possessing marijuana and that when he arrived at the police headquarters he found out it was Nagao who was the one arrested. 8 The trial court ruled that the accused-appellants were guilty as charged because they deprived the offended party, Tatsumi Nagao, of his liberty for the purpose of extorting ransom from him. It said: It must be noted that during all this time, from the evening of May 2 until the arrest of the accused in the afternoon of May 12, it cannot be denied that the accused were always with Tatsumi, singly or both of them, at his hotel room and never losing sight of him. As a matter of fact, the only instance he was ever allowed to go out on his own was at the Intercontinental Hotel when he accompanied a girl out of the hotel to send then the accused were likewise downstairs at the hotel that Tatsumi thought he was only being tested by the accused whether he would escape. Besides, we have to consider that as far as Tatsumi Nagao was concerned he was in a foreign country with no relatives nor close friends. He could not speak or understand any Philippine Language. On top of this, he had no more money as this was taken from him by the police and, worse, his passport was being held by the accused thus destroying any hope of escape from them. Even if he did escape, where would he go without any money or passport and how would he be able to communicate with people since he could not speak English or tagalog? Moreover, what was foremost in his mind was that he was merely on a temporary leash (sic) from the police who were poised arrest him anytime he reneged on his alleged promise to pay. This would mean at least six years imprisonment not to mention ignominy he would cause on his person and the consequent scandal since he is a Buddhist priest. During all this time that he was with accused he knew that the only way he could prevent any further restraint on his person was to pay the accused from the remittance of his father in Japan.
36 Words and Phrases. No.. On 18 August 1986. but which he claims to invoke for the first time. all these circumstances taken together created in Tatsumi Nagao such fear which actually restrained him from doing what he freely wanted to do and resulted in a deprivation of his liberty. Under American rulings. Del Rosario and Castillo then entered its appearance for the latter. bias (sic) and prejudiced. appellants. IV . No. The Court does not believe the allegation of the accused that they were not demanding any money from Tatsumi Nagao for why would they. to compel payment for the expenses incurred by the accused — under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.. if it were committed the Holiday Inn Hotel. So. the complainant's father influenced the Judge directly making the latter's decision "partial. 102. 12 the Court noted that the questions raised in the petition are also the subject of the appeal in G. Atty. "ransom" has been held to mean in its ordinary sense as "money. is "void and illegal" because. 1084. which is unnumbered. it required respondents to comment thereon. he alleges the trial court has no jurisdiction over the crime charged because it was not committed in Manila. Maria.. Since the accused in this case demanded and received money as a requisite for releasing Tatsumi Nagao from their hold.R. 458. BECAUSE HE COULD NOT EVEN SPEAK OR UNDERSTAND ENGLISH WELL OR UNDERSTAND ANY PHILIPPINE LANGUAGE. the former is but a duplication of the latter which is awaiting the filing of briefs. IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING. appellant Tagahiro Nakajima filed his Brief in G. 9 On 22 July 1986. 487). a payment that releases from captivity' (See 75 C. before being investigated. not in Manila.. 86-46055. 74630.. stick to him like a leech that date until they were arrested on May 12? It could not have been being simply charitable since it would have been more logical to take Nagao temporarily into their homes to avoid more expenses if their intention was really only to help their fellow countryman. Keith vs. it is the proper court of the latter city which has jurisdiction over it.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY That is why. 11 which was docketed as G.. 74630. they were tortured. the money is still "ransom" under the law.R. However. No. Sta.. IN CONCLUDING THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE LOGICAL IF THEY TOOK NAGAO TO THEIR OWN HOUSES. subject of G." and the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the offense charged as it was committed at the Holiday Inn Hotel in Roxas Boulevard. even the accused were not armed and did not physically restrain his movements.R. AND BECAUSE HE HAD NO MONEY AND PASSPORT. III . 74630 13 wherein he ascribes to the trial court the commission of the following errors: I . 163. without giving due course to said petition.. threatened and deprived of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws.. consequently.. IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ACCUSED DEMANDED FOR RANSOM: and VII .J. THE ACCUSED WAS ALWAYS WITH NAGAO. V .. IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED HELD THE PASSPORT OF TATSUMI NAGAO.. State. specifically on 29 August 1986. which is not located in Manila but Pasay City. while there was no money to give to the accused he was stuck with them. What was then the purpose in demanding for the money? The accused suggest that it was for the purpose of reimbursing them for the expenses they had incurred in accommodating Tatsumi Nagao in the hotels and other places. 75576. before they could file their Brief.R.. among other things. IN CONCLUDING THAT ESCAPE FOR TATSUMI NAGAO WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE HE IS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY WITH NO CLOSE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS. Arroyo filed with this Court his Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel for the appellant Maida Tomio. Jr. the offense is still kidnapping for ransom. IN FINDING THAT FROM THE EVENING OF MAY 2 TO MAY 12. 10 the law firm of Atienza. moreover. VI . Tabora. as amended by Republic Act No. Pasay City. No. Even if the purpose of the deprivation of Liberty of Tatsumi Nagao alleged by the defense be accepted — that is. Dominador R. By way of an additional assigned error. In the resolution of 19 August 1986. In other words. IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED DEMANDED RECEIVED MONEY AS PREREQUISITE FOR RELEASING NAGAO. who only came to know Tatsumi Nagao on May 2. In the meantime. through another lawyer." price or reconsideration paid or demanded by for redemption of a captured person or persons. 5 . They allege therein that the decision of the court below in Criminal Case No.. II . whatever other motive may have impelled them to do so. Atty.. 136 120 Fla. aside from the fact that no preliminary investigation was conducted. filed with this Court a petition for habeas corpus. WITH NOWHERE TO GO.
More specifically. order or decree was erroneous. but crucial move on the target. 18 The issues then in the petition should threshed out in the appeal. 23 The assigned errors of both appellants in G.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Upon the other hand. the complainant (hereinafter referred to as Mr. From totality of the evidence presented by both parties. 74630 wherein it prays that this Court affirm the judgment of conviction but reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua pursuant to the new Constitution. where the commitment is pursuant to a judgment of conviction. its judgment. petitioners filed on 17 March 1987 a motion for its reconsideration.R. filed his Brief 14on 18 October 1986. On 27 November 1986. 538). 15 which the court granted in the resolution of 2 December 1986. 5 SCRA 293. No. Dismissal of the petition is thus warranted. de Talavera vs. filed a motion for leave to file a consolidated Appellee's Brief.R. on 4 December 1986. 74630. and 3) Sufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution prove the crime charged. on 2 May 1986. the petitioners have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping with ransom. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF KIDNAPPING WITH RANSOM WERE PRESENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION WERE GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE. No. Moreover. the day when they made their initial. Director of Prisons. considering that the substance of the issues under consideration is closely interrelated or shows a "parallelism" to the errors allegedly incurred by the trial court and assigned by petitioners in their briefs filed in G. This is in conformity with the settled rule that "when a court has jurisdiction of the offense charged and the person of the accused. per Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court. for their assertion that they are being illegally deprived of freedom is without support in law.R. I There is no merit in the claim of lack of jurisdiction. IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSE TOMIO MAEDA AND TAGAHIRO NAKAJIMA ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. and this holds true even if the judgment. 21 Thereafter. through counsel. citing Vda. He contends that: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS HURRIED AND RAILROADED DISPOSITION OF THE CASE OF THE ACCUSED TOMIO MAEDA AND TAGAHIRO NAKAJIMA WHOSE RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND FAIR AND IMPARTIAL PUBLIC TRIAL WERE DENIED. is raised for the first time. the Court agrees with the submission of the Solicitor General that the matters in controversy should be resolved in G. We further said: On 14 April 1987. 22 6 This motion remains unresolved. the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment for the respondents in G. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE POSITIVE AND CATEGORICAL TESTIMONIES OF THE ACCUSED TOMIO MAEDA AND TAGAHIRO NAKAJIMATHEY DID NOT KIDNAP OR DETAIN COMPLAINANT NAGAO NOR DID THEY DEMAND MONEY FOR HIS RELEASE. 75578 17 asserting therein that considering that petitioners (accusedappellants) perfected their appeal from the challenged decision. 67 Phil. through the Office of the Solicitor General. Nagao). the writ of habeas corpus will not lie. as raised by appellant Tomio Maeda. for this cannot be made to perform the function of a writ of error. Superintendent and Warden of the Correcional (sic) Institution. No. 2) Denial of due process. which. 74630. the complainant was brought to or taken from different places by the appellants. They were accordingly sentenced and are now suffering imprisonment by virtue thereof. petitioners filed a reply the comment. the Plaintiff-Appellee. the Office of the Solicitor General filed Appellee's Brief in G. 16 Then.R. No. In the resolution of 29 January 1987. No. order or decree is valid and is not subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus. 20 focusing on the issue of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. 19 We dismissed the petition for habeas corpus on the ground that.R. appellant Tomio Maeda. Unsatisfied with the said Resolution. which a Comment was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General on 10 April 1987." (Sotto vs. as admitted by appellant Nakajima. 74630 boil down to the following issues: 1) Jurisdiction. appellants. they cannot avail of the writ of habeas corpus since the main purpose of the latter is to determine whether or not a petitioner is legally detained. . the conclusion is inescapable that during the period from 2 to 12 May 1986. through the In the present case.
" We are not impressed by the plea. if any. thus: 7. or invoked its jurisdiction. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with assistance of counsel. The case can. a team member of the same police force investigating the accused. the main grievance of appellant Tomio Maeda focuses on the alleged "railroaded disposition of the case.R. there was not even the slightest suggestion from the appellants to express their doubts as to the jurisdiction of the court over the case. is inconsistent with the need to make a thorough review assessment of the facts. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. following a conversation over lunch in a coffee shop at Holiday Inn Hotel. They voluntarily expressed their readiness to be arraigned. considering the gravity of the imposable penalty. 121 SCRA 638. therefore. The essential ingredients of the crime charged were thus committed in various places. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. there is nothing on record that may cast any doubt on the impartiality and neutrality of the 7 . the trial court rejected such statements in toto and deplored the failure of the police to comply with the procedure prescribed by this Court in making an arrest and in conducting a custodial investigation. in the proceedings below. a relative. The Court notes in this case that there was not even an attempt on the part of the police investigators to allow or give a chance to the accused to be assisted by a counsel of their own choice during the custodial investigation. shall be inadmissible in evidence. or anyone he chooses by most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or by letter messenger. which necessarily carried with it an unqualified invocation of the jurisdiction and authority of the court. action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place." The filing of the case pursuant to General Order No. G. March 20. No. They did not present any evidence to show that all of the acts involved in or related to the offense charged took place outside Manila. and allowing themselves to be cross-examined by the prosecuting fiscal. which mandates that it should be disposed of within twenty-four (24) hours after filing by the arresting officer. the same must be rejected in toto. it may not be amiss to immediately point out in the case of Morales vs. He further claims that they were tortured and forced to sign statements in the absence of their lawyer. There can be no doubt that such active participation was motivated by one desire and was riveted to one goal: a judgment of acquittal on the merits. after all. Hence. "C" and "K"). In the second place. actively participated in the hearings therein. abandoning in effect their urgent motion for reinvestigation. On the contrary. in whole or in part. 25 Moreover. from their arraignment until the promulgation of the decision. in all criminal prosecutions. 51770. Settled is the rule that a party who voluntarily submitted his cause before a trial court. Ponce Enrile. may not be heard to question its jurisdiction. justice denied. be filed with the appropriate court in any of the places where the complainant was brought to by appellants in the pursuit of or in connection with the crime charged. II Anent the denial of due process. When. and that any statement he might make could be use against him. When the accused finally signed their respective statements it was already in the early morning of the following day when the said lawyer who was supposed to assist them was no longer around. the statements they made during custodial interrogation were not taken into account against them. 28 the Honorable Supreme Court laid down the correct procedure for peace officers to follow when making an arrest and in conducting custodial investigation. or appointed by the court upon petition of either the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. 26 as in fact they were. they unequivocally recognized and then yielded to the trial court's jurisdiction over their persons and the offense charged. On the contrary. 27 It would be placing a premium on bad faith and yielding to attempts to make a mockery of the judicial process if a party would be permitted to question the very power and authority which he invokes for his own benefit or advantage once he fails to obtain it. while it may be true that the trial lasted only for a few days and the decision was promulgated on the twelfth day after the filing of the information. 1985. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. In the first place. indeed a lawyer was provided the accused he turned out to be. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. and that the trial on the merits was an example of "justice in haste. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. The Court therefore doubts the voluntariness of the statements of the accused (Exhs. testifying for themselves in the most detailed manner as possible to conform with the strategy of their counsel. Even the waiver of the accused Yamada of his right to counsel has not been shown to have been assisted by counsel. Section 15 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that subject to existing laws. and reiterated in the more recent case of People vs. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and counsel. by any person on his behalf. Galit. it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. brought complainant "some other places in Manila" 24 after they succeeded in getting his trust and confidence.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY overt act of accused Tomio Maeda alias Sato Toshio and another Japanese. At the time a person is arrested. Said the trial court: At the outset. They took very active part in the trial by extensively and exhaustively cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution. 39.
In the instant case. In the words of the complainant himself. it must have to adopt policies to attract tourists and to insure their safety and security while they are in the country. After they completed their testimonies and offered their Exhibit "1. et al."(p. Special laws bearing upon procedure. 34 it has the inestimable advantage of observing the detailed demeanor of the witnesses. may be validly enacted provided that there is substantial compliance procedural due process and non-impairment of substantive due process. such findings are generally not disturbed on appeal. May 21. one Mr. The complainant knew that he had an obligation and that he had to comply with it. which if considered might effect the result of the case. had an elaborate and carefully designed plan to kidnap Mr. and the amount spent for hotel accommodations and additional expenses they incurred in his behalf.000. he clearly revealed. if indeed the facts and the issues were complicated. It is well-settled that the conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight and respect.." 29 They did not even ask for time to submit a memorandum to aid the court in appreciating the evidence. Then. 35 We find no reason to depart from this rule. The evidence for the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that appellants. Mr. for Mr. to wit: (a) a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. 39 directs civil courts to dispose the case within twenty-four (24) hours after its filing by the arresting officer. does not detract from the above conclusion that appellants we not deprived of due process. sir. 33 The trial court found otherwise. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to observe the deportment and demeanor of witnesses to determine the veracity of their answers. considering that the offended party is a tourist. May 21. unless there are substantial facts and circumstances that have been overlooked." their counsel announced that "we are respectfully submitting our case for decision of this Honorable Court. tan. a simple contract of loan existed between complainant and the accused whereby the complainant incurred a legal as well as moral obligation to pay for the expenses advanced by the 2 accused in his favor. as there was no need for it.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY judge or on the fairness of his decision which. in turn. another Japanese companion of Tomio. They cannot now be heard to complain that it hastily decided the case. Tourism is a major dollar-earning industry which the Government has been to promote. and a judgment rendered within the authority of the constitutional law. Tomio left them and proceeded to the airport to send off his friend who was to depart for Japan. the accused-appellants actively participated in hearing of the case before the trial court and had full an unhampered opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to present their own evidence. revolved upon the credibility of the witnesses. together with their coconspirators. The requirement. III The third issue requires a determination as to whether or the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offense charged. (b) jurisdiction lawfully acquired by it over the person of the appellants and over the offense. (c) the appellants were given an opportunity to be heard. Otherwise stated: . 1986). 1986.00 yen belonging to Mr. it was in payment of the sum which they advanced to the police for and in behalf of Mr. It was nothing more than a payment for a debt in money. Nagao to find out if the latter had Japanese yen to be converted to Philippine pesos because a friend was to leave for Japan and needed the yen. Castillo. Further Nagao's father testified that "That reason why I remitted this money because I want to know whether my son can get this money and to know the whereabout of my son. all the requisites of due process are present in this case. Mitamura called Tomio by telephone to inform him that a Japanese was arrested for having marijuana in his 8 . As to the ransom. and (d) judgment was rendered upon lawful hearing. 24-25). There was no demand. Thus.00 exchanged for 10. The stay of tourists in the country is limited in duration. appellant Tomio Maeda has a different version. is not wanting in reason or purpose. 96. Its findings were based on its appreciation of the evidence for the parties which. he deemed it "an obligation upon himself to pay for the expenses" advanced by the 2 accused in accommodating him (tsn. as stated in the discussion above on jurisdiction. Nagao. and not for ransom purposes (p. and only punished after inquiry or investigation upon notice to him. This is another reason why complainant stayed in the company of the accused. According to him. Nagao was not restrained of his liberty. with opportunity to be heard. appellant Tagahiro Nakajima asserts that: The money remitted by Nagao's fatter was for the payment of his son's hotel bills. 107. and.100.. as We observe. 30 In People vs. 36 By his addition admissions on crossexamination.. Appellants contend that it has not. 32 However. p. though rather unwittingly. manifests a careful and thorough analysis of the evidence. Mitamura. tsn. Corollarily. Nagao to secure the latter's release. or that it did not make a thorough review and assessment of the evidence. he was free and could have easily escaped. there was no force or compulsion in exacting payment from the accused.. Appellants made no protest in the court below as to the manner the trial was conducted. In the third place. Tomio succeeded in having P1.. Nagao in order to obtain ransom from him. That General Order No. As early as 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that day. The plan was effectively carried out at lunchtime on 2 May 1986 at the coffee shop in Holiday Inn Hotel when appellant Tomio Maeda alia Sato Toshio approached Mr. 31 We ruled that if an accused been proceeded against under an orderly process of law. with the end in view of expediting the hearings and disposition of criminal cases where tourists are the offended parties. then he has had due process. The money to be paid was rightfully due to the 2 accused. invited complainant to join them at their table. 1986). how the plot would be pursued with the assistance of law enforcement authorities. A painstaking review of the evidence in this case clearly discloses the correctness of such findings. which is merely directory. May 21.
mention the name of said Japanese. Nagao and "arrested" him for alleged possession of marijuana. Nagao. 42 Mr. sir. Nagao's interpreter. 43 At the Southern Police District. although the name of the latter was not mentioned. Tomio showed up.. not just one pack of cigarettes containing 15 stick of marijuana. Mitamura that some Japanese were in possession of marijuana. the latter lost no time in coming to the Southern Police District to act as Mr. he said that after the meeting at lunchtime. Nakajima offered additional information not disclosed earlier. who was in the complainant's room at Holiday Inn Hotel. sir. they informed him that they had advanced the payment to the police who thereafter released him. Under the circumstances. Mitamura? a I think so. upon arriving there at 4:00 o'clock. but a smuggling belt. This visit then of Tomio to the Southern Police District must have had something to do with a conspiratorial arrangement with some personnel of said office.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY possession. convinced that the accused-appellants never advanced the money. 44 9 The foregoing scenarios were part of the script. I got only the information fro Mr. sir? q About you and the southern police. 41 The interpreter he had in mind was his co-accused Tagahiro Nakajima. q So that is the plan of Mr.e. sir. at that time.000. however. after a pack of cigarettes was place inside his left shirt pocket by. however. a Japanese. With the obvious connivance of the police. demanded U. according to him. pounced on Mr. however. The appellants and a policeman then brought him to his room at the Holiday Inn Hotel. q You just gather (sic) this information from Mr. no other Japanese was "arrested" for alleged possession of marijuana at Leo's restaurant in the evening of 2 May 1986. he proposed to contact his parents. q So you were informed by Mitamura to contact the southern police district (sic) that there was this two (sic) Japanese inside the Leo's restaurant who was in possession marijuana cigarette (sic)? a Yes. talked to Mr. The two then proposed that he should give money to the policemen. He could not. i. Tomio proceeded to the Southern Police District and. Mitamura but you really inform. Mr. they put the pressure on the complainant by demanding. Nagao that if found guilty of possession of marijuana he can be sentenced anywhere from 6 to 12 years of imprisonment.. Later on we saw one Japanese holding marijuana inside the restaurant and then Mr. Mitamura requested to call or contact the police in order that this Japanese who was in possession of marijuana be arrested. 38 although on direct examination.(sic) the police? a Yes.00. who. However. He was arrested after seven o'clock that evening following a dinner at Leo's Restaurant. merely informed the police that a Japanese has marijuana in his possession. he saw complainant again only at the Southern Police District. Nagao and the policemen an recommended the assistance of an interpreter since. Nagao. according to him. q And did this police officer arrested (sic) these (sic) Japanese who is (sic) in possession of marijuana? a Yes. We are. Nagao cannot understand and speak English well. the policemen "found" in the possession of complainant. They informed him that if he will not give the money. 37 It should be stressed that at that time. at past 7:00 o'clock that evening. Mr. 39 At Leo's Restaurant.. allegedly for and in consideration of his release. That is why they stuck to the complainant like "a leech. his name and his case would be published in the newspapers because. appellants informed Mr. sir. To show that they commiserated with him. At about 7:00 o'clock were (sic) this Japanese holding marijuana was arrested? a That was not a plan. Mr. it was easy to work on him. sir.$100. there were some newspaper reporters outside. 40 Other than Mr. with the threat of adverse publicity and imprisonment.S. after he was . After complainant was "arrested" by the five policemen from the Southern Police District and brought to the headquarters." as vividly described by the trial court. Tomio called Mitamura. did not have the money. From the Southern Police District. who he forthwith called. sir. q And who made this plan? a What plan. more specifically the five policemen who. Nagao had not yet been "arrested" by five (5) policemen of the Southern Police District for possession of a pack of cigarettes allegedly containing marijuana. after they talked to the police in another room. Without even being informed as to where the arrested party was brought. Tomio claims: a . q These two Japanese were left at Leo's restaurant and one Japanese was in possession of marijuana cigarettes? a Yes. Mitamura told him that they were to take their dinner at Leo's Restaurant. They did in fact have dinner at Leo's Restaurant. the amount aforestated. they claimed. they made it appear that they advanced the money to the police.
