G.R. No.

74630 September 30, 1991

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-
appellee,
vs.
MAIA TOMIO !"#!$ SATO TOSHIO !%& NA'A(IMA
TAGAHIRO !"#!$ )AMAA TA'AO, accused-
appellants.
G.R. No. 7**76 September 30, 1991
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HA+EAS
,ORP-S OF TAAHIRO NA'A(IMA !%& TOMIO
MAEA,petitioners.
The Solicitor General for plaintif-appellee.
Jose T. Arroyo for accused T. Nakajima.
Atienza, Taora, !el "osario # $astillo for accused T.
%aeda.
A.IE, (R., J.:p
Appellants were arrested at about 3:45 o'clock in the
afternoon of 1 !a" 1#$% at the &ain branch of the
'i(al )o&&ercial *ankin+ )orporation ,')*)- in
!akati, !etro !anila, while alle+edl" receivin+ the
partial pa"&ent of the ranso& &one" fro& .atsu&i
/a+ao, a 0apanese tourist. 1n 15 !a" 1#$%, an
2nfor&ation for 3idnappin+ and serious ille+al detention
for ranso& ,Article %4 of the 'evised 5enal )ode- was
6led a+ainst the& with the 'e+ional .rial )ourt of
!anila b" 7ivencio 8ionido, Assistant )it" 9iscal of
!anila, which was docketed as )ri&inal )ase /o. $%-
45:55. .he accusatorial portion of the 2nfor&ation
reads:
.hat on or about !a" , 1#$%, and
subse;uentl" thereafter, in the )it" of
!anila, 5hilippines, the said accused,
conspirin+ and confederatin+ to+ether
with si< ,%- others whose true na&es,
real 2dentities and present whereabouts
are still unknown and helpin+ one
another, bein+ then private individuals,
did then and there wilfull", unlawfull"
and feloniousl", for the purpose of
e<tortin+ ranso& fro& the i&&ediate
fa&il" of .A.=>!2 /A?A1, kidnap or
detain the latter and deprive hi& of his
libert", without le+al @usti6cations and
a+ainst his will.
)ontrar" to Aaw.
.he infor&ation was 6led after an e&-parte preli&inar"
investi+ation, conducted pursuant to ?eneral 1rder /o.
3#, since the ofended part" is a tourist. .his ?eneral
1rder +rants civil courts concurrent @urisdiction with the
&ilitar" tribunals over cri&es where the ofended part"
is a tourist or a transient, which the for&er has to
dispose of within twent"-four ,4- hours after their
6lin+ b" the arrestin+ oBcers.
1
1n 1% !a" 1#$$, the trial court issued an 1rder settin+
the arrai+n&ent and trial of the appellants on 1# !a"
1#$% an appointin+ )iti(ens Attorne" Abdulkali& Askali
of the )AA1 ,now 5A1.- as counsel de o'cio for the
accused.
/
1n 1# !a" 1#$%, appellants, throu+h a de
parte counsel, 0ose .. Arro"o, 6led with the 1Bce of the
)it" 9iscal of !anila a 7er" >r+ent !otion 9or 'e-
investi+ations
3
alle+in+ therein that the 2nfor&ation
was 6led without the bene6t of a preli&inar"
investi+ation and that the" are innocent, which the"
can prove at a preli&inar" investi+ation.
Cowever, the records fail to show that Att". Arro"o
insisted on this &otion. 1n the contrar", at the
arrai+n&ent on 1# !a" 1#$%, he cate+oricall" stated
that the appellants were read" for arrai+n&ent, and
even re;uested for a 0apanese interpreter, which was
not favorabl" acted upon since the appellants
understand and can speak Dn+lish and .a+alo+.
4
*oth
havin+ entered a plea of not +uilt", trial proceeded
i&&ediatel".
*
At the trial on that da" and the succeedin+ two da"s,
the prosecution presented seven witnesses, na&el":
5at. Du+enio ?uiller&o, 5at. !arlon >rsua, )pl. 7ir+ilio
)abural, co&plainant .atsu&i /a+ao, =+t. 0ovito
?utierre(, Eall" !artine( and 8aishin /a+ao, and
ofered docu&entar" e<hibits.
9or their defense, appellants relied on their own
testi&onies which the" +ave in open court on !a"
1#$%.
1n 4 !a" 1#$%, the trial court pro&ul+ated a decision
6ndin+ the appellants +uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt
of the cri&e char+ed and sentencin+ each of the& to
sufer the death penalty and to pa" the costs.
6
.he case is now before >s for auto&atic review.