q Now. thereby incurring more expenses? Why did they not bring him to their homes. BF Homes. what happened next? a After that he told me that he will just borrow from his friend One Hundred Thousand US dollar. is still kidnapping or illegal detention for ransom. for which reason he was released. the deprivation of the former's liberty until the amount shall have been fully "paid" to them. q Now.. and I also told him better talk to your father to send money then after that he called up to Japan (sic). the money given to the police did not also come from him. what happened or what did you do? a Mr. Parañaque. sir. was he released by the police? a Yes. where did you go? a At Holiday Inn Hotel. complainant was moved from one hotel to another by the appellants. after they came out of the room at the Southern Police District. and that they were merely motivated by a desire to help a fellow Japanese in distress. the policemen would arrest him. as far as could be gathered from the testimony of Mr. 51 this Court. However." 45 To keep him within their control. plus the hotel bills and other expenses.P. q And upon reaching Holiday Inn Hotel. but suring (sic) that time I was doubtful how come that big amount he cannot pay the (sic) amount of (sic) One Hundred Thousand US dollar (sic). This was part of the stratagem to give a semblance of legality to the demand for ransom. if only to show their genuine concern for him? Even granting for the sake of argument that. As a matter of fact. Intercontinental Hotel.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY eventually "released" by the police. none of them claimed that either or both of them advanced the money to the police. appellants never refuted the testimony of Nagao made during cross-examination. the accused need not kidnap the victim. q How much? a When I was reaching (sic) to them. q How much? a One Hundred Thousand US. sir. Nagao. as he admitted upon question by the court. that they advanced the amount to the police. would do something to him. since if that were indeed the purpose. Dollar (sic) ($100. Metro Manila. there is still kidnapping for ransom. in effect. with the complainant at Holiday Inn Hotel. In People vs. sir. as asserted by appellant Tomio Maeda. sir. et al. Now then. as the trial court asked. effectively depriving him of his liberty. 50 What then was the money they advanced to the police? Nothing. had to abandon his business and his family to be with Mr. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General. why did they have to bring him from one expensive hotel to the other.00).000. 48 We are not persuaded by the theory of the appellants that money involved was not ransom money. Nagao. Thus. from 3 to 12 May 1986. He slept there. I told him that is impossible and that is too much. Nagao don't (sic) have any money anymore so we are talking (sic) about hotel accommodation and other expenses starting the next day and he is (sic) also trying to contact his friend. not in his residence. through Justice J. In the first place. sir. from the headquarter (sic). 47 Moreover. Bengzon. sir. Tagahiro Nakajima testified that he saw the complainant counting the money: q Awhile (sic) ago you stated that he even offered money the police? a Yes. that at the hotel they told him that if he did not pay them the amount demanded the policemen. after that I think he was counting dollar and he told us one hundred thousand US dollar. sir. if indeed the appellants only wanted reimbursement for the money "paid" to the police. ruled that even if the kidnapping were to compel the victim to fulfill his promise of defraying the hospital expenses of a brother of one of the accused. while it may be conceded that complainant had the freedom of locomotion. who is a businessman and a resident of 101 Peter's Street. q And do you know if he was able to put up that amount to the police? a No. Thus: q Did you know as to how much money did he promised (sic) to the police? a Yes. 49 Upon the other hand. but rather payment of hotel bills (as claimed by Tagahiro Nakajima) or for reimbursement of the sum they advanced to pay the policemen and for hotel accommodations and additional expenses spent for complainant (as claimed by Tomio Maeda). 46 The suite (73) which they occupied Virra Condominium is owned by his co-accused Tomio Maeda. appellant Tagahiro Nakajima. there was created a simple loan contract between appellants and Mr. they are (sic) writing papers. Tomio Maeda on direct examination. they succeeded in making it appear to Mr. 10 . he "did not have the freedom to leave the hotel premises at will and go wherever he pleased. after that. q Now. There is no doubt in Our mind that during the period from 3 May 1986 until the accusedappellants were arrested on 12 May 1986. he was. Akiran. Nagao. Philippine Village Hotel and Virra Condominium. they kept on telling him that if he did not pay them.
JR. integrity. file the appropriate criminal and administrative cases against them. 22) The information filed against the accused and John Doe reads: xxx xxx xxx That on or about July 1. they don the uniform of authority and are allowed to carry the instruments of legal violence. did then and there willfully. to have him investigated and prosecuted. Mitamura. price. This should not. plaintiff-appellee. Aida Villanueva was detained for about twenty (20) days in the house of Carmen Lim alias "Mameng" while Avelyn The doctrine in the Akiran case is applicable here. 53 11 scalawags in our law enforcement agencies who may use their uniforms and their lawfully issued weapons as convenient shields or instruments for the perpetration of their evil deeds. SO ORDERED. As regards Mr. judgment is hereby rendered: 1. or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person or persons.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Elaborating thereon. No. the penalty imposed by the trial court is deemed reduced to reclusion perpetua. the said accused who are private persons conspired and mutually helped each other. whatever other motive may have impelled them to do so." 52 Since the accused in this case demanded and received money as a requisite for releasing a person from captivity. should the evidence warrant. Mr. as amended by R. Philippines. the motion of appellants dated 16 March 1987 to reconsider Our resolution of 29 January 1987 in G. As adverted to earlier. within the jurisdiction of this court. end the story of Mr.R. defendant-appellant. efforts must be exerted by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. 86-45055.. in coordination with the National Bureau of Investigation. They deserve nothing but the severest criminal and administrative penalties the law provides. As such. 75576 must also be Denied for lack of merit. Costs against appellants. namely. unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Aida and Avelyn both minors and surnamed Villanueva. No alien should be allowed to abuse Philippine hospitality and make our country a happy hunting ground for his criminal activities. at Zurbito Street. American jurisprudence thereon has persuasive application. 75576. the Court stated that the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. if none has been done so far. No. At the people's expense. of Section 19(1) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution which abolishes the death penalty and provides that any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. the motion to reconsider the resolution of 20 January 1987. in the afternoon thereof. 1990 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 74630. GUTIERREZ. which took effect on 15 June 1954. "Ransom" under American rulings. 1986. We thus hold that upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution. they have no business staying a minute longer in their offices and wearing their uniforms. into the involvement of the five policemen of the Southern Police District and.A. however. the money is still ransom under the law. G. 1084. serve them with utmost responsibility. AFFIRMING. CARMEN LIM @ "MAMENG LIM". other parties. No.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate. p. a Japanese national. the dispositive portion of which reads: xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE. No. 54 When they fail in that sacred duty and become the lawbreakers. even if none of the circumstances mentioned in said Article were present in the commission of the offense is: . for lack of merit. derived from statutes of the United States. the guilt of the accused for the crime charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court committed no error in convicting them accordingly. (Rollo. Nagao. the decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. Accordingly. if he is still in the Philippines. Policemen are supposed to enforce the law. should the evidence warrant. Our examination of the records fails to show that Mr. Province of Masbate.R. and maintain peace and order. particularly the Lindbergh Law. judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Carmen Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentencing her to reclusion perpetua and to pay the costs. In the light of the foregoing. protect the people. J. Mitamura and the policemen were investigated or prosecuted in connection with this case. In G. has been held to mean in its ordinary sense as "money. vs. however. In G. separating them from their parental care.. more specifically on the alleged involvement of the policemen. DENYING. The people's taxes should never be used to maintain and support . which increases the penalty for kidnapping and serious illegal detention if it is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person. could be deeply involved in the conspiracy to kidnap him for ransom. WHEREFORE. We direct the Philippine National Police to conduct a thorough investigation. This Court would be remiss in its duty if it were to close its eyes on this matter. In view. Thus..R. it was not necessary for him and his co-accused Nakajima to deprive the complainant of his liberty to compel him to pay the alleged loan. they are bound to faithfully adhere to the Constitutional directive to be at all times accountable to the people. loyalty and efficiency. No. and the five policemen from the Southern Police District. Mitamura. subject to the above provision of Section 19(1) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution. even if the theory of Tomio is correct. Thus.R. Municipality of Masbate. Branch 46. a payment that releases from captivity. and 2. as used in statutes making kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom a capital offense. 86454 October 18.
1986. Ariate to the 266th PC Company Headquarters where the complaint of Charito was recorded in the blotter by CIC Vincent Elliot Vasquez of the I & I Section. on the other hand. Aida and Avelyn went to the pier. Aida also helped watch over appellant's store from time to time. found his daughter Aida in the house of the accused. went to appellant's store. to see a picture. Aida agreed to go home with her father. The sisters replied that their parents had separated and that their mother had gone to Manila. Antonio Ariate. When asked by appellant why she refused to go with her father. accompanied this time by Sgt. the soldier told the accused that he was taking Aida with him. Masbate. appellant offered to shelter the sisters. Charito Villanueva and his daughter Aida were brought by Sgt. were sent on an errand by their father Charlito (should be Charito) Villanueva to buy rice in Masbate. appellant proposed to Aida to let Avelyn accompany appellant's sister to the latter's home. a neighboring town of the capital of the province. Ariate. "Come here Nene" and asked them to go to her house just infront of the moviehouse. Charito Villanueva. Avelyn. Masbate. fish and salt for appellant's household. They left the pier when their mother did not arrive and went to Helen Theatre on Zurbito Street. p. On July 15. Charito returned to appellant's store. the accused gave Aida and Avelyn rice and kangkong for lunch. To help in the house. Taking pity on the sisters. Upon their arrival at the poblacion of the capital town of Masbate at around 9:00 o'clock in the morning. Aida was told by the accused to take a bath. the complainant and father of the sisters. At around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day while they were in front of the Helen Theatre. Aida agreed.1) The prosecution evidence upon which the trial court based its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is summarized as follows: xxx xxx xxx That in the morning of July 1. Charito again talked to Aida to convince her to go home with him. in a loud voice. pp. This time. the accused released Aida to Sgt. but the accused refused. however. The Villanuevas lived in Mobo. staying there up to 12:00 noon. of 15 July 1986. Aida. From July 1. 1986. father of the two minor children. Masbate. Charito came back to the house of the accused the following day. Charito talked to Aida and asked her to go home with him. Aida replied that she was afraid that her father would beat her up. Charito introduced himself to appellant as the father of the two sisters and informed appellant that he was going to bring the sisters home. Charito left. washing the plates including removing lice from the head of the accused and fanning her. respectively. On or about 9:00 a. 10 and 7 years old. Aida would go to the market to buy bread. scrubbing the floor. As the younger sister of appellant was at that time visiting appellant. Masbate. After they had finished eating. Antonio Ariate of the 266th PC Company at Camp Bonny Serrano. Aida and Avelyn went to the house of the accused and got inside passing through the front door. of the Philippine Constabulary. on condition that she and Avelyn could meet every week. The sisters then proceeded to appellant's store which she was tending at that time. Aida and Avelyn of their personal liberties. 44-46) 12 . Jr. they were called by the accused Carmen Lim. Concerned for their safety. He asked the accused to let Aida go home with him.m. On 16 July 1986. Aida Villanueva was detained in the house of the accused doing household chores such as cleaning the kitchen. Masbate. is summarized in her brief as follows: xxx xxx xxx On or about 1:30 in the afternoon of I July 1986. Helen Theater is located across the store and residence of the appellant. appellant gave the sisters food and allowed them to take a bath. and that their father was in Buenavista. After Identifying himself to the accused. 12) The appellant's version. the younger sister of Aida. Masbate. The accused gave Aida a dress to wear. Aida stayed in appellant's residence for about two (2) weeks. Sgt. As a result. (Rollo. 1986. After a brief conversation with the two children. to look at the pictures displayed outside. Appellant noticed the sisters and caged them over. July 16. p. 1986 to July 15. located along Zurbito St. (Records. who had with him an armalite. Masbate.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Villanueva was detained and brought to Cebu City by the co-accused thereby depriving the two. (Rollo.. The sisters claimed that they were driven away by their father and that they were not given any food to eat. Charito Villanueva. the sisters went to Helen Theater. Ariate introduced himself to appellant. She inquired from the sisters as to the whereabouts of their parents as they were apparently alone. Uson. 1986. to meet their mother whom they thought would arrive by boat from Manila. Aida Villanueva and her younger sister Avelyn Villanueva. this time accompanied by Sgt. was brought by Carmen's mother (should be sister) in Cebu on the same day they arrived in the house of the accused. refused to go with her father. Without resistance but uttering slanderous remarks. Masbate.
as between her father and her detainor. p. 1990. Mercado. Q Where did you see her? A By the door of her store . The appellant's residence has a store fronting the street where many customers presumably come and go. 149 SCRA 292.R. The fact that her father was already there was the perfect opportunity for Aida to try and get away from the appellant. 506 . must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible itself. L-44905. she inexplicably did not shout for help or run to him but just observed him and the appellant talk for half an hour.R. They are not the natural reactions of a ten-year old child who has been detained against her will for two weeks and who has tried unsuccessfully to escape three times. pp. is sufficient to support a conviction. The Court is not unaware of previous pronouncements that the testimony of a single witness. July 21. Maspil. if positive and credible. (People v. The actuations of both Aida and her father are highly incredible. In her testimony. August 20. Thus. the testimony of Aida Villanueva does not inspire credibility. 47-48) The fundamental axiom underlying a criminal prosecution is that before the accused may be convicted of any crime. Aida would have disregarded the appellant's order and would have run to her father. She could have clung to him from the moment he came in instead of quietly observing him and the appellant talk for some time. G. Aldeguer. 131 SCRA 501. There is no kidnapping in this case. Sgt. October 22. When Aida saw her father for the first time on July 15. There was no showing that there was actual confinement or restriction of the person of the offended party. Ariate stated that: xxx xxx xxx Q You also saw Aida Villanueva? A Yes. G. (People v. Well-settled is the rule that evidence to be believed. 8 Phil. No. People v. Aida did not go with her father because the appellant allegedly told her not to go. July 21. The two minors voluntarily entered the appellant's residence through the front entrance.R. p. There is no indication that Aida was locked up. Cabanas. (See People v. which was mainly relied upon by the trial court in convicting the appellant. after a careful review of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. if there are substantial facts which were overlooked by the trial court but which could alter the results of the case in favor of the accused. L-47991. going inside. Neither is it believable that a father who has been desperately looking for his two minor daughters for two weeks would just calmly accept the appellant's refusal to let go of his daughter. In fact. 34). pp. Aida could have escaped at that 13 . (TSN.. 1987. (TSN. The place is busy with a movie house in front. sir. 2526). 23) The Solicitor General counters the appellant's claim stating that Aida did ask for help from her father when the latter was about to leave.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY The appellant raises the following assignment of errors in her appeal. 1987. (People v. 1986. For someone who had been detained against her will. was not clear and convincing enough to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. we find the same to be insufficient to sustain a conviction. Torre. No. 159 SCRA 401. Aida Villanueva. 1990) In the case at bar. 64. 85177. People v. his guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Just how she tried to escape or why she did not succeed is not explained clearly. Aida claimed that she attempted to escape three times but she was not able to do so.. then such facts should be carefully taken into account by the reviewing tribunal. 1990. to wit: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE CASE AGAINST THE APPELLANT DESPITE THE DESISTANCE OF THE COMPLAINANT II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES' TESTIMONY WHICH WERE REPLETE WITH INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT AIDA VILLANUEVA WAS NOT DETAINED BY THE APPELLANT IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD NO MOTIVE TO DETAIN AIDA AND AVELYN VILLANUEVA (Rollo. p. Maribung. The uncorroborated testimony of the alleged kidnapped victim. 67 ).10) It is apparent that Aida had free access going in and out of the appellant's residence. April 25. G. Salufrania. July 21. The fact of detention which is an essential element in the crime charged. 1987. (TSN. There are other circumstances which create grave doubts in Aida's version of her two week detention. US v. (TSN. was not clearly established. No better test has yet been found to measure the value of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind. but the appellant pushed her and refused to let her go with her father. April 3. No. 1987. 297 ) The fact of detention is also denied by the testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses. physically restrained of her liberty or unable to communicate with anyone. 415416 ) But as discussed above.
p. 1987 that he was withdrawing the case and that his children were not detained. (Rollo. ): xxx xxx xxx In the case at bar. 1986 cast doubt on the criminal liability of the appellant. The answer of Sgt. 630 ): xxx xxx xxx It is conceded that the State has the sovereign right to prosecute criminal offenses under the full control of the fiscal and that the dismissal of criminal cases by the execution of an affidavit of desistance by the complainant is not looked upon with favor. 4-5) The unbelievable and conflicting evidence of the prosecution strengthens the version of the appellant that she took pity on the two runaway children and decided to give them food and shelter. (Emphasis supplied) And finally. the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether or not she treated them like unpaid servants is not in issue. p. Antonio. No. 1987. The Solicitor General quotes the trial court's statement that: xxx xxx xxx If the accused thought that the evidence of the prosecution was fabricated or false. Had she wanted to hire an additional maid. it calls for a second hard look at the records of the case and the basis for the judgment of conviction. the absence of such motive is nevertheless important in determining which of two conflicting theories is more likely to be true. People v. October 22. She did not know the two children prior to the incident.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY particular period of time. There is also the question of Sgt. However. 165 SCRA 620. 9) while in his answer to the questions propounded to him he stated that Aida's father admitted that his daughter ran away. Ariate to the questions propounded to him and the statement in the blotter corroborate the appellant's testimony that the two children ran away from home. It is undisputed that she is the owner of a store and was the employer of two maids at the time of the incident. 10 and 6 yrs. 81 ) The fourth circumstance present which calls for the reversal of the conviction is that there is no motive whatsoever for the appellant to kidnap the two children. (People v. Modesto. Domingo. Her failure to introduce them as witnesses could only mean that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses about the detention of Aida in her house were all true. SO ORDERED. Zamora. (TSN. Another circumstance that belies the kidnapping charge is the unexplained delay in the lodging of the complaint against the appellant. 569. p. old were (sic) left their house without his consent. October 22. 161 SCRA 72. yet a void in the evidence in this respect discloses a weakness in the case for the prosecution." (Records. the father of the two girls testified in open court on November 24. Intermediate Appellate Court (135 SCRA 620. The appellant had everything to lose and nothing to gain if it is true that she kidnapped the two children. (Emphasis supplied) The instant case falls under the exception where an affidavit of desistance is given due consideration.R. it is also true that an affidavit of desistance may create serious doubts as to the liability of the accused. WHEREFORE. the affidavit should not be peremptorily dismissed as a useless scrap of paper. complainant in the kidnapping case. p. pp. There was no need to kidnap a minor and force her to work against her will. p. 1990. 1987. At the very least. 626 ) In this case. Ariate saw her (TSN. The appellant is a woman of sufficient means. Jurisprudence on the effect of desistance notwithstanding. stating that his daughters were not detained after all by the appellant taken together with the circumstances abovementioned has the effect of exculpating the appellant from the charge of kidnapping. 46  It has also been held in People v. (See People v. July 6. In his testimony. 568. (People v. de Dios. the father of the victim that "Aida Villanueva and Avelyn Villanueva. she could certainly afford to hire another one without going to the extent of committing a crime as serious as kidnapping. It failed to do so. 25 SCRA 36. 126) recorded in the blotter dated July 23. Significantly. No motive was ever propounded by the prosecution. Ariate's conflicting statements as to the answer of Aida's father about his missing daughters which was dismissed by the trial court as a minor inconsistency. What is apparent from the records is the absence of proof showing kidnapping and serious illegal detention. 1986. the accused could have presented her two maids as witnesses to testify to rebut said evidence. 10) so she could have made a run for it if she really wanted to go. 21) It is a well-entrenched rule in our jurisprudence that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence rather than on the weakness of the defense. (Records. As held in Gomez v. the judgment of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and appellant Carmen Lim is ACQUITTED of the crime charged for failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. We are thus ushered to applying the precept that though proof of motive is not indispensable to conviction. 15) Such conflicting statements taken together with the statement of Charito Villanueva. An entire week passed before the complaint was lodged on July 23. G. The prosecution had every opportunity to crossexamine or tear apart the retraction and prove that the facts were as earlier alleged. 59 Phil. 58174. She was three feet away from the appellant when Sgt. no motive for the killing has been established. April 22. and granting that proof of particular motive for taking the life of a human being is not indispensable to conviction for homicide. he stated that Aida's father said that he just sent his two daughters on an errand and they were already missing (TSN. 1988. 14 . the execution of the affidavit of desistance by Charito Villanueva.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. ID. The fact alone that ransom money is demanded would not per se qualify the act of preventing the liberty of movement of the victim into the crime of kidnapping. That from the beginning of their criminal venture appellant and his bothers intended to kill the victim can readily be deduced from the manner by which they swiftly and cold-bloodedly snuffed out his life once they reached the isolated sugarcane plantation in Calamba. hence the crime of kidnapping does not exist and cannot be considered as a component felony to produce a complex crime of kidnapping with murder. Absent such determinant intent and duration of restraint. ID. Furthermore. 102645. FLORENTINO FABRIGAS. that the element of deprivation or restraint of liberty of the victim be present. be considered against appellant even if it was not alleged in the informations since it was duly proved. such demand for ransom did not convert the crime into kidnapping since no detention or deprivation of liberty was involved. Laguna. Abello. y RAMOS. and not to confine or detain him for any length of time or for any other purpose. On the contrary. however. PRESENT WHERE ASSAULT IS SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED AND VICTIM DIVESTED OF OPPORTUNITY TO EFFECTIVITY RESIST OR ESCAPE.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY G. 5. ID. IMPOSABLE PENALTY RAISED TO DEATH WHERE CRIME PERPETRATED FOR RANSOM. LESLIE GANS y MELENDRES. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH.. Regala & Cruz for accused-appellant. ESSENTIAL ELEMENT THEREOF. UNINHABITED PLACE. hence the crime committed was only murder. coupled with the sudden and unexpected assault by the malefactors on the hapless victim in the isolated sugarcane plantation in Calamba. either as a qualifying or as an aggravating circumstance. APPRECIATED THOUGH NOT ALLEGED IN INFORMATION. ROMEO PRADEZ. therefore. unless the victim is actually restrained or deprived of his liberty for some appreciable period of time or that such restraint was the basic intent of the accused. abuse of superior strength may not be taken into account separately in this case. NOT CONVERTED TO KIDNAPPING BY DEMAND FOR RANSOM WHERE VICTIM NOT DETAINED OR DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY. LEONARDO MARAJAS. — Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.. CRIMINAL LAW. CURTAILMENT OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT WITHOUT DETERMINANT INTENT AND DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY FOR APPRECIABLE PERIOD OF TIME CONSTITUTE COERCION. WHERE TAKING OF VICTIM FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER INCIDENTAL TO BASIC PURPOSE TO KILL CRIME IS MURDER. SYLLABUS 1.. 3. as it was relayed to the victim's family very much later that afternoon after a sufficient interval for consultation and deliberation among the felons who had killed the victim around five hours earlier. This circumstance is underscored by the fact that they committed the crime at about 12:00 noon. ID. PRESENT WHERE ACCUSED DELIBERATELY CHOSE DESOLUTION OF PLACE TO PERPETRATE CRIME FAR FROM GAZE OF POTENTIAL EYEWITNESSES. JR. the 15 . ID. and from the acts of the accused it cannot be inferred that the latter's purpose was actually to detain or deprive the victims of their liberty. Angara. CASE AT BAR. ID. there was no evidence whatsoever to show or from which it can be inferred that from the outset the killers of the victim intended to exchange his freedom for ransom money. ROMEO PADICA y LORICA. No.. although the accused had planned to kidnap the victim for ransom but they first killed him and it was only later that they demanded and obtained the money. 2. ID. April 7. the crime is only murder. — Under the factual features present in the commission of the crime. JR. the circumstance that the kidnapping is perpetrated for the purpose of ransom raises the imposable penalty to death. LEOPOLDO MARAJAS and LEON MARAJAS. — Abuse of superior strength was likewise present. — Although the trial court and both parties herein have again passed sub silentio thereon. the subsequent killing of the victims constitute the crime of murder. and the same is true with regard to the allegation of craft. Concepcion. before the killing but for purposes thereof. however. we are inclined to grant that the circumstance of superior strength should not be appreciated distinctly but should be considered as being absorbed in and by treachery. KIDNAPPING. the demand for ransom appears to have arisen and was consequently made as an afterthought. for the accused deliberately resorted to their collective strength for the purpose of overpowering whatever feeble defense the poor Francis Banaga could offer. LEON MARAJAS. PRESENT WHERE ACCUSED DELIBERATELY RESORTED TO COLLECTIVE STRENGTH IN OVERPOWERING VICTIM'S DEFENSE. is absent in this case. Hence. a time of day when any passersby or assistance could hardly be expected in the vicinity of the locus criminis. the victim was taken from one place to another. accusedappellant.R. it is evident that the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place was present since appellant and his co-accused obviously and deliberately chose the desolation and isolation of the sugarcane plantation to perpetrate the crime far from the gaze of potential eyewitnesses. y RAMOS. They thus insured the commission of the crime with practically no risk at all to themselves. ID. 4. 6.. which thereby divested him of an opportunity either to effectively resist or to escape.. Thus. In fact. plaintiff-appellee. where the evident purpose of taking the victims was to kill them. et al. ID. This aggravating circumstance of despoblado should. The malefactors evidently had only murder in their hearts when they invited the trusting Francis Banaga to go with them to Laguna. — There was treachery since. or that he was transported away against his will with the primary or original intent to effect that restraint. — The essential element in the crime of kidnapping that the victim must have been restrained or deprived of his liberty.. TREACHERY.. vs. — We have consistently held that where the taking of the victim was incidental to the basic purpose to kill. the victim was lured by his killers into going with them to Laguna without the slightest inkling of their nefarious design. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1993... MURDER. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AND CRAFT ABSORBED IN TREACHERY.. under the aforestated circumstances. ID. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. and this is true even if. 7. ** accused. as we held in the aforecited case of Masilang. It is essential.
TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY mere curtailment of freedom of movement would at most constitute coercion. ID. Indeed. not Primo Narvaes. — The rule is that the complaint or information should sufficiently allege the name of the accused. it is not required that the court be absolutely certain that all the requirements for the proper discharge of a co-accused be present. he merely entered his plea of 'not guilty' under the said name. as correctly pointed out by the trial court in its decision. it must be shown that not only was the accused at some other place at the time of the commission of the offense. 13. appellant should have raised the error as to his identity by filing a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person. by filing a demurrer based on the court's lack of jurisdiction over his person. Consequently. the court below having had the opportunity 16 . ALIBI. without leave of court. and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form.. Such an amendment is explicitly allowed under the second paragraph of Section 7. the true name of the accused shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record. LIES WITHIN COURT'S SOUND DISCRETION. in any way. ERROR AS TO IDENTITY PROPERLY RAISED IN MOTION TO QUASH ON GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER ACCUSED'S PERSON. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The trial court's reliance thereon and its consequent finding on the basis thereof that Padica did not appear to be the most guilty must be respected as it was in better position to evaluate such evidence. However. when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused. INSERTION OF ACCUSED'S TRUE NAME IN INFORMATION A FORMAL AMENDMENT. — A complaint or information must state the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known.." 11. ID. in substance or form. Apart from that. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.. we find no plausible reason to depart from the favorable appreciation by the trial court of Padica's testimony which the said court characterized as reasonable and probable.. 14. CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Indeed. DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED TO BE STATE WITNESS. the pertinent portion of which provides that "(t)he information or complaint may be amended. TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS ACCORDED FINALITY BY APPELLATE COURTS. straightforward and convincing manner thereby leaving no doubt in the mind of said court that he was telling the truth. 10. — Jurisprudentially embedded is the rule that the stamp of approval given by the trial court on the testimony of a particular witness as a consequence of its factual findings is normally accorded finality by appellate courts. the same would all the more be given little consideration. given in a clear. or insisting to raise." At that juncture. 12. WEAK DEFENSE CLEARLY NEGATIVE IN NATURE. ID. ID. in relation to Section 14. Narvaes laid down as early as 1934.. ID. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY THEREWITH. 1978. the same question.. as aforestated. For it to prosper. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO RAISE QUESTION OF IDENTITY. ID. — Appellant has also clearly lost sight of the rule that the discharge of an accused to be a state witness. ID. in the case at bar and after a careful evaluation. inasmuch as he was then considered as Pedro Narvaes. the prosecution presented enough evidence to support its motion for the discharge of Padica.. Moreover. in line with the doctrine explained in People vs. or appears in some other manner to the court. it must necessarily be understood that he renounced it and therefore he is now estopped from raising. Hence. COURT NOT REQUIRED TO BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER DISCHARGE BE PRESENT.. EVIDENCE. we must perforce again reprobate appellant's alibi as an inherently weak defense decidedly easy of concoction.. — In the case at bar. What we stated in Narvaes is worth repeating: "x x x (w)hen the appellant was arraigned under the name of Pedro Narvaes." At any rate. not only in this appeal but even at the trial . at any time before the accused pleads. it is considered as clearly negative in nature. whatever irregularity may have attended the inclusion of appellant's name as an accused in the amended information has been waived by his subsequent appearance and entry of plea at his arraignment under said amendatory information. 7. But. If in the course of the proceeding the true name of the accused is disclosed by him. which allegation was completely uncorroborated. ID. lies within the sound discretion of the court before whom it is sought and in the exercise of that discretion. appellant was not even sure as to his whereabouts on February 8. . MOTION TO QUASH. 8. failing which the complaint or information would be rendered invalid." 9. albeit under the different name. the amendment neither affected nor altered the nature of the offense charged since the basic theory of the prosecution was not changed nor did it introduce new and material facts. . NAME OF ACCUSED BE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION. — Appellant's defense that he was in another place at the time of Francis Banaga's disappearance and killing must necessarily fail. ID. It was on that occasion that he should have for the first time raised the question of his identity. deprive appellant of a fair opportunity to present his defense. AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION. ID.. REMEDIAL LAW. He simply offered as an explanation therefor that he was "more or less" in Batangas. Jr. trite as our innumerable reiterations have already made this statement of rejection. CANNOT PREVAIL AGAINST POSITIVE DECLARATIONS OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES. WHEN DEFENSE OF ALIBI MAY PROSPER. coming as it does from a polluted source. CASE AT BAR. In the case under consideration. which is the name appearing in the information. TEST OF SUFFICIENCY. by leave and at the discretion of the court.'s real name involved merely a matter of form as it did not. when arrayed against the positive declarations of the witnesses for the prosecution. ID. appellant did not do so but instead voluntarily appeared at the arraignment and pleaded not guilty thereat. the trial court acquired jurisdiction over his person and it could have rendered a valid judgment of conviction based on the original information even without need of an amendatory information to correct appellant's name. but that it was also physically impossible for him to have been there when it happened. Name of the accused. or if his name cannot be discovered he must be described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown. there is no dispute that appellant was arraigned under the original information and that he entered thereto a plea of not guilty under the name of "Leonardo Marajas.. — It is true that the testimony of a particeps criminis is to be invariably viewed with much caution. Not having filed the said demurrer. which states: "Sec. TESTIMONY OF PARTICEPS CRIMINIS VIEWED WITH CAUTION. The test of sufficiency is laid down in Section 7. — The subsequent amendment to insert in the information Leon Marajas.
Leopoldo Marajas then delivered several stabbing blows at Banaga after which appellant shot Banaga with a handgun. Leslie Gans. Branch CXVI. who then alighted from the vehicle and told Francis Banaga to alight. Upon receiving the amount. did then and there kidnap Francis Banaga. 1985. Romeo Padica. more or less. Banaga fell on the ground. the three stopped at a restaurant when (sic) they ordered something to eat (TSN. 27 in Criminal Case No 27-163 thereof. 1985. Romeo Pradez. in the Municipality of Parañaque. docketed as Criminal Case No. Eddie Boy and appellant 17 . 4 Accused Romeo Padica and herein appellant were both arraigned on January 15. however. 10 accused Padica was discharged from the information to be utilized as a state witness. but from our own review and calibration of the evidence. conspiring. Peter Doe @ Eddie Boy Marajas. All of them proceeded to Calamba. prayed for the transfer of the case to the civil courts. However. Metro Manila. of the Regional Trial Court where it remained until the conclusion of the trial in 1990. to drive for Eddie Boy Marajas. counsel for accused Leon Marajas. with Padica still driving the vehicle. pp. but with the exception of herein appellant whose name was inadvertently not included therein. not a single shred of evidence was introduced by the defense to show any ill motive on the part of Padica to impute such a serious crime on appellant and his brothers. with the use of three (3) firearms with the different caliber (sic) by means of craft. boarded the car. Thereafter. with supplemental data and documentation of the testimonial evidence as borne out by the transcripts. 3 A separate charge for illegal possession of firearms was lodged before Branch 146 of the Makati Regional Trial Court but the case was later placed in the archives some time in 1985. while appellant and Eddie Boy occupied the back seat. with intent to kill and with treachery shoot Francis Banaga. Once inside the plantation. Padica stopped the car when told to do so by Leopoldo. and proceeded to Samson Tech in Pasay City. thus entitling to considerable credit his testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding Francis Banaga's death. pp. Parañaque." 1 The records show that Leon Marajas. November 17. In Sukat.." 6 Trial thereafter ensued but. visited Romeo Padica in his house in Muntinlupa. and his classmates. upon discovery of the omission of herein appellant's name in the original information. within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Leopoldo together with Francis and Eddie Boy. Francis refused to get down from the car. Leopoldo. he told Padica that they were going to Sukat. before Branch III of the then Court of First Instance of Pasay City against the aforementioned accused. with Francis Banaga between them (Ibid.00) for his release and while thus illegally detaining the latter. or on July 17.00 for the purpose. Leopoldo Marajas told Padica. pursuant to said conspiracy did then and there wilfully. using a car driven by Leopoldo. Furthermore. 1990. J p: Accused-appellant Leon Marajas. pursuant to the instructions of Leopoldo. which we find to be correct.-10-13). Philippines. duly assisted by counsel. detain and deprive him of his liberty for a period of three (3) days and demanded (sic) five hundred thousand pesos (P500. he was forced out of the car by Leopoldo Marajas. 1978. 1985. both pleaded not guilty. with Padica still driving the car. in an order dated August 27. presented the prosecution's case in this wise: "On or about 9:00 o clock in the morning of February 8. Pq-81-1596-P. that appellant entered his plea during the arraignment under the name of "Leonardo Marajas. Laguna. both fourteen (14) years of age. entered a plea of guilty upon being arraigned on the amended information. Metro Manila. with the assistance of their respective counsel. violence against and intimidation of person. dated January 8. more or less ten (10) meters away from the car. 1978. 1981.000. appellant. Notwithstanding his resistance. However. Leonardo Marajas and Leopoldo Marajas were originally charged in the latter part of 1978 with kidnapping for ransom with murder and illegal possession of firearms before Military Commission No. identities and whereabouts are still unknown and mutually helping and aiding one another. "Upon reaching Calamba at about 12:00 noon of the same date. of the same date. unlawfully and feloniously. on January 11. The People's brief. Eddie Boy Marajas and Francis Banaga. Jr. Leopoldo requested Padica. thereby inflicting on him gunshot wounds on the head and other parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death as a consequences. the case was reraffled to Branch CXVI. not by mere reliance on dicta. were in said subdivision. DECISION REGALADO. arriving there at about 10:00 A. Seated beside Padica was Leopoldo Marajas. Padica. the three brought Francis Banaga to a place inside the sugarcane plantation. 1979. These conclusions we confirm. subsequently. while Padica remained in the vehicle. 1984 and reading as follows: "That on or about the 8th day of February. Leopoldo Marajas. to drive the car into the sugarcane plantation at the side of the road. giving Padica P100. his compadre. Eddie Boy and appellant. drove the car. 9 On the other hand. 7 On May 30. the above-named accused. finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping for ransom with murder upon an amended information dated November 16. where they arrived at about 11:30 A. the trial court issued an order admitting the amended information. also in Sukat. the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed an information for kidnapping for ransom with murder. 2 On August 17. the prosecution filed a motion on November 16. said accused. Jr. Leopoldo left the vehicle and. 610). however. Leopoldo alighted from the car and talked to them. 8 Thereafter. drawing principally from the factual findings of the court a quo based on the evidence adduced in this case. 1988.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY to observe closely the manner by which such witness testified. Jr. who pulled him out of the vehicle. Subsequently. Earlier thereto. 5 It appears. with Leopoldo and appellant on board. "Thereafter.M. 1982 and. Florentino Fabrigas.M. 1984 for the admission of an amended information including appellant's name as one of the accused. upon coming back after a while. they proceeded to the Superville Subdivision. confederating together with John Doe @ Boy Taga. y Ramos appeals from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. Richard Doe @ Tito and Edward Doe @ Elmer whose true names. appellant and his brother. Pasay City. a brother of Leopoldo and appellant.