.he facts of the case, as established b" the evidence
for the prosecution and su&&ari(ed b" the =olicitor
?eneral in the *rief for the Appellee, are:
.atsu&i /a+ao, a 0apanese national,
arrived in !anila on April #, 1#$% for a
6ve-da" vacation tour and was billeted
at the Colida" 2nn ,pp. 5-%, tsn, !a" 1,
1#$%-.
1n !a" , 1#$%, while /a+ao was
havin+ lunch alone at the cofee shop
of the hotel, two ,- 0apanese &en
approached his table and asked hi& if
he were a 0apanese to which he
answered in the aBr&ative. Aater, he
ca&e to know one of the &en as !aida
1
.o&io alias =ato .oshio and the other
as !ita&ura. .he" @oined hi& at his
table and infor&ed hi& that the" have
been in the 5hilippines for ;uite a ti&e
and ofered the&selves as his +uides in
!anila. .hereafter, !ita&ura brou+ht
hi& to the sauna bath of the hotel and
a depart&ent store in !anila.
Dventuall", the" ended up at the Aeo's
'estaurant located alon+ 'o<as
*oulevard at around 4:3: o'clock in the
evenin+ where the" had dinner. *efore
leavin+ the restaurant, /a+ao's
co&panion placed a pack of ci+arettes
on his ,/a+ao's- shirt pocket and hi&
to @ust wait because he has to talk to a
ta<i driver. After takin+ few steps fro&
the restaurant, /a+ao was approached
b" 6ve ,5- plainclothes&en who
2denti6ed the&selves as police&en.
.he" bodil" searched hi& and found
the pack of ci+arettes earlier +iven hi&
which the police&en clai&ed contained
&ari@uana. .hereafter, the police&en
brou+ht hi& to the =outhern 5olice
8istrict =tation ,pp. 3-% tan, !a" :,
1#$%-.
Ehile /a+ao was at the police station,
accused-appellant .a+ahiro /aka@i&a
alias Fa&ada arrived. Aater, =ato .oshio
alias !aida .o&io also arrived. *oth
acted as interpreters for hi&. 1ne of
the& infor& hi& that if he is found
+uilt" of possession of &ari@uana, he
can sentenced fro& si< ,%- to twelve
,1- "ears i&prison&ent. .he two ,-
then su++ested that /a+ao +ive &one"
to the police&en who, the" clai&,
de&anded >.=. G1::,:::.:: for his
release. /a+ao a+reed. .hereafter,
.oshio and /aka@i&a infor&ed hi& that
the" had advanced the pa"&ent of the
bribe &one" to the police&en who,
accordin+l", a+reed to release hi& ,pp.
3%-41, tsn, !a" :, 1#$%-.
.hereafter, /a+ao returned to his hotel
escorted b" the appellants and a
police&an. Ehile there, his escorts did
not allow hi& to leave the hotel. .he"
also de&anded that he i&&ediatel"
call up his parents in 0apan for the
&one" the" alle+edl" advanced.
2nstead of callin+ up his parents, he
called up a friend and told hi& of his
predica&ent. .he three escorts sta"ed
with hi& in the hotel up to 1::::
o'clock the followin+ &ornin+.
.hereafter, the" checked out and
transferred to the 2ntercontinental
Cotel in !akati. Appellants a+ain
ordered /a+ao to call up his parents.
Aater, appellants transferred /a+ao to
the 5hilippine 7illa+e Cotel where the"
a+ain asked hi& to call up his father in
0apan about the &one". /a+ao's father
refused to pa" the a&ount de&anded
but when =ato talked to hi& over the
phone, he a+reed to pa" three &illion
"en ,pp. 14-31, tsn, !a" 1, 1#$%-.
9ro& the 5hilippine 7illa+e Cotel,
/a+ao was brou+ht b" the appellants
to the 7irra )ondo&iniu& in !akati.
Ehen he called up his father upon
orders of the appellants, he learned
that his father had alread" re&itted
&one" to the 'i(al )o&&ercial and
*ankin+ )orporation ,')*)- in !akati.
9orthwith, appellants brou+ht /a+ao to
')*) where he withdrew >.=.
G1,$5:.:: and +ave it to the&. >pon
leavin+ the bank, the" were &et b"
police&en fro& the Eestern 5olice
8istrict whose help had been earlier
sou+ht on !a" $, 1#$% b" the 0apanese
D&bass" in !anila. Appellants and
/a+ao were brou+ht to the Eestern
5olice 8istrict for investi+ation ,pp. 3$-
4:, tsn, !a" 1#, 1#$%-.
Appellants were subse;uentl" char+ed
with the cri&e of kidnappin+ and
serious ille+al detention. ...