he decided to go to Manila. where he was a resident.000. Tomas Banaga. one on the head and the other on the chest. December 12. Sept.M. 1978. pursuant to the instructions of the caller. 1986. Appellant alighted from the vehicle. one of those sent to Luneta to entrap the person who would receive the ransom money. became alarmed when his son failed to come home. The former claims that he was kept there for about two months. pp.M. 16 After more than eight years of trial. pursuant to the information given by appellant during the investigation. where Padica alighted and was left behind with Leopoldo warning Padica. pp. a Philippine Constabulary team led by Lt. Tomas. A few minutes after 6:00 P.00 as indemnity for the death of the child. appellant then tried to fool them by admitting that the missing Francis Banaga could be found in Paete. In the early morning of February 10. The death of Francis was caused by 'intrathoracic brain hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds. his ordeal at their hands was resumed.. pp.. of (the) same date. Laguna. but he had no occasion to discuss their predicament with him. Incensed at the deception. with two (2) exit gunshot wounds and several lacerated wounds. 1982. 6-12). At about 8:00 P. Rodolfo Bucao. 1986. "On or about 5:00 P. together with another captive whom he identified only as "Florentino. 12 He arrived in Manila at around 9:00 A. He also met at the safehouse Leslie Gans. of the same date.000. he was taken out of the hotel and was taken by the men to an unspecified safehouse where. 4-6). Between 7:00 and 7:30 P. saying: 'Hihintayin na lang ninyo ang bata mamaya sa bahay. Cruz (sic) of Regional Security Unit Intelligence Division. without pronouncement a to costs. Romeo Padica finally revealed to Lt. 2-5). Camello was brought by Sgt. and demanding P500.00.' (TSN. Appellant was later brought at about 12:00 noon to the Siesta Court Hotel. at Mabini Street in Malate to talk to his brother. went to Calamba. A few minutes later. Leonardo. When appellant returned to the waiting taxicab and was about to board it. July 25. and proceeded to the office of Mrs. 1978. at 8:30 P. 'Pare.M.M.M. the men took him back to the safehouse. 1986. He then led a group of his captors to the said place but they found no trace of the missing boy. Sgt. On February 10. Aquilina Marquez-Marajas. After appellant's confinement.000. 14 Later.' (Ibid.M. "On February 9. October 2. 13 In the evening of the same day. Eusebio Panganiban of the Calamba Municipal Health Office. He was about to board a tricycle at the main gate of the subdivision at around 9:30 A. pp. Bucao and CIC Ocampo in front of Bayview Hotel at Roxas Blvd. of February 10. steady ka lang. isang bala ka lang. 1978. he then went to the house of his sister. apprehended and arrested appellant (TSN. he was turned over to the prison authorities of Bicutan Rehabilitation Center where he remained until the start of the trial.00 and giving instructions that the money be wrapped in a newspaper. approached Camello and got the money from her which was in a paper bag. which for one reason or another was punctuated by numerous and needless postponements. Cruz (sic) near the Lucena City Market and after making the disclosure. appellant was again taken out of the safehouse and. telling Tomas not to look for his son as he was in good condition. Quezon City. 1978. Nelly Marajas. Appellant claims that on February 8. with Sto. Sgt. someone called up by phone. during which time he helped in the maintenance and care of the safehouse and its surroundings. Laguna search for the body of Francis Banaga. There Florentino led the military team to the cadaver of Francis Banaga. the day that the victim disappeared. "According to the necropsy report of Dr. The team recovered the body of Francis Banaga and brought it to the Municipal Health Officer of Calamba for autopsy (TSN. pp. pp. 17-69).M. father of Francis. and delivered by a girl wearing a T-shirt to Luneta. 10-17).000. 6). sister-in-law of Tomas Banaga. Padica had met Lt. 1988. 10-19). in front of the National Library. Leopoldo took the wheel from Padica and drove the car to Muntinlupa. 1978. placed in a paper bag. 17 18 . once again. surrendered to the authorities (TSN. in order to thresh out some financial matters in connection with his business of buy and sell.00 for his (Francis') release. the sum of P30. his sister-in-law. "(At) or about 2:00 P. Batangas as his point of departure. one of the accused. Lucena City that he (Padica) witnessed the killing of Francis Banaga. Tomas received a second phone call in the course of which the caller reduced the amount demanded to P200. she went to the National Library at Luneta and positioned herself under a tree with red flowers. p. March 11. Tomas reported the incident to the Philippine Constabulary authorities in Camp Crame.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY returned to the car. volunteered to deliver the money as the maid of (the) Banaga family who was supposed to do it was scared. 6-10). Simplicio Dulay." 11 Appellant predictably presented a different narration of the events that led to his arrest. Unable to bear the maltreatment any further. 19. father of Francis Banaga. accompanied by appellant. "Norma Camello.' (TSN." he was brought to an isolated sugarcane plantation. 15 Appellant and Florentino were later brought back to the safehouse. while in his house at Gatchalian Subdivision in Parañaque. where he was repeatedly beaten and subjected to torture by his abductors who tried in vain to extract information about the disappearance of Francis Banaga. of the same day. Sgt. 1978. also in Malate. January 15. when he was suddenly accosted by two Metrocom officers in civilian clothes who forcibly took him to a car. which was inside a sugarcane plantation about 75 meters away from the road. 1978 (Ibid. Cierlito were dispatched to the Banaga residence (TSN. he was in Batangas province. there was another phone call with (the) caller lowering the amount to P23. of February 10. the trial court rendered its assailed decision pronouncing the guilt of appellant for the crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Tomas Banaga. at Gatchalian Subdivision in Parañaque. Napoleon Cachuela. pp. Francis Banaga sustained two (2) entry gunshot wounds.M. Manila. Appellant led the team to the place where the cadaver was dumped. of February 11. Villanueva and Sgt. Not finding Leonardo there. a neighbor of the Banaga family. He insists that he was the victim of an elaborate frame-up by the military authorities assigned to investigate the case. a taxicab arrived.. 1985. "After three (3) years in hiding out of fear for his life. under a true with red flowers.
the crime is only murder. as it was relayed to the victim's family very much later that afternoon after a sufficient interval for consultation and deliberation among the felons who had killed the victim around five hours earlier. 30 This aggravating circumstance of despoblado should. In addition. The malefactors evidently had only murder in their hearts when they invited the trusting Francis Banaga to go with them to Laguna. In fact. before the killing but for purposes thereof. therefore. On the other hand. but we do not adopt as correct the nature or categorization of the offense for which he must do penance. hence the crime committed was only murder. where the evident purpose of taking the victims was to kill them. there was no evidence whatsoever to show or from which it can be inferred that from the outset the killers of the victim intended to exchange his freedom for ransom money. Indeed. the victim was lured by his killers into going with them to Laguna without the slightest inkling of their nefarious design. then already fourteen years of age and a fourth year high school student. the victim was taken from one place to another. coupled with the sudden and unexpected assault by the malefactors on the hapless victim in the isolated sugarcane plantation in Calamba. He voluntarily boarded the car and went with the Marajas brothers to Laguna. et al. 24 It is essential. abuse of superior strength may not be taken into account separately in this case. we are inclined to grant that the circumstance of superior strength should not be appreciated distinctly but should be considered as being absorbed in and by treachery. the demand for ransom appears to have arisen and was consequently made as an afterthought. the subsequent killing of the victims constitute the crime of murder. The fact alone that ransom money is demanded would not per se qualify the act of preventing the liberty of movement of the victim into the crime of kidnapping. although the trial court and both parties herein have again passed sub silentio thereon. Laguna. either as a qualifying or as an aggravating circumstance. which thereby divested him of an opportunity either to effectively resist or to escape. At the outset. The essential element in the crime of kidnapping that the victim must have been restrained or deprived of his liberty. It will be observed that under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. as we held in the aforecited case of Masilang. be considered against appellant even if it was not alleged in the informations since it was duly proved. for the accused deliberately resorted to their collective strength for the purpose of overpowering whatever feeble defense the poor Francis Banaga could offer. however. accused Leonardo Marajas alias "Eddie Boy. unless the victim is actually restrained or deprived of his liberty for some appreciable period of time or that such restraint was the basic intent of the accused. we are satisfactorily persuaded that the prosecution has duly discharged its onus probandi insofar as the culpability of appellant is concerned. Absent such determinant intent and duration of restraint. Furthermore. Rather the crime committed was murder. the circumstance that the kidnapping is perpetrated for the purpose of ransom raises the imposable penalty to death. 26 Abuse of superior strength was likewise present. (c) in laying emphasis on the weakness of the defense interposed by appellant. a time of day when any passersby or assistance could hardly be expected in the vicinity of the locus criminis. The victim had every reason to trust them as they were his neighbors in Gatchalian Subdivision.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Appellant is now before us insisting on the reversal of the judgment of conviction by theorizing that the court below erred: (a) in ruling that the guilt of appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. it is evident that the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place was present since appellant and his co-accused obviously and deliberately chose the desolation and isolation of the sugarcane plantation to perpetrate the crime far from the gaze of potential eye-witnesses. and not the complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder as found by the trial court without objection by either the prosecution or defense. however. We have consistently held that where the taking of the victim was incidental to the basic purpose to kill. 18 After a careful and exhaustive review of the records.. was neither forced nor coerced unlawfully into going along with his killers. and not to confine or detain him for any length of time or for any other purpose. one of the brothers. Hence. 21 Thus. and from the acts of the accused it cannot be inferred that the latter's purpose was actually to detain or deprive the victims of their liberty. 28 and the same is true with regard to the allegation of craft. although the accused had planned to kidnap the victim for ransom but they first killed him and it was only later that they demanded and obtained the money. 27 They thus insured the commission of the crime with practically no risk at all to themselves. and (d) in disregarding the inconsistencies raised by the defense as minor and insubstantial. from the evidence on record. that the element of deprivation or restraint of liberty of the victim be present. 29 This circumstance is underscored by the fact that they committed the crime at about 12:00 noon. Francis Banaga. the testimonial and documentary evidence. 19 or that he was transported away against his will with the primary or original intent to effect that restraint. the mere curtailment of freedom of movement would at most constitute coercion. and the arguments of the prosecution and the defense. trite as our innumerable reiterations have already made 19 . 20 and this is true even if. we are not convinced that the crime of kidnapping for ransom was committed as charged in both the original and amended informations. In fact. 25 There was treachery since. 1. Under the factual features present in the commission of the crime." was his schoolmate and a playmate. is absent in this case. under the aforestated circumstances. 23 That from the beginning of their criminal venture appellant and his brothers intended to kill the victim can readily be deduced from the manner by which they swiftly and cold-bloodedly snuffed out his life once they reached the isolated sugarcane plantation in Calamba. 31 Appellant's defense that he was in another place at the time of Francis Banaga's disappearance and killing must necessarily fail. such demand for ransom did not convert the crime into kidnapping since no detention or deprivation of liberty was involved. On the contrary. 22 hence the crime of kidnapping does not exist and cannot be considered as a component felony to produce a complex crime of kidnapping with murder. attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and/or abuse of superior strength. (b) in giving full credence to the testimony of state witness Romeo Padica.
likewise. it must be shown that not only was the accused at some other place at the time of the commission of the offense. the court below having had the opportunity to observe closely the manner by which such witness testified. He affects surprise as to why the Marajas brothers would go to the extent of hiring Padica to drive for them when." as the same was inside a desolate sugarcane plantation in the outskirts of Calamba. steady ka lang. appellant was not even sure as to his whereabouts on February 8. lies within the sound discretion of the court before whom it is sought and in the exercise of that discretion. 33 Indeed. can not be discredited just because of his silence on the road and for not knowing Leopoldo's profession and the surname of a common "compadre. "it is not difficult to believe that appellant and his co-accused committed the crime in broad daylight because there were no other persons at the scene of the incident. when arrayed against the positive declarations of the witnesses for the prosecution. as we have earlier explained. 37 However. 41 Appellant has also clearly lost sight of the rule that the discharge of an accused to be a state witness. in fact. Romeo Padica. he never even knew what was Leopoldo's profession and what was the surname of their common "compadre. this witness did testify to and narrate in his sworn statement some personal matters regarding the Marajas siblings. 35 Moreover. appellant slurs over the fact that this order of the trial court was sustained by the Court of Appeals in CA-G. thus lending credence to his claim of close and fraternal ties with Leopoldo Marajas. 36 the veracity of which record further enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties which appellant failed to rebut. Simplicio Dulay. which allegation was completely uncorroborated. not by mere reliance on dicta. he was then a close friend of one of the brothers. we find no plausible reason to depart from the favorable appreciation by the trial court of Padica's testimony which the said court characterized as reasonable and probable. 1989. He simply offered as an explanation therefor that he was "more or less" in Batangas. but that it was also physically impossible for him to have been there when it happened. not a single shred of evidence was introduced by the defense to show any ill motive on the part of Padica to impute such a serious crime on appellant and his brothers. thus entitling to considerable credit his testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding Francis Banaga's death. although the latter claims to be a close friend of Leopoldo. one of the police operatives. Having demonstrated to Padica the brutal and merciless manner in which they disposed of Francis Banaga. we must perforce again reprobate appellant's alibi as an inherently weak defense decidedly easy of concoction. Appellant asserts that the trial court should not have given credence to the testimony of Romeo Padica as it is incredible and inconsistent with the other evidence on record. given in a clear. 34 In light of the foregoing. he expresses disbelief that Romeo Padica never conversed with the group while they were on the road and that. appellant's further denial that he was entrapped on the night of February 10. 40 The fact that appellant and his co-accused carried out the murder of Francis Banaga in broad daylight is hardly surprising." It is of common knowledge that there are persons who are taciturn and not as inquisitive as others. such as the fact that Leopoldo was staying at a house adjacent to that of the Banagas in Tionguiao Street at Gatchalian Subdivision together with his wife. 1978 by the authorities after receiving ransom money from Norma Camello must likewise be rejected. positively and without hesitation identified appellant as the person who was collared at Luneta Park. Be that as it may. the judgment therein having become final and executory on January 20. children and Eddie Boy Marajas. Hence. and so. Incidentally. but from our own review and calibration of the evidence. isang bala ka lang. 38 Jurisprudentially embedded is the rule that the stamp of approval given by the trial court on the testimony of a particular witness as a consequence of its factual findings is normally accorded finality by appellate courts." He likewise characterizes as incredible the circumstance that he and his cohorts supposedly carried out the crime in broad daylight and that thereafter they simply dismissed Padica with a casual threat of "Pare.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY this statement of rejection. who was the one who requested him to drive. 2. appellant and his brothers were undoubtedly secure in the thought that Padica would have been sufficiently terrorized thereby and would thereafter keep his silence. 16302 which denied appellant's petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing said order. and that Francis Banaga. just for good measure. they uttered the threat on the latter's life simply as a reminder of what they had in store for him should he waver and ignore that injunctive warning. Moreover. in the case at bar and after a careful evaluation. It is true that the testimony of a particeps criminis is to be invariably viewed with much caution. straightforward and convincing manner thereby leaving no doubt in the mind of said court that he was telling the truth. Leopoldo. Laguna and the crime was perpetrated at noon of that day. As pointedly noted by the Solicitor General. the same would all the more be given little consideration. or who disdain prying into the affairs even of their close friends. 32 For it to prosper. coming as it does from a polluted source. that said house was owned by a sister of the brothers. it is considered as clearly negative in nature. the police report clearly and definitely bears out the fact that appellant was arrested by the investigating police officers on that night pursuant to the dragnet plan that was prepared for the purpose. namely. as correctly pointed out by the trial court in its decision. whose picture he positively identified in court. Both Norma Camello and Sgt. was a playmate and schoolmate of Eddie Boy Marajas. No. It is further contended by appellant that the trial court should not have granted the motion to discharge Romeo Padica from the information.R. Padica himself knew that Leopoldo Marajas was a skilled driver." There is no merit in all the foregoing submissions and pretensions of appellant. As testified to by the latter. Apart from that. as one of the conditions for its grant has not been met. that the prosecution has not shown that Padica did not appear to be the most guilty. These conclusions we confirm. it is not required that the court be 20 . 39 Furthermore. and the latter presumably had full confidence in him as he was at the time a professional driver of taxicabs. There is certainly nothing strange in the matter of the Marajas brothers requesting Padica to drive for them. 1978.
a ranking officer of the local constabulary. All the while and just before he was shot to death. Dr. he had desired all along to surrender as he had grown tired of constantly fearing for his life and of his difficult plight as a fugitive from justice. Thus. it was but natural that Padica would hide. or if his name cannot be discovered he must be described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown. "Also pointed out as a basis for not believing the testimony of Padica is the supposed conflict between his assertion that Leopoldo Marajas stabbed Banaga with a knife and the finding of Dr. failing which the complaint or information would be rendered invalid. aside from the gunshot wounds. 46 His subsequent meeting and surrender to Lt. 43 We nonetheless agree with and give due credit to the following explanation of the court below regarding these seeming conflicting aspects: "The defense counsel also capitalized on the supposed inconsistency between the allegation of Padica that Leon Marajas. The fact that he suffered two (2) entry gunshot wounds clearly indicates that Francis was shot. But. The rule is that the complaint or information should sufficiently allege the name of the accused. he had heard about the "kindhearted" Lt. Perez. Panganiban. A logical analysis of this point shows that there is no inconsistency." At that juncture. Padica testified that Leon Marajas. He had witnessed a heinous crime perpetrated on a defenseless fourteen-year old boy by his killers. Jr. it is entirely possible that the same were inflicted when the victim put up a furious struggle for his life against his assailants. the true name of the accused shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record. Jr. Name of the accused. Cesar Perez of the Lucena PC Regional Security Unit whom he met only for the first time at the Lucena City marketplace. Consequently. the trial court acquired jurisdiction over his person and it could have rendered a valid judgment of conviction based on the original information even without need of an amendatory information to 21 . after Leopoldo Marajas delivered stabbing blows on the victim which may not have inflicted knife wounds but contusions from the assailant's clenched fists. But. 7. yet the necropsy report of the medico-legal officer. Appellant likewise points to portions in the testimony of Padica which are allegedly not substantiated by the evidence on record. and the latter had threatened him with bodily harm should he reveal what they had done. as Padica candidly revealed. The defense implied that Banaga was not stabbed by Leopoldo Marajas as there is no finding that he sustained stab wounds. causing only lacerations thereon. Padica stated that he saw the accused Leopoldo Marajas stab the victim but he did not say that Banaga was hit by the stabbing blows delivered by the said accused. Panganiban that the victim. In the course of his stay there. The trial court's reliance thereon and its consequent finding on the basis thereof that Padica did not appear to be the most guilty must be respected as it was in better position to evaluate such evidence. Narvaes 47 laid down as early as 1934. Padica's testimony that the victim was dragged inside the plantation and instantly stabbed and shot to death is supposedly belied by the findings in the necropsy report that Francis Banaga's body had several hematomas and contusions. after nearly three years of hiding. we find no merit in this fatuous assertion. Perez at the marketplace was no strange coincidence as it is obviously a place where all kinds of people go to and cross paths. According to Padica. sustained only lacerated wounds and contusions. albeit under a different name. 3. supporting the version of Padica that the child was fired upon by Leon Marajas. as aforestated. Padica narrated that the victim desperately exerted all efforts to ward off the assault on his person. Jr. Appellant finally contends that the failure of the prosecution to charge him as an accused in the original information is a fatal defect. and we find his explanation satisfactory and credible. They continued to inflict physical harm on the boy while prodding him to proceed inside the sugarcane plantation until they reached a clearing where. to Lt." In the case at bar. In view thereof. Again." 44 As for the several hematomas and contusions that were discovered on the body of Francis Banaga. appellant should have raised the error as to his identity by filing a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person. The test of sufficiency is laid down in Section 7. showed no stab wounds but only lacerated wounds and two gunshot wounds. then fired away with the fatal shots. It could also be that one of the blows hit the boy but without piercing his body. appellant did not do so but instead voluntarily appeared at the arraignment and pleaded not guilty thereat. away from the possible clutches of the Marajas brothers. there is no dispute that appellant was arraigned under the original information and that he entered thereto a plea of not guilty under the name of "Leonardo Marajas. 45 Appellant also raises as an issue the questionable manner in which Padica surrendered. and keep unto himself the dark secret lest he suffer the same grim fate that befell Francis Banaga. the Marajas brothers forcefully pulled out Banaga from the car when they stopped by the roadside. which states: "Sec. Jr. appellant argues that while Padica claimed that the victim was stabbed by Leopoldo Marajas and then shot at four times by appellant. Leon Marajas. in line with the doctrine explained in People vs. Further. 42 In the case under consideration. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Eusebio P. If in the course of the proceeding the true name of the accused is disclosed by him. He was obviously always on the lookout for persons in authority whom he could trust during his stay of two to three months in Lucena City where he had in the meantime found work as a porter in the public market. shot Banaga four (4) times and the autopsy report stating that the victim sustained two (2) entry gunshot wounds. shot Francis Banaga four (4) times without stating that the victim was hit also four (4) times.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY absolutely certain that all the requirements for the proper discharge of a co-accused be present. the prosecution presented enough evidence to support its motion for the discharge of Padica. That it may have taken Padica over two years to finally give himself up to the authorities is understandable. — A complaint or information must state the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. or appears in some other manner to the court.
227 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. a decision was rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City. without leave of court. in Kalookan City. in line with current jurisprudential policy. conspiring together and mutually helping one another and with deliberate intent to deprive the parents of the child of her custody. which is the name appearing in the information. when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused. SO ORDERED. Contrary to Law. 121519. vs. Branch 123. being then the owners. What we stated in Narvaes is worth repeating: ". and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. not Primo Narvaes. Jr. unlawfully and feloniously fail to restore the custody of said Arabella Sombong to her parents by giving said custody of subject minor to another person without the knowledge and consent of her parents. ." The subsequent amendment to insert in the information Leon Marajas. 270 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. J. . and likewise to pay the costs. by her being emotionally drained coupled by the fact that up to this date she could not determine the whereabouts of her child Arabella Sombong.00 by way of moral damages caused by anxiety.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY correct appellant's name." At any rate. Plaintiff-Appellee. VICENTE TY and CARMEN TY. at any time before the accused pleads. inasmuch as he was then considered as Pedro Narvaes. in substance or form. and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form. Metro Manila. it must necessarily be understood that he renounced it and therefore he is now estopped from raising. IS THAT DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ART. the same question. whatever irregularity may have attended the inclusion of appellant's name as an accused in the amended information has been waived by his subsequent appearance and entry of plea at his arraignment under said amendatory information. deprive appellant of a fair opportunity to present his defense. WHEREFORE. . (w)hen the appellant was arraigned under the name of Pedro Narvaes.000. Accusedappellant is further ORDERED to pay the heirs of the late Francis Banaga the sum of P50. October 30. Accused-Appellants. or insisting to raise. this Court finds both accused Spouses Vicente Ty and 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 suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.00 as death indemnity. the amendment neither affected nor altered the nature of the offense charged since the basic theory of the prosecution was not changed nor did it introduce new and material facts. The accused are hereby ordered to pay the private complainant the sum of P100. the decretal portion of which disposes as follows: WHEREFORE. DECISION KAPUNAN. After trial. managers and administrators of Sir John Clinic and as such said accused had the custody of Arabella Somblong. Silverio. the pertinent portion of which provides that "(t)he information or complaint may be amended. by 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor of Kalookan City Rosauro J.000. No. It was on that occasion that he should have for the first time raised the question of his identity. proprietors. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. on May 31. the accusatory portion of which reads: That on or about the month of April 1989. 197 SCRA 569. did then and there willfully.R. AND CONVICTING THEM UNDER ART. . the above-named accused. 49 Such an amendment is explicitly allowed under the second paragraph of Section 7.: Vicente Ty AND Carmen Ty were charged with the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor in an information filed . a minor.'s real name involved merely a matter of form as it did not. [1 Both accused were arrested. AND SENTENCING THEM TO RECLUSION PERPETUA. IF ANY. viz: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANTS DELIBERATELY FAILED TO RESTORE THE CHILD TO HER MOTHER. not only in this appeal but even at the trial . he merely entered his plea of 'not guilty' under the said name. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT RECOMMENDING EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY PURSUANT TO PRECEDENT IN PEOPLE vs. and 22 KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR [ G. by filing a demurrer based on the court's lack of jurisdiction over his person. by leave and at the discretion of the court. [2 The accused now interposes this appeal alleging the ensuing assignment of errors. SO ORDERED. in any way. Not having filed the said demurrer. 1992 when they pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Jr. y Ramos of the crime of murder and IMPOSING upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. and then arraigned on October 27. in relation to Section 14. GUTIERREZ. 1995. the assailed judgment of the trial court is hereby SET ASIDE and another one is rendered CONVICTING accusedappellant Leon Marajas. 48 Moreover. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED. 1996 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
hospital bills started to mount and accumulate. 1987. a dentist at the clinic. Marietta Neri Alviar and Lilibeth Neri. Arabella was then again transferred from the nursery to the extension of the clinic which served as residence for the hospital staff. the latter not being identical with complainants daughter. Arabella was transferred from the ward to the nursery. The evidence adduced before the trial court does not warrant the conclusion that Arabella is the same person as Cristina. Kalookan City which was owned and operated by the accused-appellants. she saw her daughter again only in 1989 when she visited the clinic. Dr. About three (3) days later. for treatment to the Sir John Medical and Maternity Clinic located at No. personal attention and caring she badly needed as she was thin and sickly. Lilibeth Neri. two (2) years after Arabella was abandoned by complainant. the Office of the Solicitor General recommends their acquittal. Grace Park. Complainant likewise filed an administrative case for dishonorable conduct against accused-appellant Dr. As we have mentioned above. On January 15. 1993. Court of Appeals 9 affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. Arabella. Carmen Ty before the Board of Medicine of the Professional Regulation Commission. the instant criminal case was filed against accusedappellants. the testimonial and circumstantial proof establishes the individual and separate existence of petitioners child. complainant came back to claim the daughter she abandoned some five (5) years back. hence. together with Arabella. 7 Sometime in 1989. after the confinement of Arabella in the clinic in 1987. Said petition was however denied due course and was summarily dismissed without prejudice on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. On October 13. Fe Mallonga. Ty to notify the barangay captain of the childs abandonment. Complainant likewise confided to accused-appellant Dr. Trono. there were several babies left in the clinic and so she could not be certain whether it was Arabella or some their baby that was given to private respondents. Complainant agreed. This corroborates the testimony of petitioners own witness. Arabella was well and was ready to be discharged but complainant was not around to take her home.00. accused-appellants would want us to take a second look and resolve the issue of whether or not they are guilty of kidnapping and failure to return a minor. complainant filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. that Dr. however. Cristina Grace Neri. Cristina has not been shown to be petitioners daughter. suggested during a hospital staff conference that Arabella be entrusted to a guardian who could give the child the love and affection. a "yaya" was hired. 4 Thereafter.00 BY WAY OF MORAL DAMAGES. the trial court rendered a decision granting the petition and ordering the guardians to immediately deliver the person of Cristina Grace Neri to the complainant. Carmen Ty that no one would take care of the child at home as she was working. this time against the alleged guardians of her daughter.00 per day. complainant Johanna Sombong brought her sick daughter Arabella. 8 In 1992. [3 The relevant antecedents surrounding the case are as follows: On November 18. In its Manifestations and Motion in lieu of Appellees Brief. A week later. then only seven (7) months old. hence.00. the court having found Cristina to be the complainants child. this Court in Sombong v. We agree. 6 Eventually. among others. Consequently. testified in court that. complainant came back but did not have enough money to pay the hospital bill in the amount of P300. the hospital staff took turns in taking care of Arabella. Dr. this Court in Sombong v. 121 First Avenue. Her estranged husband came to the clinic once but did not get the child. Arabella. Cristina. Arabella. namely. Accused-appellants of course contend that they are not guilty and the Solicitor General agrees. Petitioners own evidence shows that. she decided to leave her child to the care of the clinic nursery. xxx In the instant case. Court of Appeals 10 affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial courts ruling that complainant has rightful custody over the child. by the evidence disclosed before the court a quo. thus complainant was advised to confine the child at the clinic for speedy recovery. Efforts to get in touch with the complainant were unsuccessful as she left no address or telephone number where she can be reached. Ty suggested to the complainant that she hire a "yaya" for P400.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING COMPLAINANT THE SUM OF P100. who is petitioners own witness. Thereafter. In this appeal. Mallonga gave the child to her aunt. She neither visited her child nor called to inquire about her whereabouts.00 instead of the daily nursery fee of P50. On appeal to the Court of Appeals. 1996. On January 31. 5 From then on. thusly: Petitioner does not have the right of custody over the minor Cristina because. Arabella was diagnosed to be suffering bronchitis and diarrhea. The Court discoursed. Ty. 23 . nothing was heard of the complainant. said decision was reversed on the ground that the guardians were not unlawfully withholding from the complainant the rightful custody of Cristina after finding that Cristina and complainants daughter are not one and the same person. the alleged detention having been perpetrated in Kalookan City. she filed a petition for habeas corpus against accused-appellants with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. 1992. This case was subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute. When her pleas allegedly went unanswered. It was at this time that accused-appellant Dr. She then inquired about the rate of the nursery and upon being told that the same was P50. from that of private respondents foster child.000. We note. Dra. This development prompted Dr. The suggestion was favorably considered.
Willful rather than merely intentional. The essential element herein is that the offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor but what is actually punishable is not the kidnapping of the minor. or determined upon as a result of careful thought and weighing of considerations. At this juncture. The conclusion or finding of undersigned ponente as a mother. the instant criminal case against the accusedappellants must fall. 12 The key word therefore of this element is deliberate and Blacks Law Dictionary defines deliberate as: Deliberate. Significantly. namely: (a) the offender has been entrusted with the custody of the minor. The petitioner appeared in the scheduled hearing of this case late. still. Throughout the proceedings. Cristina. Well advised.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY that Arabella was physically confined in the clinic from November. formed after careful consideration. herself a mother and the ponente of the herein assailed decision. must not only be deliberate but must also be persistent as to oblige the parents or the guardians of the child to seek the aid of the courts in order to obtain custody. leads to the conclusions that Cristina is not Arabella. reflect upon. in describing a crime. indicates a purpose formed in a mind capable of conceiving a purpose. 1993 primarily for the purpose of observing petitioners demeanor towards the minor Cristina. but rather the deliberate failure or refusal of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians. It has been defined as meaning carefully considered. given to weighing facts and arguments with a view to a choice or decision. 2d 880. without even casting a glance on said child. 13 Similarly. The foregoing notwithstanding. as a deliberate judgment or plan. reflect. People v. All this. with a view to a decision thereon. Before a conviction for kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code can be had. Justice Lourdes K. 25 Cal. 2d 7. that petitioner-appellee is not the mother of Cristina Neri has been given support by aforestated observation xxx. to reflect. It 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. dispassionate. the 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. slow in action. and has been defined as meaning to consider. 1987 to April. or weigh in the mind. 156 P. and she walked inside the courtroom looking for a seat without even stopping at her alleged daughters seat. 1988. maturely reflected. 18. two elements must concur. implies action after thought and reflection. we need not inquire into the validity of the mode by which private respondents acquired custodial rights over the minor. the word deliberate is defined in Corpus Juris Secundum as: DELIBERATE. unhurried. characterized by reflection. By the use of this word. As a Verb The word is derived from two Latin words which mean literally concerning and to weigh. not sudden or rash. consider maturely. adj. used adjectively. arrived at. She made the following personal but relevant manifestation: The undersigned ponente as a mother herself of four children. and (b) the offender deliberately fails to restore said minor to his parents or guardians. careful in considering the consequences of a step. and that the act is not suddenly committed. to consider and examine the reasons for and against. however. not rash. circumspect. entered upon after deliberation and with fixed purpose. and without even that tearful embrace which characterizes the reunion of a loving mother with her missing dear child. herself. when juxtaposed with the unwavering declaration of private respondents that they obtained custody of Cristina in April. with a view to a decision thereon. or to weigh the arguments for and against a proposed course of action. even if we were to consider Cristina Grace Neri and Arabella Sombong as one and the same person. 17. wanted to see how petitioner as an alleged mother of a missing child supposedly in the person of Cristina Neri would react on seeing again her long lost child. it cannot be said that private respondents are unlawfully withholding from petitioner the rightful custody over Cristina. Tayao-Jaguros. carefully considered. take counsel. and relates to the end proposed. 1989. As an Adjective The word. the nature of the crime. the idea is conveyed that the perpetrator weighs the motives for the act and its consequences. with a view to make a choice. 11 Said failure or refusal. set the case for hearing on August 30. a child not conclusively shown and established to be complainants daugther. xxx Since we hold that petitioner has not been established by evidence to be entitled to the custody of the minor Cristina on account of mistaken identity. Formed. as the title of the article seems to indicate. ponder. slow in determining. This testimony tallies with her assertion in her counter-affidavit to the effect that Arabella was in the custody of the hospital until April. especially according to a preconceived design. it implies the possession of a mind capable of conceiving a purpose to act. Arabella. 24 . 1989. xxx Under the facts and ruling in Sombong. there being no reason to hold them liable for failing to return one Cristina Grace Neri. or other things connected with his intentions. as well as the evidence adduced in this case accused-appellants must perforce be acquitted of the crime charged. and fully or carefully considering the nature or consequences of an act or measure. to weigh the motives for an act and its consequences. that he carefully considers all these. Carried on coolly and steadily. circumspect. Thomas. 1988 and had her baptized at the Good Samaritan Church on April 30. and is based upon an intention accompanied by such circumstances as evidence a mind fully conscious of its own purpose and design. and the exercise of such mental powers as are called into use by the consideration and weighing of the motives and the consequences of the act.
Q: What did you do with the child? A: I just tell (sic) the child. weighing facts and arguments with a view to a choice of decision. Q: What happened if any during that thirty-day period? A: I was able to talk to Fe Mallonga in Bahrain and she told me the exact address of the guardian. In the case at bar. Ty testified as follows: Q: Now. premeditated. what steps did you take up (sic) after you found the child? A: I explained to the guardian that the verbal agreement between the supposed to be guardianship was only a plain guardianship and not as an adoption. carefully considering the probable consequences of a step. obstinate. When the accusedappellant learned that complainant wanted her daughter back after five (5) long years of apparent wanton neglect. since you said a while ago that when you placed the child under the (sic) guardianship. mam. Ay and laki mo na pala. that is why I asked their help. WARD: Q: Then. madam witness? A: I was the one who went to the address to be sure that the child was really there. Q: But then madam witness. mam. slow in determining. it has been held synonymous with. the word deliberate as used in the article must imply something more than mere negligence. she did not appear. it has been compared with. [15 When the guardians refused to return the child. it is evident that there was no deliberate refusal or failure on the part of the accused-appellants to restore the custody of the complainants child to her. sir. why did you not return the minor to the natural mother? A: During that time mam. or equivalent to. Q: And what did you tell the guardian? A: I told the guardian that the rightful mother was claiming for the child and that we should talked (sic) with each other at the PAO for the decision. it must be premeditated. and willful. Q: Did the guardian bring the child to the PAOs Office (sic)? A: No mam. Q: Were (sic) you informed (of) the exact address of the guardian. Fe Mallonga who was already working abroad. sudden. accusedappellant Dr. mam. mam. she personally went to the guardians residence and informed them that herein complainant wanted her daughter back. Q: And did you see the child? A: Yes. Accused-appellant Dr. mam. This fact is evident from the following testimony. they tried their best to help herein complainant find the child as the latter was no longer under the clinics care. I just told the child like that and Ive (sic) talked also to the guardian during that time. she did not respond anymore. Q: Why? A: They told me first that they are (sic) going to contact a lawyer but for (sic) several days. Ty sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which conducted a conference among the parties but since a case was yet to be filed. you are (sic) aware that the natural mother will get back the child. I asked the PAO to give me one month to have (sic) a long distance call to this doctor and asked her for the whereabout(s) of the child. foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong. sir.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY not sudden or rash. the resident physician who will (sic) discharged the baby was not present because she was abroad. the custody of the minor remained with the guardians. or distinguished from. before the resident physician left for abroad so. thus: Q: You testified on cross-examination that you located the whereabouts of the child sometime later. premeditated. ATTY. what happened next. headstrong. intentional. mam. Under some circumstances. [16 xxx 25 . however. well-advised. Dr. Ty did not have the address of Arabellas guardians but as soon as she obtained it from Dr. did you informed (sic) the PAO? A: Yes. mam. are you aware where the child was and to whom it was given? A: The exact address was not given to me. Under other circumstances. Q: And where you granted the thirty-day period by the Officer of the PAO? A: Yes. and willful. premeditated. [14 Essentially. why did you go to the NBI? A: Because the guardian are (sic) not willing to surrender the child to the PAOs Office (sic). Q: You said you went to the NBI after you found the child. mam. mam.
Evidence is simply wanting in this regard.More than thirty (30) days chanrobles virtual law library 3. and (b) an Information for violation of paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code on Abandonment of one's victim reading as follows: That on or about the 14th day of March. when you informed the present custodian that the natural mother is now claiming the child. and due to the impact the driver and the passengers of a (sic) tricycle Suzuki. and without due regard to traffic laws. is that correct? A: Yes. sustained physical injuries which required medical attendance as stated opposite their respective names to wit: chanrobles virtual law library 1.premises considered. hit and bumped a tricycle SUZUki (sic) bearing Plate No. being then the driver and person in charge of an Owner Jeep Toyota bearing Plate No. NCC-313 UV Pil. two informations were filed against petitioner: (a) an Information for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code reading as follows: That on or about the 14th day of March. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused. NA-6575-MC '85 driven by Ernesto Reyes and as a consequence of which Paulino Gonzal and Ernesto Reyes sustained physical injuries and lost consciousness. Accordingly. reckless. in the Municipality of Pasig.. negligent and imprudent manner. mam.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Q: Now. why were you not able to get the minor? A: I was not able to get the minor so I asked the help of the NBI to have the child surrender (sic). accusedappellant VICENTE TY and CARMEN TY are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged and are ordered to be released immediately iunless they are being detained for other lawful causes. allegedly "hit and bumped" a tricycle then driven by Ernesto Reyes resulting in damage to the tricycle and injuries to Ernesto Reyes and Paulino Gonzal. Respondents. Costs de oficio. mam. vs. did then and there wilfully.R. why (did) the guardian did (sic) not follow you or obey you when you want (sic) to get back the child? A: I dont know of any reason. JR. thereby causing damage to the Suzuki tricycle in the amount of P7. 1 chanrobles virtual law library As a consequence thereof. 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. the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. rules and regulations and without taking the necessary care and precautions to avoid damage to property and injuries to persond (sic). without justifiable reason. unlawfully and feloniously abandoned (sic) them and failed (sic) to help or render assistance to them.00. Patricio Quitalig . At around 8:30 o'clock in the evening of 14 March 1985. an owner-type jeep. 64294 and assigned to Branch 68 thereof. ATTY. 17 The efforts taken by the accused-appellants to help the complainant 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 mother. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. LAMERA. as a result of which said motor vehicle being then driven and operated by him. driven by Ernesto Reyes y Esguerra and owned by Ernesto Antonel. 93475 June 5.Less than nine (9) days chanrobles virtual law library and incapacitated them from performing their customary labor for the same period of time. then driven by petitioner. manage and opefate (sic) said Owner Jeep in a careless. NA-6575 MC Pilipinas '85. Petitioner. Q: You stated a while ago that there was no written agreement between you or your hospital and the guardian of the minor. Paulino Gonzal .More than thirty (30) days chanrobles virtual law library 2.845. Philippines. mam. 1985. No. then and there willfully. 26 ABANDONMENT OF ONE’S VICTIM G. in the Municipality of Pasig. which was filed on 10 September 1985 with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. SO ORDERED. NCC-313 UV Pilipinas '85. DAVIDE. Metro Manila. Pasig. WHEREFORE. J. Metro Manila. '85 which hit and bumped a motorized tricycle with Plate No. Metro Manila. mam. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused. Q: For what reason if you know. It is worthy to note that accused-appellants conduct from the moment the child was left in the clinics care up to the time the child was given 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. along Urbano Street. 1991 ANTONIO A. Ernesto Reyes .: . did. unlawfully and feloniously drive. Metro Manila and docketed therein as Criminal Case No. being the driver of an owner-type jeep with Plate No. 1985.