7
>pon the other hand, the version of the accused-
appellants, as testi6ed to b" the&, is su&&ari(ed b"
the trial court as follows:
.he version +iven b" the defense in
e<culpation of the accused is as
follows:
1n !a" , 1#$%, the accused /A3A02!A
.A?AC2'1 alias FA!A8A .A3A1 &et for
the 6rst ti&e .atsu&i /a+ao at the
=outhern 5olice 8istrict head;uarters in
!anila. .at(u&i had been arrested b"
the police earlier for possessin+
&ari@uana ci+arettes and since he
could not speak Dn+lish ver" well he
was contacted to act as /a+ao's
interpreter. /a+ao inti&ated to hi&
that he ,/a+ao- wanted to settle the
case and ofered &one" to the police.
.he accused !A28A .1!21 alias =A.1
.1=C21 later ca&e and to+ether the"
re;uested the police to release /a+ao
because accordin+ to hi& the
&ari@uana was not his but belon+ed to
so&ebod" who +ave it to hi&. /a+ao
told the accused that he ofered to pa"
the a&ount of >= G1::,::: to the
police which he said he would borrow
the& fro& a friend. Fa&ada told /a+ao
that the a&ount was too &uch and
su++ested that he ,/a+ao- should call
his father in 0apan to send the &one"

here. /a+ao was ulti&atel" released b"

the police for so&e reason not known
to Fa&ada and he went back to his
hotel at Colida" 2nn to+ether with the
accused FA!A8A and =A.1.
At the hotel /a+ao called up his friend
in 0apan with the help of FA!A8A who
placed the call since /a+ao cannot
speak Dn+lish. FA!A8A did not have
occasion to talk to /a+ao's friend over
the phone. After 3: &inutes, another
call was &ade b" /a+ao to 0apan. .hat
ni+ht of !a" both accused slept with
/a+ao in the latter's roo& at Colida"
2nn due to /a+ao's re;uest not to leave
hi& inside the hotel.
.he followin+ da", !a" 3, /a+ao did
not know where to +o so the accused
su++ested the" look for the cheapest
hotel or one where the" could sta" on
credit. .he accused !A28A then &ade
arran+e&ents with a travel a+enc"
and, after checkin+ in at the
2ntercontinental Cotel, the" checked
out at Colida" 2nn and transferred to
the 2ntercontinental Cotel where the"
sta"ed up to !a" 4. At this hotel,
/a+ao &ade &an" phone calls to 0apan
the accused FA!A8A alwa"s placin+
the calls for /a+ao. 8urin+ their sta" at
the hotel the accused and /a+ao went
on foot to see a &ovie at the Huad
.heater and to eat at a 0apanese
restaurant. .he" also went to
!aalica"a =auna *ath in Hue(on )it"
about four ti&es around 1:::: to 11:::
in the evenin+ where /a+ao was left
alone in one of the roo&s with his
&assa+e +irl attendant. 1n so&e of
those occasions /a+ao would 6nish and
would wait for the accused at the lobb".
.wice Fa&ada brou+ht /a+ao to his
house because /a+ao re;uested hi&
not to leave hi&. 1n one occasion, the
three of the& brou+ht down a 9ilipina
+irl fro& their hotel roo& but onl"
/a+ao acco&panied her outside the
hotel for 6ve to 6fteen &inutes to see
her of and then he ca&e back to the
hotel.
Fa&ada denies that he and =ato were
alwa"s +uardin+ /a+ao. As a &atter of
fact, one ti&e while the" were at 7irra
)ondo&iniu& the accused went out
to+ether to &eet so&e 0apanese in
'o<as *oulevard around &idni+ht and
went back to the hotel al&ost 4::: in
the &ornin+ leavin+ /a+ao alone in the
hotel roo& in the &eanti&e. At 7irra
)ondo&iniu& the" sta"ed for two ,-
or three ,3- da"s to+ether in one roo&
with /a+ao so&eti&es holdin+ the ke"
to the roo&. .here /a+ao also would
+o out to bu" so&ethin+, eat &eals
and have so&e fun. Ce even bou+ht
/a+ao, who was with hi&, a t-shirt in
!akati where there were &an" people.
Eith the help of accused !aida, /a+ao
&ade an overseas call to 0apan at 7irra.
.he reason the" went alon+ with /a+ao
to the ')*) bank on !a" 1 was that
he did not know how to +o there so
the" brou+ht hi& to the bank so that
he could withdraw the re&ittance fro&
0apan which was intended as pa"&ent
for his hotel acco&&odation and other
e<penses. After their arrest at the bank
the" were brou+ht to the E58
head;uarters about 4:3: in the
afternoon where he ,Fa&ada- was hit
b" the police&en on his face, bod" and
abdo&en. Ce was also brou+ht inside a
roo& 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 &outh while
the police were askin+ hi& ;uestions.