Capital Insurance & Surety Co. 5 Pertinently. The provision punishes the failure to help or render assistance to another whom the offender accidentally wounded or injured. JUDGE ERRED IN DECLARING THAT. There is no need to prove that petitioner was negligent and that it was his negligence that caused the injury.-G.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY which was filed on 14 November 1985 with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig (Branch 71) and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2 chanrobles virtual law library Petitioner's appeal. He entered a plea of not guilty. 4 chanrobles virtual law library The Court of Appeals found no merit in the petition and dismissed it in its Decision promulgated on 9 November 1989. petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals on 31 August 1989 a petition for its review. assigning therein the following alleged errors: I chanrobles virtual law library THE RESPONDENT HON. APPREHENSIVE MAY BE OVER THE ENORMITY OF HIS MISDEMEANOR AND THUS DECIDED (SIC) TO WITHHOLD ASSISTANCE TO HIS FALLEN VICTIMS. Petitioner misses the import of the provision. it is enough to show that petitioner accidentally injured the passengers of the tricycle and failed to help or render them assistance. 27 . METRO MANILA. 64294 before Branch 68 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. JUDGE ERRED IN NOT DECLARING NULL AND VOID ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF PASIG AND ALL THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT. the tricycle driver. It is our view that the charge under Article 275 presupposes that there is no other charge for reckless imprudence. "AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESSES. ." III chanrobles virtual law library THE RESPONDENT HON. 17 SCRA 559). 7 citing De La Cruz v. 2 of Art. HE (SIC) OPTED. IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISMISS THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF SAID COURT GIVING CREDENCE TO PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES" FOR NOT BEING (SIC) SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND CLEARLY THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE. We submit that there could not be a valid charge under Article 275. We find it hard to visualize that the accused may be penalized twice for an "accident" and another for "recklessness". 70648. 275 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to him since the evidence allegedly shows that it was Ernesto Reyes. 275 not under Art. JUDGED (SIC) ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF PASIG. it ruled: We cannot sustain the contention of the petitioner that par. The modification consisted merely in the reduction of the penalty of imprisonment from six (6) to two (2) months. The court affirmed with modification the decision appealed from. Criminal Case No.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Petitioner appealed from said Decision to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig.A. JUDGE ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF PASIG." II chanrobles virtual law library THE RESPONDENT HON.. there is already a pending charge for reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. was decided on 31 July 1989. Metro Manila which docketed the appeal as Criminal Case No. 07351. JUDGED (SIC) ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF PASIG.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library On 29 June 1987 the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig rendered its decision in Criminal Case No. 70648. METRO MANILA. CR No. PERHAPS INSTINCTIVELY TO HIDE IDENTITY. The last paragraph of Art. 1972 ed. unusual and unforeseen (Moreno. 365 provides that "the penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured party such help as may be in his bands to give. 275. V chanrobles virtual law library THE RESPONDENT HON. His motion to reconsider the above decision wherein he strongly urged for reconsideration because: . as in the case at bar." Petitioner was charged under par. Law Dictionary. 2793. FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ABANDONMENT UNDER ART. IV chanrobles virtual law library THE RESPONDENT HON. 2793 finding the petitioner guilty of the crime of Abandonment of one's victim as defined and penalized under paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of six (6) months of arresto mayor and to pay the costs. 3 chanrobles virtual law library Still unsatisfied with the new verdict. Accidental means that which happens by chance or fortuitously. 2 of Art. METRO MANILA. PAR. If the factor of criminal negligence is involved. who negligently caused the accident. Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code will come into play. 365 of the Revised Penal Code. petitioner was arraigned in Criminal Case No. without intention and design and which is unexpected. Phil. THAT THE PETITIONER. OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF TWO (2) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY OF ARRESTO MAYOR AND TO PAY THE COSTS. THAT "THE TRICYCLE DRIVEN BY ERNESTO REYES WAS BUMPED BY THE JEEP DRIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In the meantime. Consequently.R.. p. on 27 April 1989. docketed as C. 2. when. "LOSING PRESENCE OF MIND AS THE BLOODY SCENARIO WOULD INDUCE IN THE AVERAGE MOTORIST. both of which arose from the same act. .
and convicted in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig in Criminal Case No.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The two informations filed against petitioner are clearly for separate offenses. 64294 before the Regional Trial Court. . A simple act may be an offense against two different provisions of law and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY having been denied in the Resolution of 17 May 1990. falls under Chapter Two (Crimes Against Security) of Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security) of Book Two of the same Code. and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact or element which the other does not. Since the informations were for separate offenses . 12We held: It is a cardinal rule that the protection against double jeopardy may be invoked only for the same offense or identical offenses. . 7 chanrobles virtual law library Before Us he raises this sole issue: Could there be a valid charge for alleged abandonment under Article 275. He. 2 of the Revised Penal Code which provides as basis for prosecution. 275). In any case. falls under the sole chapter (Criminal Negligence) of Title Fourteen (Quasi Offenses) of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. . 2793. par. Anyone who shall fail to help another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured" when. He forgot to raise squarely that issue in the three courts below. while his arraignment in the latter took place only on 27 April 1989.the first against a person and the second against public peace and order one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under the rule on double jeopardy. The second. Hence. 2793. for abandonment . he was previously charged with "reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries" under Article 265 (sic) of the Revised Penal Code? 8 chanrobles virtual law library He maintains the negative view and supports it with the argument that "[f]or the same act. 6 petitioner filed the instant petition. When he was arraigned. As stated above. (c) after arraignment. We ruled: The protection against double jeopardy is only for the same offense. Accused pleaded guilty and was convicted in the first and he sought to dismiss the second on the ground of double jeopardy. tried. invoked. thus: . an acquittal or conviction under one does not bar prosecution under the other. A simple act may offend against two (or more) entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law. "2. The reason seems obvious. supra. however.. 64294. he could no longer be charged under Article 275. (b) before a competent court. 2. where two different laws (or articles of the same code) defines two crimes. The first. in effect. from the act of firing a shot from a sub-machine gun which caused public panic among the people present and physical injuries to one. Petitioner submitted his on 22 April 1991 10while the People moved that its Comment be considered as its memorandum. In People vs. supra. the vehicular collision. Bocar. . through the Office of the Solicitor General.." As expanded by him: . for there is a world of difference between "reckless imprudence" and "accidentally'. prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other. he was not yet arraigned in Criminal Case No. answers it in the negative because said Articles penalize different and distinct offenses. Criminal Case No. apply pursuant to existing jurisprudence. informations for physical injuries through reckless imprudence and for serious public disturbance were filed. 2. .chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In its Comment filed on 10 September 1990. the judgment of conviction in the former was rendered on 29 June 1987. We ruled: Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment. Art. failed to directly and categorically state it in his petition or deliberately obscured it behind a suggestion of possible resultant absurdity of the two informations. . Among the conditions for double jeopardy to attach is that the accused must have been arraigned in the previous case. whether or not prosecution for negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a bar to prosecution for abandonment under Article 275 of the same Code. (d) a valid plea having been entered. Moreover. for Abandonment of one's victim (par. an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under one does not bar prosecution under the other. . Metro Manila .chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In Our resolution of 13 March 1991 We gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We agree with the Solicitor General that the petitioner is actually invoking his right against double jeopardy. Phrased elsewhere. which offense carries heavier penalties under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. since petitioner is facing a criminal charge for reckless imprudence pending before Branch 68 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. 13 chanrobles virtual law library In People vs. therefore.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 28 . that is. Criminal Case No. although both offenses arise from the same facts. the petition should be dismissed for lack of merit. for having allegedly failed "to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured". Bacolod. par. 11In People vs. putting the issue squarely. Doriquez. respondent People of the Philippines. and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. for reckless imprudence (Article 365). to do so would have been a futile exercise. one could not be indicted in two separate informations at the same time based on "accident" and "recklessness'. if each crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other. The rule on double jeopardy. which petitioner has. does not. 9 chanrobles virtual law library In Our resolution of 1 August 1990 We required respondents to comment on the petition. he is charged for two separate offenses under the Revised Penal Code. .
The last paragraph of the Article specifically provides: The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in hand to give. was a former civilian employee of the Navy Exchange. et al. and sentencing him. The colonel thereupon escorted Hallare. not all the technical elements constituting the first offense need be present in the technical definition of the second offense. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. He told Hallare to take a good look at the demonstrators and at the placards they were carrying. Capt. that they did not intend to use violence. They assured him. Such being the case. and another person in going out of the station. Once outside. using his (Monzon's) car for the purpose. Undoubtedly then. L-21528 and L-21529 March 28. it must be specifically alleged in the information. The information against petitioner in this case does not so allege. whose services were terminated on May 6. Rosauro Reyes. The identity of offenses that must be shown need not be absolute identity: the first and second offenses may be regarded as the "same offense" where the second offense necessarily includes the first offense or is necessarily included in such first offense or where the second offense is an attempt to commit the first or a registration thereof. but they told him that they would like the people in the station to know how they felt about Hallare and Nolan. 14 chanrobles virtual law library Moreover. "Agustin.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Quasi offenses under Article 365 are committed by means of culpa." chanrobles virtual law library At that time Agustin Hallare was in his office inside the naval station. failure to help or render assistance to another whom one has accidentally wounded or injured is an offense under paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the same code which reads: The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon: xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library 2. so he sought Col. MAKALINTAL. for lack of merit. convicting Rosauro Reyes of the crimes of grave threats and grave oral defamation.: chanrobles virtual law library This case is before us on appeal by certiorari. 29 GRAVE THREATS G. When he learned about the demonstration he became apprehensive about his safety." "Agustin alla bos con Nolan. as "they just wanted to blow off steam. Col. however. McAllister requested Col. to an indeterminate penalty of from four (4) months of arresto mayor to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prison correccional and to pay Agustin Hallare the sum of P800 as moral damages. J.. Col. Nos. and in the second case (Criminal Case No. Sangley Point. 2594). McAllister." "Frank do not be a common funk. his brother. for the constitutional plea of double jeopardy to be available. Respondent. Thus. who as Philippine Military Liaison Officer at Sangley Point was in charge of preserving harmonious relations between personnel of the naval station and the civilian population of Cavite City. no constitutional. mamamatay ka rin".chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Upon the other hand. the Petition is DENIED without pronouncements as to costs. Crimes against Security are committed by means of dolo. from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that a the municipal court of Cavite City. failure to lend help to one's victim is neither an offense by itself nor an element of the offense therein penalized. 1969 ROSAURO REYES. with costs in both cases. to four (4) months and ten (10) days of arresto mayor and to pay a fine of P300. Nolan for you. In the afternoon of June 6. 1961. "Agustin. in Article 365. called up Col. The foregoing distinctions satisfy the guidelines We made in People vs. Monzon suggested to them to demonstrate in front of Hallare's residence. 15wherein We held: It is perhaps important to note that the rule limiting the constitutional protection against double jeopardy to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense is not to be understood with absolute literalness. Capt." "To. Monzon went to the place and talked to Rosauro Reyes and one Luis Buenaventura upon learning that the demonstration was not directed against the naval station but against Agustin Hallare and a certain Frank Nolan for their having allegedly caused the dismissal of Rosauro Reyes from the Navy Exchange. Patricia Monzon. Monzon to join him at the main gate of the base to meet the demonstrators. vs. The base commander. el dia di quida rin bo chiquiting. 1961. When the demonstrators saw . in the first case (Criminal Case No.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The petitioner herein. dillega. Col. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured. The law here seeks to prevent harassment of an accused person by multiple prosecutions for offenses which though different from one another are nonetheless each constituted by a common set or overlapping sets of technical elements. Monzon purpose slowed down to accommodate the request of Reyes." "Agustin. with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Its presence merely increases the penalty by one degree. mamatay ka. Monzon's protection.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE." and others. They carried placards bearing statements such as. he led a group of about 20 to 30 persons in a demonstration staged in front of the main gate of the United States Naval Station at Sangley Point.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library SO ORDERED." "Agustin. Cavite City. 2595). Petitioner. alla boss con Nolan. Relova. statutory or procedural obstacle barred the filing of the two informations against petitioner.
Municipal Court of Cavite City). to wit: "AGUSIN. after being duly sworn to an oath in accordance with law. one Agustin Hallare. Agustin lumabas ka. committed as follows: chanrobles virtual law library That on or about June 6. frightened by the demeanor of Reyes and the other demonstrators. July 25. Rule 110. in the City of Cavite. the accused brought this appeal by certiorari. The defense counsel objected to the motion on the ground that the accused had already been arraigned on the original information and that the amendment "would affect materially the interest of the accused. in the City of Cavite. (SGD. and with his right hand inside his pocket and his left holding the gate-door. 2594 for grave threats by deleting therefrom the word "orally". 25th day of July. respectively (Criminal Cases Nos. the amendment was allowed and the joint trial proceeded.) BUEN N.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred: (1) in affirming the proceedings in the lower court allowing the substantial amendment of the information for grave threats after petitioner had been arraigned on the original information. as defined by Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized by paragraph 2 of the same Article. Philippines. which if translated into English are as follows: "Agustin. July 24. willfully. committed as follows: chanrobles virtual law library That on or about June 6. 1961." Thereafter. the above named accused..) AGUSTIN HALLARE Complainant chanrobles virtual law library Subscribed and sworn to before me this. (3) in convicting petitioner of both offenses when he could legally be convicted of only one offense. did then and there. Your mother is a whore. After Hallare and his companions had alighted in front of his residence at 967 Burgos St. SOLIS Contrary to law. 1961.) BUEN Special Counsel N. accuses Rosauro Reyes of the crime of Grave Oral Defamation. Cavite City. (4) in convicting petitioner of grave threats when the evidence adduced and considered by the court tend to establish the offense of light threats only. The undersigned City Fiscal of the City of Cavite accuses Rosauro Reyes of the crime of Grave Threats. One jeep overtook passed the car while the other to led behind. Amendments that touch upon matters of substance cannot be permitted after the plea is entered. GUTIERREZ 30 Upon arraignment. stayed inside the house. mawawala ka. Cavite City. the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges and the cases were set for joint trial. Cavite City. Contrary to law. as defined and penalized by Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. Meanwhile. "Agustin. he shouted repeatedly.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The three jeeps carrying the demonstrators parked in front of Hallare's residence after having gone by it twice Rosauro Reyes got off his jeep and posted himself at the gate. DEOGRACIAS City Fiscal S. orally threaten to kill. he boarded his jeep and the motorcade left the premises. Agustin. did then and there. GUTIERREZ Special Counsel chanrobles virtual law library The undersigned complainant. Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. in the City of Cavite. PUTANG INA MO". Col. unlawfully and feloniously. Hallare. 1961 with grave threats and grave oral defamation. which returned a verdict of affirmance. the above named accused. without any justifiable motive but with the intention to cause dishonor." Nevertheless. willfully. and (5) in convicting petitioner of grave oral defamation when the evidence tend to establish that of simple slander only. as follows. putang ina mo. (2) in proceeding with the trial of the case of grave threats without first requiring petitioner to enter his plea on the amended information. 2594 and 2595." .chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library After a careful consideration of the original information. in the presence of and within hearing of several persons. thereby putting him in jeopardy of being penalized twice for the same offense. the rule is that after the accused has pleaded the information may be amended as to all matters of form by leave and at the discretion of the court when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant (Section 13. (SGD. 1961. 1961. "Mabuhay si Agustin. Monzon sped away. New Rules of Court). 1961.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library On the first error assigned. unlawfully and feloniously utter to the undersigned complainant the following insulting and serious defamatory remarks. A motion for reconsideration having been denied.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Hallare they shouted. we find that all the elements of the crime of grave threats as defined in Article 282 1 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized by its paragraph 2 were alleged therein namely: (1) that the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon his person of BY: (SGD. On the day of the hearing the prosecution moved to amend the information in Criminal Case No. discredit and contempt to the undersigned complainant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library From the judgment of conviction the accused appeal to the Court of Appeals.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library On the basis of the foregoing events Rosauro Reyes was charged on July 24 and 25. papatayin kita." Then they boarded their jeeps and followed the car.
2594. no second plea was necessary at all.: For review on certiorari are the Decision1 dated December 9. In our view the deletion of the word "orally" was effected in order to make the information conformable to the evidence to be presented during the trial. It cannot be denied that the threats were made deliberately and not merely in a temporary fit of anger. L-14348. Castro and Capistrano. J. taken in its literal sense by the hearer. Branch 198. 2595 of the Court a quo (for oral defamation) is concerned.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The third and fourth issues are related and will be discussed together. Reyes. it should be viewed as part of the threats voiced by appellant against Agustin Hallare. as a reflection on the virtues of a mother. and (3) that the threat was not subject to a condition. 1960. Sept. It is seldom. Contrary to his claim. putang ina mo".chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE. therefore. the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and petitioner is acquitted. for grave threats. We. The appellate court had affirmed the Decision3 dated August 3.R. petitioner could have been convicted thereunder.R. hold that the appellate court was correct in upholding petitioner's conviction for the offense of grave threats. concur. evidently to make the same more emphatic. after the study of the whole letter. which provides for a different penalty.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Concepcion. the libelous remarks express the beat of passion which engulfs the writer of the letter. vs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Petitioner next contends that even assuming that the amendment was properly allowed. Sanchez. their persistence in trailing Hallare in a motorcade up to his residence.J. 2009 Petitioner. Under the circumstances the Court believes. Considering. that the offense committed therein is clearly and principally that of threats and that the statements therein derogatory to the person named do not constitute an independent crime of libel. Respondent. Petitioner avers that the appellate court erred in affirming the decision of the trial court erred in affirming him of grave threats and of grave oral defamation when he could legally be convicted of only one offense. CR No. The foregoing ruling applies with equal force to the facts of the present case. G. with costs against petitioner. Fernando. in Criminal Cases Nos. this Court said: The letter containing the allegedly libelous remarks is more threatening than libelous and the intent to threaten is the principal aim and object to the letter. G. if ever. are merely preparatory remarks culminating in the final threat. In other words. This is a common enough expression in the dialect that is often employed.. the fact that placards with threatening statements were carried by the demonstrators." 2 Indeed. This is the more important and serious offense committed by the accused. No. 28707 and its Resolution2 dated February 15. petitioner was not exposed after the amendment to the danger of conviction under paragraph 1 of Article 282. 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City. since there was no allegation in the amended information that the threat was made subject to a condition. which affirmed the Joint Decision4 dated January 28. In the case of Yebra.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY a wrong. JJ.. It is to be noted that under the aforementioned provision the particular manner in which the threat is made not a qualifying ingredient of the offense.R. 2004 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Las Piñas City. and affirmed with respect to Criminal Case No. Santos. motivated as they were by the dismissal of petitioner one month before the incident. Hence. that is. It was merely a formal amendment which in no way prejudiced petitioner's rights. and the demonstration conducted in front thereof. Zaldivar. Dizon. JJ. C. for which the writer maybe prosecuted separately from the threats and which should be considered as part of the more important offense of threats.. wherein he stayed while the demonstration was going on. the trial court committed a reversible error in proceeding with the trial on the merits without first requiring him to enter his plea to the amended information. 171511 March 4.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The demonstration led by petitioner Agustin Hallare in front of the main gate of the naval station. which heat of passion in the latter part of the letter culminates into a threat. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. insofar as Criminal Case No. if so they be considered. The libelous remarks contained in the letter. with costs de oficio. Monzon. The factual antecedents of this case are as follows: . No. Neither did it change the basic theory of the prosecution that the accused threatened to kill Rosauro Reyes so as to require the petitioner to undergo any material change or modification in his defense. in Criminal Case No. 30. and in convicting him of grave threats at all when the evidence adduced and considered by the court indicates the commission of light threats only. DECISION QUISUMBING. culminating in repeated threats flung by petitioner in a loud voice. "Agustin. took no part. 47358 and 47381 finding petitioner Ronnie Caluag and Jesus Sentillas guilty of slight physical injuries and Ronnie Caluag guilty of grave threats. Branch 79. denying reconsideration. that the amendment was not substantial. Hallare became so apprehensive of his safety that he sought the protection of Col.L. J. 31 RONNIE CALUAG. however.B. Teehankee and Barredo. who had to escort him home. (2) that such wrong amounted to a crime. 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. In the instant case. give rise to only one conclusion: that the threats were made "with the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the person threatened the belief that the threat would be carried into effect. made with the concurrence of the Solicitor General. 04-0183-84. 2006. not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure.. such that the deletion of the word "orally" did not affect the nature and essence of the crime as charged originally.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the utterance of the words.
as he instructed her.00. Nestor pursued him and punched him again. respectively.6 The Information in Criminal Case No. Caluag butted in and replied. an unidentified man from the crowd armed with a knife went towards Nestor but Sentillas timely interceded and pacified the man. Their version of the facts are as follows: In the afternoon of March 19. The MeTC relied on Nestor’s testimony. The decretal portion of the joint decision reads: WHEREFORE. Nestor ran to his house. As he retaliated. all the foregoing premises considered. Thereafter. With such straightforward and seemingly natural course of events. 2000 at around 6 o’clock in the evening. Nestor then shouted. "Pare. drunk and unruly. is ordered dismissed being merely a duplication of Criminal Case No. "Putang ina mo. she encountered Caluag. who blocked her way at the alley near her house. were filed against Caluag and Sentillas. Julia saw Caluag and Sentillas box her husband. Caluag and Sentillas pleaded not guilty. unlawfully and feloniously attack. Nestor told his wife to report the boxing incident to the barangay authorities. in the City of Las Piñas. Criminal Case No. Caluag and Sentillas were drinking at the store owned by the son of Sentillas. While she had intended to report the mauling of her husband. the Court finds and declares accused RONNIE CALUAG AND JESUS S[E]NTILLAS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Slight Physical Injuries under Criminal Case No. two separate Informations5 docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. poked it at her forehead. It noted that Nestor did not deny that he was drunk at the time of the incident while Caluag admitted that he got annoyed by Nestor’s attitude. 32 . she was still able to proceed to the barangay hall where she reported the gun-poking incident to the barangay authorities. 47358. The MeTC concluded that Caluag and Sentillas lost control of their tempers due to Nestor’s unruly behavior. to wit: "Saan ka pupunta gusto mo ito?" thereby causing said complainant to be threatened. and Caluag guilty of grave threats. when Julia and her son Rotsen were on their way to their barangay hall. 47358 charged Caluag with grave threats committed as follows: That on or about the 19th day of March 2000. The two (2) accused are also censured to be more complaisant and well-bred in dealing with people. by then and there mauling him. conspiring and confederating together. blocked his way and asked him. assault. 47381 charged Caluag and Sentillas with slight physical injuries committed as follows: That on or about the 19th day of March. the MeTC noted that Julia did not waste time reporting the gunpoking incident to the barangay. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. the MeTC was convinced that the negative assertions of Caluag and Sentillas cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of Nestor and Julia. the defense presented the accused Caluag and Sentillas. and sentences him to suffer two (2) months imprisonment [and to] pay [a] fine of P200.00 each. what she reported instead was what happened to her. As people around pacified them. Pare! Gago ka! Gago ka! Marami ka ng taong niloko!" Thereafter. According to them. Annoyed." and immediately boxed him without warning. moved by personal resentment which he entertained against one JULIA LAVIAL DENIDO. 2000.7 Upon arraignment.m. Sentillas never boxed Nestor. by then and there poking his gun at her forehead and uttering the following words in tagalog. 2000. Caluag confronted Julia with a gun. On the other hand. 47381 and 47358. as witnesses. par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code. the spouses Nestor and Julia Denido. Caluag first assured himself of the safety of his son and then punched Nestor back. Nestor retaliated but he was overpowered by Caluag and Sentillas. 47358. Julia followed him. did then and there willfully. Jr. and sentences them to pay [a] fine of P200. in the afternoon of March 19. and employ personal violence upon the person of NESTOR PURCEL DENIDO. At that time. unlawfully and feloniously threaten said JULIA LAVIAL DENIDO with the infliction on her person of a harm amounting to a crime. At around 6:00 p. 2004.11 For its part. Caluag also denied poking a gun at Julia. the above-named accused. and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another did then and there willfully. joint trial ensued. in the City of Las Piñas. CONTRARY TO LAW. as earlier explained. The prosecution presented the two private complainants. at around 7:30 in the evening. the above-named accused. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY On May 18 and 23. and the barbecue vendor Pablo Barrameda. Nestor learned that two of his guests from an earlier drinking spree were mauled. gusto mo ito?"10 Despite this fearful encounter. Although she tried to pacify them. 47382. galit ka ba sa akin?" He answered in the negative but Nestor persisted in his questioning and would not allow him to pass through. CONTRARY TO LAW. The Court also finds accused RONNIE CALUAG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Grave Threats under Article 282. they did not listen to her. he was led to the store owned by the son of Sentillas. To avoid his assailants. thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which required medical attendance for less than nine (9) days and incapacitated him from performing his customary labor for the same period of time. Caluag was on his way home with his three-year old son when Nestor. as witnesses. "Bakit kasama ka ba roon?. When Nestor inquired from several people including his own son Raymond what happened. some bystanders separated them. 2000. 47381. he told Nestor. The Information in Criminal Case No.12 In a Joint Decision dated January 28. under Criminal Case No. and said "Saan ka pupunta. the MeTC found Caluag and Sentillas guilty of slight physical injuries. "Hindi nga! Ang kulit kulit mo!" Nestor then boxed him on his face which caused him to fall down.. around 4 o’clock8 in the afternoon.9 Later.
14 Simply. petitioner appealed to this Court on the ground that the Court of Appeals: I. they chose to believe his testimony rather than petitioner’s. It is not the function of this Court to weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals for these are deemed final and conclusive and may no longer be reviewed on appeal.18 A departure from the general rule.17 Moreover. ABSURD OR IMPOSSIBLE AND WHICH ARE GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATIONS. … MANIFESTLY OVERLOOKED CERTAIN RELEVANT FACTS NOT DISPUTED BY THE PARTIES AND WHICH. The fact that Barrameda testified in petitioner’s behalf cannot be given 33 . the findings of the MeTC. however. we still find no reversible error in the appellate court’s ruling. At the outset. the crime committed was other light threats as defined under Article 285. Petitioner maintains that just because Julia immediately reported the gun-poking incident to the barangay. the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the MeTC did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of Nestor and Julia. It is not the Court’s function under Rule 45 to review. On appeal. As the lower courts and the Court of Appeals correctly stated. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. their straightforward manner of testifying. 2005. as in this case. There could be no doubt that Caluag and Sentillas lost control of their temper as Caluag himself admitted that he got annoyed by Nestor’s unruly behavior. this did not necessarily mean that it actually happened. III.16 The well-entrenched rule is that only errors of law and not of fact are reviewable by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 under which this petition is filed. it must be stressed that petitioner raises questions of fact. the testimonies of Nestor and Julia were more in accord with the natural course of things. may be warranted where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court. Nevertheless.19 Even if the Court relaxes the abovecited general rule and resolves the petition on the merits. an independent and impartial witness. the positive declarations of Nestor and Julia that petitioner committed the acts complained of undermined his negative assertions. or when the same is unsupported by the evidence on record. the gun-poking incident also happened since Julia did not waste time in reporting it to the barangay authorities. The appellate court noted that the MeTC gave credence to the testimonies of Nestor and Julia because they were in accord with the natural course of things. examine and evaluate or weigh once again the probative value of the evidence presented. given the unruly behavior of Nestor. both testimonial and documentary. when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner adds that there is no basis for the lower courts to conclude that he lost his temper because of Nestor’s unruly behavior. and the seemingly natural course of events. Likewise. The MeTC found that the positive assertions of Nestor and Julia. Certainly. who supported his version of events and debunked those of Nestor and Julia. Petitioner also argues that assuming that he did poke a gun at Julia. Instead of reporting the mauling of her husband. Barrameda’s testimony is actually a positive statement that should have been given full credit.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY SO ORDERED.15 For the respondent. their relation to each other and to the whole. petitioner’s negative assertions cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of Nestor and Julia. The OSG also agrees with the MeTC that petitioner lost his temper. and the probabilities of the situation. Petitioner also argues that although the lower courts acknowledged that Nestor was drunk and troublesome at the time of the incident. the RTC and the Court of Appeals completely coincide. are binding upon this Court. … ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. findings of fact of the trial court. excitement and confusion. This Court will not assess and evaluate all over again the evidence. The appellate court disregarded the purported inconsistencies in the testimonies of Nestor and Julia since these refer to collateral matters and not to the essential details of the incident. The MeTC also noted that Julia did not waste time reporting the gun-poking incident to the barangay authorities immediately after it happened. Indeed. adduced by the parties to the appeal particularly where. the issue is: Was there sufficient evidence to sustain petitioner’s conviction of slight physical injuries and of grave threats? Petitioner contends that he was able to present Barrameda.1avvphi1 Dissatisfied. SURMISES OR CONJECTURES OR ARE BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS. … ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE [MeTC] WHICH MADE INFERENCES OR CONCLUSIONS IN ITS JOINT DECISION THAT ARE MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN. we find that there is no ground to apply the exception in the instant case because the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals are in full accord with those of the MeTC and the RTC. such matters mainly require a calibration of the evidence or a determination of the credibility of the witnesses presented by the parties and the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances. she reported what happened to her in her hurry.13 Caluag and Sentillas appealed to the RTC which affirmed in toto the joint decision of the MeTC. constituted the more plausible and credible version. the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC on December 9. IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED WOULD JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. We find the petition with insufficient merit and accordingly sustain petitioner’s conviction. Likewise. Contrary to the findings of the lower courts that petitioner offered mere denials. II.
now the Intermediate Appellate Court. unless it be in lawful self-defense.£îhqwâ£ . "shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel". the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime and there is no condition. if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition. if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition. without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article. In light threats. 283. WHEREFORE. 1983 JOSE "PEPITO" TIMONER. Costs against petitioner. These provisions state: Art. — Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person. petitioner confronted her and pointed a gun to her forehead. petitioner’s act of pointing a gun at Julia’s forehead clearly enounces a threat to kill or to inflict serious physical injury on her person. 2. IV DIVISION. Any person who. ESCOLIN. petitioner. Art. 28707 are AFFIRMED. 34 GRAVE COERCION G. in the heat of anger. provided that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the provisions of Article 282 of this Code. and who by subsequent acts show that he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat. since it presupposes that the threat to commit a wrong will not constitute a crime. Actions speak louder than words. and light and other light threats on the other. made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article. the uttered words do not go against the threat to kill or to inflict serious injury evinced by petitioner’s accompanying act. Other light threats. entitled People of the Philippines vs. the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. Indeed. Grave threats. honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime. — The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos. in Criminal Case No. 3. Camarines Norte. On her way there. L-62050 November 25. hence their testimonies deserve full faith and credit. 4281. The records show that at around 7:30 in the evening. 2 (grave threats) since: (1) killing or shooting someone amounts to a crime. SO ORDERED.£ªwph!1 Petition for review of the affirmance in toto by the Court of Appeals. of the judgment of conviction handed down by the then Municipal Court of Daet. shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel. Given the surrounding circumstances.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY more weight than the straightforward and credible statements of Nestor and Julia. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to commit. That the threat to commit a wrong will constitute or not constitute a crime is the distinguishing factor between grave threats on one hand. J. 2 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer two months of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P200. Article 285. Under the Revised Penal Code. In grave threats. and (2) the threat to kill was not subject to a condition. No. Julia Denido left her house to go to the barangay hall to report the mauling of her husband which she witnessed earlier at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon. as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Jose Timoner. the offense committed falls under Article 282. light threats (Article 283) and other light threats (Article 285). the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a condition. gusto mo ito?"20 Considering what transpired earlier between petitioner and Julia’s husband. Taken in the context of the surrounding circumstances.R. par. Light threats. the RTC and the Court of Appeals uniformly found petitioner guilty of grave threats under Article 282. shall be punished by arresto mayor. 1 (other light threats) is inapplicable although it specifically states. The Decision dated December 9. — Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime. par. In other light threats. the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed. finding petitioner guilty of the crime of grave coercion. Any person who.R. there are three kinds of threats: grave threats (Article 282). par. 2005 and the Resolution dated February 15. the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a condition. while at the same time saying "Saan ka pupunta. and said offender shall have attained his purpose. The MeTC. even though not unlawful. shall suffer: 1. we find they had no reason to concoct stories to pin down petitioner on any criminal act.:ñé+. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose. CR No. 282. Art. 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. vs. the petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. respondents. 285. as follows: têñ. We find no reason to reverse the findings and conclusions of the MeTC and RTC. If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman. 2. shall orally threaten another with some harm not constituting a crime. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a felony.
and hereby sentences the said accused pursuant to the provision of Rule 64. At about 10:00 in the evening of December 13. permit or toleration of the defendants' makeshift store and living quarters for a number of years does not lend legality to an act which is a nuisance per se. Morena and Quibral.. p. were charged with the offense of grave coercion before the Municipal Court of Daet. the Court of Appeals affirmed in full the judgment of the trial court. Upon orders of petitioner. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING. Lacson. Unquestionably. although the extent of the annoyance. Dra. petitioner.00 and to pay the offended party in the amount of P5. establishment. 695. or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street. defies or disregards decency or morality. 2257. there is no semblance of any legality or right that exists in favor of the defendants to build a stall and conduct their business in a sidewalk. These establishments had been recommended for closure by the Municipal Health Officer. Par. petitioner could not have been faulted for having fenced off said barbershop. As already noted. therefore.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY WHEREFORE this Court finds the accused JOSE 'PEPITO' TIMONER guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Grave Coercion as penalized under Art. 54 S. the complaining witness and the store belonging to one Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos. Co. Moreover. cited in 11 Tolentino's Civil Code of the Philippines. 1964. or (2) Annoys or offends the senses. and six laborers. Ry. xxx xxx xxx . 3. 1971.. Alegre. ART. petitioner and the two policemen. We find merit in this contention. Samuel Morena and Ernesto Quibral. 2487].000. without subsidiary liability in case of insolvency. or any body of water. vs. to suffer SIX MONTHS OF IMPRISONMENT OF ARRESTO MAYOR IN ITS MAXIMUM PERIOD. Thereafter. Such nuisance affects the community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons and the general public which posed a danger to the people in general passing and using that place. declared said barbershop as a nuisance per-se. 27260R. or (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property. Subsequently. But even without this judicial pronouncement. CA-G. for in addition.C.R. 286 in the Revised Penal Code.G. or (3) Shocks.£îhqwâ£ Under the facts of the case. to pay a fine of P300. Hence. as well as the law in point. the main thoroughfare of the same town. Inc. then Mayor of Daet. danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition. in its decision in Civil Case No. 694. docketed as Civil Case No. Carolina Midland. The salient facts are not disputed. March 25. under lawful authority. The complaint. 242. to wit: têñ.. No. Dayaon was never able to reopen his barbershop business.. this is an annoyance to the public by the invasion of its rights — the fact that it is in a public place and annoying to all who come within its sphere [Baltazar vs. 375. 32 SB 258. for non-compliance with certain health and sanitation requirements. especially in a highway where it does not only constitute a menace to the health of the general public passing through the street and also of the unsanitary condition that is bred therein as well as the unsightly and ugly structures in the said place. arrived in front of the stalls along Maharlika highway. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. 2257.£îhqwâ£ ART.. the present recourse. accompanied by two uniformed policemen.00 as damages. The other accused SAMUEL MORENA and ERNESTO QUIBRAL are hereby ordered ACQUITTED. alleged that these stalls constituted public nuisances as well as nuisances per se. petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte against Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos and others for judicial abatement of their stalls. Nuisance is either public or private. the said court exonerated the two policemen. even if it is claimed and pretended that there was a license. Camarines Norte. Article 699 of the Civil Code authorizes the 35 . In fact. but convicted petitioner of the crime charged as principal by inducement. Petitioner contends that the sealing off of complainant Dayaon's barbershop was done in abatement of a public nuisance and. 694 and 695 of the Civil Code. Thus: têñ. the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte. 61 O. the Court hereby declares that the structures subject of this complaint as well as those occupied by the impleaded defendants are nuisances per se and therefore orders the defendants to demolish the stall and vacate the premises immediately . business. A nuisance is any act. these laborers proceeded to nail together rough lumber slabs to fence off the stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway. or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others. omission. Among the structures thus barricaded were the barbershop of Pascual Dayaon. condition of property. Kapisanan Lingkod ng Bayan. The barbershop occupied a portion of the sidewalk of the poblacion's main thoroughfare and had been recommended for closure by the Municipal Health Officer. On appeal. Paragraph 3. the barbershop in question did constitute a public nuisance as defined under Article Nos.
where she was made to admit that she had swindled the bank and had return the money equivalent of the spurious check. a bank employee. and to pay a fine of P250. 3526794.000. the dispositive portion of which reads: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING. the Court finds the accused Francis Lee. petitioner Francis Lee did not attend to her immediately. Santos for petitioner. Arturo S. Costs de oficio. Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty.00 as exemplary damages. vs. 33. and  that the person who restrained the will and liberty of another had no right to do so. 286 of the Revised Penal Code. upon the instruction of the petitioner Branch Manager Francis Lee of Pacific Banking Corporation (hereinafter referred to as bank). who was five (5) months in the family way. be it right or wrong. that the restraint was not made under authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful right. COURT OF APPEALS. Branch 2.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY abatement of a public nuisance without judicial proceedings. Rollo) On the other hand. or. WHEREFORE.£îhqwâ£ ART.00. and later. the complainant. reinstated as well as affirmed in toto the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). of arresto mayor. 1991 FRANCIS LEE. an affidavit prepared by the bank's lawyer. J. same city. without judicial proceedings. or  Abatement. the complainant was caused to sign a prepared withdrawal slip.  that the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence. During the said confrontation. or compelled to do something against his will.ñët G. respondents. the MTC decision convicted the petitioner of the offense of grave coercion. During her stay at the said bank. Accordingly. thus: At about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of June 20. as mayor of the town. After an hour later. which the latter allegedly deposited in the account of Honorio Carpio. shall by means of violence. the complainant Maria Pelagia Paulino de Chin.:p This is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 29. 2 The third element being absent in the case at bar. Pelagia Paulino de Chin.000..R. the petitioner confronted the complainant about a forged Midland National Bank Cashier Check No. In the case at bar. as charged." 1 The three elements of grave coercion are:  that any person be prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law. Grave coercion is committed when "a person who. No. premises considered. is hereby set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the crime charged. by way of civil liability the sum of P5. (p. either by material force or such display of it as would produce intimidation and control the will of the offended party. either it be right or wrong. the judgment appealed from is hereby modified. It was about 36 MEDIALDEA. petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion. 90423 September 6.R. . petitioner. 23 years old. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Grave Coercion. 699. prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his will. 1984. 8th Avenue. 1989 which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). the pertinent portion of the same is hereby quoted as follows: WHEREFORE. or  A civil action.1äwphï1. Branch 129 at Caloocan City. in other words. was watched by the bank's employees and security guards. and . without authority of law.00 as moral damages and the sum of P2. The remedies against a public nuisance are: [l] A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance. SO ORDERED. with cost. The accused is further ordered to indemnify the offended party. as penalized under paragraph 2 of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code and he is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of TWENTY (20) DAYS of ARRESTO MENOR and to pay one-third (1/3) of the costs. Rollo) The facts as stated by the respondent Court of Appeals are undisputed.. National Capital Judicial Region. (p. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PELAGIA PANLINO DE CHIN. and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of THREE (3) MONTHS. medium. defined and penalized under Art. petitioner. têñ. The RTC decision found the petitioner guilty of the crime of light coercion. merely implemented the aforesaid recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Upon arriving at the office of Pacific Banking Corporation located at Caloocan City. 19534-CR. petitioner incurred no criminal liability. was fetched from her house at 112 BLISS Site. The accused Francis Lee is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of light coercion. No. the petitioner Francis Lee was shouting at her with piercing looks and threatened to file charges against her unless and until she returned all the money equivalent of the subject cashier check. 40. Caloocan City by Atanacio Lumba. Metro Manila. the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.
Court of Appeals. However.44 from Carpio's account by means of a withdrawal slip allegedly signed by Carpio and then. that she assured Cruz that the check would be honored between banks (TSN. complainant worked with the Insular Bank of Asia and America as a bank teller (TSN. 1984. that on June 11. 1984. Records. June 11.607. after the usual clearing period. As a general rule. descendants or ascendants. the bank records show that on that day.00. by means of violence. Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code provides: ART.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY six o'clock in the afternoon of the same day when the complainant was able to leave the bank premises. (pp. that the total amount of the check in pesos was P92.44.200. 37 years old. pp. without authority of law. Rollo). for short). the complainant withdrew the sum of P12. to give his consent.607. or upon the person or property of his spouse. she closed his account. that upon an affirmative answer. Petitioner. he examined the relevant bank records and discovered that complainant Maria Pelagia Paulino de Chin was instrumental in inducing their bank to accept the subject dollar check and was also the one who withdrew the proceeds thereof. 5-7.000. his initial deposit of P50. Grave coercions.. that on June 13. 286. Upon the other hand. the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed. the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals command utmost respect. Carpio allegedly left abroad (Annex C. It states: Art. After having been informed that Midland National Bank Cashier Check No. et al. . Cruz (Cruz. complainant personally inquired from the bank whether the proceeds of the check have already been credited to Carpio's account (TSN. invited the complainant to his office. Likewise. 1984.44. 180-183). Lamberto R. for short) and accompanied him. Records. to wit: he was the Branch Bank Manager of Pacific Banking Corporation.R. sex and condition of the person shall be borne in mind. PRO Manager. 1985. she presented a Midland National Bank Cashier's check payable to Carpio in the sum of $5. does not vitiate consent.000. she redeposited the sum of P50. that she was a bank depositor and she "knew somebody downstairs".557. that out of the said amount. The complainant was not compelled into signing the withdrawal slip. While the appellate court emphasized the pregnancy and feminine gender of the complainant. 96-98). if considered.000. if the claim is just or legal. 3526794 was dishonored for being spurious. 89-92. 163). G.00 to Mr. Considering that the present case does not involve violence but intimidation. but she acted freely and voluntarily in executing her affidavit and in returning the money equivalent of the subject check. 44-45. for short).. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who. Responding to his invitation.000. that on the same day. that subsequently. Records). November 20. There was nothing unusual during her lengthy stay in the bank. presented his version. the bank. it appears that complainant actively participated in the deposit and withdrawal of the proceeds of the controversial check. 1984. pp. thru Atanacio Lumba. such findings are disregarded if there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted that. No. 1335. A threat to enforce once's claim through competent authority. that in the interim. sent out a notice to Carpio that the proceeds of the check were already credited to his account but the same was returned to the bank because the address was false or not true. the petitioner. prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law. whether it be right or wrong. or compel him to do something against his will.00 thru a withdrawal slip purportedly signed by Carpio. Rollo) The sole issue posed in this petition is whether or not the acts of petitioner in simply "shouting at the complainant with piercing looks" and "threats to file charges against her" are sufficient to convict him of the crime of grave coercion (p. May 15. would affect the result of the case (see San Sebastian College v. shall. that she claimed that she was requested by her uncle to deposit the check for collection..44. She is a graduate of Business Administration major in Banking and Finance from NCBA. and on June 15 and 18. 1984. but was not attended to immediately as the petitioner had to attend to other bank clients. a relative and payee of the check. In 1983. 163. 17. respectively from her savings account 37 . the complainant arrived at the bank before noon of June 20. There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property. 1985. If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act or to prevent him from so doing. We find that she told Honorio Carpio (Carpio. she withdrew the sum of P80. p. that the total deposit of Carpio was P92. To determine the degree of the intimidation.00 to her own savings account and received in cash the remaining balance of P30. 84401. the provisions of Article 1335 of the New Civil Code on intimidation are relevant. 6.000. it overlooked other significant personal circumstances which are material in determining the presence of coercion in this case. pp. records. to open a savings account with the Pacific Banking Corporation (Bank. She also finished one semester of MA in graduate school. 1991). complainant withdrew the amounts of P2. The complainant was merely informed about the subject fake dollar check that was deposited with said bank upon her assurance that it was genuine. the age.00 being added to the amount of the check. Foreign Department. p. by utilizing a withdrawal slip purportedly signed by Honorio Carpio. April 15.00 and P18. The records show that complainant is a highly educated person who is familiar with banking procedures. p. basically a denial of the charges.
286-287). it has. p. there being only one party. At this point. Records. but is nevertheless overcome by force or intimidation to such an extent that he becomes a mere automaton and acts mechanically only. a new element enters. Sir. "3". as where he acts against his will under a pressure he cannot resist.. November 20. petitioner's demand that the private respondent return the proceeds of the check accompanied by a threat to file criminal charges was not improper. pp.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY (Exh. indeed voluntarily. Your Honor. in relation to TSN.. if it falls in the second.000. it is. 769. only one party to it. pp. Records. If it is within the first class it is not duress in law. Villa (35 Phil. 309. Q Why? A He was insisting that I return the amount I have withdrawn especially on June 18 when I withdrew P18. 106) We find that complainant's lengthy stay at the bank was not due to the petitioner's threat. Lee. despite her protestations. p. Sir. Her testimony on this point is a revelation: Atty. the will which moves it is another's.00. in Vales v. judgment. 38 . While his hand signs. signing the typewritten withdrawal slip and the affidavit by the petitioner's threat to detain her at the bank. and in his place is substituted another — the one exercising the force or making use of the intimidation. Q When he told you that did it not occur to you to stand up and go out of the bank? A No. it is unenforceable for lack of a second party. 1984. the complainant admitted to being nervous upon being informed that the check was spurious (TSN. and. Legally speaking he acts as voluntarily and freely when he acts wholly against his better sense and judgment as when he acts in conformity with them. He ceases to exist as an independent entity with faculties and judgment. Thus. Dizon: That was during the time when she first met Mr. in reality and in law. We ruled that: . Atty. But when his sense. It was rather due to her desire to prove her innocence. There is nothing unlawful on the threat to sue. p. Such a threat is proper within the realm of the law as a means to enforce collection. 15. Dizon: (counsel for petitioner) You are always talking of signing the withdrawal slip by force.. 194-195. In the light of the foregoing circumstances. Lee was requiring you to sign the withdrawal slip did it not occur to you to leave the bank? Atty. October 8. 316). and his will rebel and he refuses absolutely to act as requested. the one using the force or the intimidation. COURT: The question is why did you not leave and disregarded him? A Because I cannot just leave him that way. Pangilinan: The question has already been answered she said she cannot leave because she is being threatened. In the case of Berg v. It is clear that one acts as voluntarily and independently in the eye of the law when he acts reluctantly and with hesitation as when he acts spontaneously and joyously. Bearing in mind her involvement in the deposit and encashment of the check. Between the two acts there is no difference in law. From these considerations it is clear that every case of alleged intimidation must be examined to determine within which class it falls. is it not that earlier you admitted that no actual force was employed upon you in connection with the signing of this document and the force that you are claiming was the alleged shouting against you coupled with the statement that you could not leave? A Yes. Sir. Record. The circumstances of this case reveal that the complainant. a disappearance of the personality of the actor. A When I was about to sign the withdrawal slip I inquired from him If I signed it I can leave already but he insisted that I should not leave. We ruled: . 15. Such a threat cannot constitute duress even if the claim proves to be unfounded so long as the creditor believes that it was his right to do so. there is a need to make a distinction between a case where a person gives his consent reluctantly and against his good sense and judgment and where he gives no consent at all. sir. 1985. The Solicitor General argues that the complainant was intimidated and compelled into disclosing her time deposit. consented to do all the aforesaid acts. It is a practice followed not only by banks but even by individuals to demand payment of their accounts with the threat that upon failure to do so an action would be instituted in court. 789). Court: Witness may answer.. Q When Mr. namely. albeit reluctantly. National City Bank of New York (102 Phil. While a contract is made.
Foreign Department of the bank (TSN. The prosecution failed to submit evidence to rebut his contentions. Lee. Records. pp. 130-131). it was a usual risk in banking business. however. The petitioner testified that the general rule was that the bank requires the presentation of the passbook whenever withdrawals are made. Pangilinan. raising of voice and dagger looks are common characteristics of an angry man and that was what accused Lee exhibited to a fragile weaker sex and pregnant offended party. the complainant still did not leave the bank. Sir. Further. November 20. Records. there were many bank clients who transacted business with the bank (TSN. 1984. 156. The allegation that she did so because of petitioner's threats came from the complainant herself. Complainant herself admitted that they manifested no overt acts to prevent her from leaving despite the alleged loud threats of the petitioner (ibid. I consider that a mistake. 184. 248). 20. as a matter of fact it was our bank who credited this account. January 8. Besides. 109-111) In her insistence to clear up her name.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Atty. Sir. 281-282). June 11. Q But of course Mr. 40-41. The bank security guards then were at their posts. there was an exception to this rule. pp.40. 39 . 39. The respondent court cited the prepared typewritten withdrawal slip and the non-presentation of the complainant's passbook as indicators of her involuntary acts. 11-12. Under this circumstance. 1985. 112). Private prosecutor (authorized by the Fiscal to prosecute the case in the latter's stead) Q So you no longer consider him (Carpio) as entitled in (sic) the proceeds of the chek (sic) and therefore at that point of (sic) time you will now concede that the payment made by you to him was a big mistake? A When we were asking for the respondent and we were locating Honorio Carpio and we cannot locate him. We disagree. pp. It would be natural to get angry with someone who had victimized you. "A". Dizon: Why? What was the reason that you cannot leave him? A Because he is insisting that the responsibility of one person be my responsibility and at that time I was feeling nervous and he did not tell me to stand up and leave. however is not always righteous. Records. pp. p. We find that at the time the check was deposited and encashed. We find that contrary to complainant's allegations in her affidavit (ibid. 4-5. Sir. Moreover. pp. Records. 1985. Sir. Sir. However. 5) it was not the petitioner who suggested the encashment of the RCBC Time Deposit Certificate but her sister. p. October 8. it is not farfetched for Us to think that the complainant voluntarily but grudgingly returned the money to show good faith. was able to move about freely unguarded from the office of the petitioner situated at the ground floor to the office of Cruz at the mezzanine floor where her sister found her (ibid. Shouting. Q It was a big mistake as a matter of fact? A When it comes to the falling of the business considering the big amount I would say big mistake but only a mistake. Rollo. 189-190. 5253) This pronouncement creates an impression that the petitioner had made a personal case out of the situation. Records. p. the PRO Manager. Records). Given such atmosphere. (CA Decision. it is not fair to consider the bank's mistake in accepting and paying the check as the petitioner's mistake which could militate against his efficiency. while complainant claimed that her freedom of movement was restrained. 1985. He stated: Atty.e. Naturalness. pp. the evidence does not support this view. Thus.21. pp. during that time. She has not been able to present any other witness to buttress her claim. p. p. it was she who informed the petitioner about the existence of the RCBC Time Deposit Certificate (Exh. 1985. It is like taking the law into your hands and that was what the accused Lee did. pp. pp. 111-112) which could be heard considering that the door to petitioner's office was kept open (TSN. 276). being a mistake that mistake will harm and tense your personality as a Bank Manager? A It is up to our Manager to decide but when it comes to other transactions I am handling Three Million plus and considering that check I don't think with all modesty it will affect me. p. 131-132). the trial court's conclusion that the withdrawal slip was typewritten was without basis considering that the complainant merely averred that the withdrawal slip was already prepared when she signed it (Exh. We also take exception to the following ruling of the appellate court: It must be noted that the position of a bank manager is one of prestige and dignity and when the said bank was cheated or swindled it certainly reflects on the capability and efficiency of the manager and one can just imagine the kind of mental attitude and feeling of anger the latter would have towards the alleged swindler. i. However. p. pp. Records. pp. October 8. 18-20. and that again. "A". Records. pp. 21. The petitioner attributed the mistake in the payment of the forged check to the usual risks in banking business. she. when the depositor is a regular customer in depositing or withdrawing money in the bank (TSN. 4). pp. it was not the petitioner who agreed to the sister's suggestion but Cruz. (ibid. the petitioner was then on leave (TSN. p. Undoubtedly. Q But you are called upon to try to recover any money which was in your judgment was unlawfully taken from you by anybody A When it comes to procedure I don't think it was unlawfully taken. Records. Records.
However. pp. (ibid.00 she deposited rather than the cancellation of her earlier withdrawal. which reads: ART. she refused to cooperate any further. 1934 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. p. she claimed that her sister's presence helped her recover her composure (TSN. This pretense. p. POLICARPIO NACANA. for example in case of a bank employee who stole P500. FLORENTINO CLEMENTE. the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and a new one hereby entered ACQUITTING the accused of the crime of grave coercion. Records. January 8. that they were required by the petitioner to come back. All her disputed acts were geared towards proving her good faith. With such behavior. That is. p. 31. Sir. 165 NE 2d. SO ORDERED. Dizon: I think we are going too far.R. 1984. 263-264) The most telling proof of the absence of intimidation was the fact that the complainant refused to sign the promissory note in spite of the alleged threats of the petitioner (TSN. Court: I see the point of the defense but the witness is very intelligent. because in order not to effect his integrity he resorted to this. We hold that coercion did not exist in this case. 118-119). 140-141). 133. she no longer insisted on the return of the money because she felt that it was the only way she could leave the bank premises (TSN. Secondly. 31-32. however. J. 49-50. Records. Against this backdrop. the complainant has not been cowed into submission. You answer. PROCOPIO REYES. it could have the same mistake which is supposed to be admonished by removal. p. defendants-appellants. she did neither of these logical possibilities. Records. We find it as a logical consequence that she merely asked for the receipt of the P18. 29. I can see the point of counsel. pp. vs. she did not budge. For one. If indeed she had recovered her composure because of her sister's presence. We are not persuaded. A Yes that is the same case whether it is small or big but when it comes to the Manager the Head Office is very understanding when it comes to bogus checks and of course my work is a supervisory. Records. 1965. 1984. HERMOGENES MALLARI.000. Complainant was willing to return the sum of P48. they could have desisted from encashing the check and then could have left for home notwithstanding the alleged presence of Mr.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY Q So it is your bounded (sic) duty to recover money which was paid to someonelse (sic) which payment is not due to him. Emphasis ours). Her bare assertion simply confirms the voluntariness of her actions. pp.—The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision . The complainant proferred excuses for her action. Records. We are at a loss to understand how coercion could attach in this case. It is strange that complainant's sister. Lumba who was no longer in his own bank but among the RCBC clients or she could have refused to sign the affidavit which was handed to her first before the promissory note. 1985. failed to corroborate her statement that she was denied the opportunity to read the affidavit. Offending the religious feelings. Q Is it not a fact that your lawyer is only your agent? Atty. pp. MARCELINO MALLARI. the petitioner should be acquitted.' It must be a force threatening great bodily harm that remains constant in controlling the will of the unwilling participant while the act is being performed and from which he cannot then withdraw in safety. pp.000. 120). 1984. it must be a dangerous force threatened 'in praesenti. 120). No. L-40577 August 23. Records. was belied by her subsequent actuations.00. 31-32. complainant claimed that after her refusal to sign the document. We find that she and her sister left the bank unescorted to eat their snack. she could have just left the premises in a huff without encashing the RCBC Time Deposit Certificate or if they (complainant and sister) were already at the RCBC. November 20. Such an excuse is flimsy and weak. Consequently. pp. who was with her. 27-28. 48. Hood. November 20. 170-171. On this point. 40 UNJUST VEXATION G.00 and the other one is P200. CASTOR ALIPIO.: Appellants were convicted in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac of a violation of article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. and RUFINO MATIAS. 122-123 and January 8. as soon as she realized that she would have the enormous task of reimbursing the bank the balance of the proceeds of the forged check allegedly taken by Carpio. HULL. it has nothing to do with the particular incident subject matter of the criminal offense. Thus. pp. American authorities have declared that "(t)he force which is claimed to have compelled criminal conduct against the will of the actor must be immediate and continuous and threaten grave danger to his person during all of the time the act is being committed. 28. Sir. plaintiff-appellee.00 she took since it was only up to this amount where her involvement lies. she averred that she refused to sign the promissory note because she was able to read its contents unlike the affidavit and she realized that she would have a great responsibility to return the amount taken by Carpio (ibid. p. am I correct? A It is the duty of our lawyer to recover it." (State v. Yet. pp. 139). ACCORDINGLY. Obviously. Records. November 20. p. Notwithstanding the alleged threats of petitioner. and that they decided not to eat but instead went home (TSN.
Jr.TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who. The fact that this argument is a pretense only is clearly shown by the circumstances under which the fence was constructed. In the barrio of Macalong. C.. The disturbance or interruption of any ceremony of a religious character under the old Penal Code was denounced by article 571 and was punished by arrest from one to ten days and a fine of from 15 to 125 pesetas. municipality of La Paz. Pasion y Muerte de Jesucristo'. Abad Santos. Gutierrez." of assembling. professing the Roman Catholic faith. It is to be noted that article 133 of the Revises Penal Code punishes acts "notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. late at night and in such a way as to vex and annoy the parties who had gathered to celebrate the pabasa and is further shown by the fact that many of the appellants saw fit to introduce as their defense a false alibi. The appellants are partisans of he Clemente family. "the term pabasa is applied to the act of the people. Avanceña. While the pabasa was going on the evening of April 10. C. even though irritating and vexatious under the circumstances to those present. refreshment and food were served in the yard adjoining the chapel. . for the purpose of reading and the life. As stated by the lower court. Province of Tarlac. in a place devoted to religious ceremony. Appellants are therefore acquitted of a violation of article 133 of the Revised Penal Code but found guilty of a violation of article 287 of the Revised Penal Code and are sentenced each to a fine of P75 with subsidiary confinement in case of insolvency. as normally such an act would be a matter of complete indifference to those not present. no matter how religious a turn of mind they might be. A verbal altercation ensued. by reminding them of the fact that it was Holy Week and that it was highly improper to construct a fence at that time of the evening. When the people attending the pabasa in the chapel and those who were eating in the yard thereof noticed what was happening. who was chairman of the committee in charge of the pabasa. 1933.." The pabasa in Macalong used to begin on Palm Sunday and continue day and night.. concur. JJ." The construction of a fence.. Many years ago the Clemente family by informal donation gave the land on which the old chapel was erected. if any was committed by the appellants. the present chapel was erected. which contains a fun account in verse of the life. without any interruption whatsoever. Vickers. carrying bolos and crowbars. which investigation led to the filing of the complaint appearing on pages 1 and 2 of the record. together with the costs in both instances. is denounced in article 287 as an "unjust vexation" and punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos or both. As usual. When it was destroyed. and Diaz. Florentino Clemente. there is a chapel where it is customary to hold what is known in local parlance as a pabasa. passion and death of Jesus Christ. and there is now a dispute as to whether the new chapel is not now impinging on the land that belongs to the Clemente family. is not such an act as can be designated as "notoriously offensive to the faithful". So ordered.. and the expenses incidental thereto were defrayed by different persons. Feliciano and Bidin. namely.J. until Good Friday. Castor Alipio. "at a certain designated place. 41 xxx xxx xxx chanrobles virtual law library Fernan. Hermogenes Mallari. Alfonso Castillo. The pabasa was discontinued and it was not resumed until after an investigation conducted by the chief of police on the following morning. is used in this celebration. they became excited and left the place hurriedly and in such confusion that dishes and saucers were broken and benches toppled over. the defendants Procopio Reyes. Policarpio Nacana. shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. A book known as the 'Vida. Marcelino Mallari. and started to construct a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel. concur. It is urged upon us that the act of building a fence was innocent and was simply to protect private property rights. between 11 and 12 o'clock. tried to persuade them to refrain from carrying out their plan. during Lent. But this article was omitted from the Revised Penal Code and the offense. and Rufino Matias arrived at the place.J. passion and death of Jesus Christ. JJ.
TITLE IX CASES – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY 42 i .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?