2n fact, the" started hittin+ hi& at the
bank while he was handcufed. *esides,
his watch costin+ around 5:,::: "en,
his 1:: +ra&s 1$-karat +old bracelet
and his necklace were all taken fro&
hi& and his !ustan+ car con6scated.
Cis driver's license was also taken and
he lost his &one" in the a&ount of
al&ost 53,:::.::. .he police did not
even want to accept the na&e that he
+ave the& which was /aka@i&a
.a+ahiro but insisted on adoptin+
Fa&ada as his na&e. Ehen his
state&ent was taken he was not asked
to seek the assistance of a law"er. 2t
was the investi+ator who &ade the
answers in the state&ent and he was
not even allowed to read it but @ust to
si+n it which he did al&ost 3::: or 4:::
in the &ornin+ alread" after bein+
sub@ected to blows on his face. Ce
declared that he never de&anded
&one" fro& /a+ao for his release.
1n cross-e<a&ination Fa&ada ad&itted
he is an i&&i+rant and has sta"ed in
the 5hilippines for al&ost 1 "ears but
is alwa"s +oin+ back and forth to 0apan.
.1!21 !A28A alias =ato .oshio also
&et .atsu&i /a+ao for the 6rst ti&e on
!a" 1, 1#$% but at the cofee shop of
Colida" 2nn where .atsu&i was sta"in+.
=A.1 had a 0apanese +uest who
needed to chan+e his 5hilippine pesos
to 0apanese "en since he was +oin+
back to 0apan and it was .atsu&i who&
3
=A.1 saw at the cofee shop and who&
he re;uested to &ake the currenc"
e<chan+e. .atsu&i was subse;uentl"
invited b" a !r. !ita&ura to =A.1's
table where there were &an" 0apanese.
=ato left ahead for the airport leavin+
.atsu&i and !ita&ura in conversion.
Ehen =A.1 saw .atsu&i a+ain it was at
the =outhern 5olice 8istrict
head;uarters that sa&e da" bein+
arrested for ille+al possession of
&ari@uana. Ce talked to the police&en
and re;uested for an interpreter for
/a+ao since he cannot understand and
speak Dn+lish well. Ce found out /a+ao
had pro&ised to pa" the police&en
G1::,::: alread" but he was not able
to put up the a&ount. An"wa", he went
to the Colida" 2nn and there discovered
that /a+ao had no &ore &one" and
the" talked about the hotel
acco&&odation and other e<penses
startin+ the followin+ da". /a+ao tried
and was able to speak over the phone
with !r. /a+ao in 0apan who asked hi&
to e<plain what happened. 9ro&
Colida" 2nn the" transferred to
2ntercontinental Cotel where /a+ao
was able to check in without his
passport as =A.1 brou+ht hi& an
acco&&odation re;uest fro& Dl =ol
travel a+enc". Ehile the" were at the
2ntercontinental Cotel there was no
reason /a+ao could not leave the hotel
as he was alwa"s free to leave it. .he"
also went to !aalica"a =auna *ath
where the" each had separate roo&s.
Ehen he was arrested at the bank with
his co-accused his watch, his wallet
and his &one" totalin+ around 5#::.::
were taken b" the police&en includin+
his necklace and +old bracelet. .he"
also bo<ed hi&. 8urin+ the
investi+ation the" let hi& lie down on
the table with his hands handcufed
and, while his face was covered with
cloth, the" poured water on it. =ince he
was afraid of what the police&en would
do to hi& he @ust si+ned the state&ent.
Ce did not even know the law"er
*ienvenido de los 'e"es who was
supposed to assist hi& durin+ the
investi+ation. Ce was not allowed to
read the state&ent before he si+ned it.
9ro& 2ntercontinental Cotel the"
transferred to 7irra condo&iniu&. Ce
brou+ht .atsu&i there because he
re;uested hi& to look for a cheaper
hotel.
1n cross-e<a&ination =A.1 disclosed
that the 0apanese !ita&ura who& he
&et for the 6rst ti&e on !a" , 1#$%,
infor&ed hi& that a 0apanese was
arrested b" the police for possessin+
&ari@uana and that when he arrived at
the police head;uarters he found out it
was /a+ao who was the one arrested.
0
.he trial court ruled that the accused-appellants were
+uilt" as char+ed because the" deprived the ofended
part", .atsu&i /a+ao, of his libert" for the purpose of
e<tortin+ ranso& fro& hi&. 2t said:
2t &ust be noted that durin+ all this
ti&e, fro& the evenin+ of !a" until
the arrest of the accused in the
afternoon of !a" 1, it cannot be
denied that the accused were alwa"s
with .atsu&i, sin+l" or both of the&, at
his hotel roo& and never losin+ si+ht of
hi&. As a &atter of fact, the onl"
instance he was ever allowed to +o out
on his own was at the 2ntercontinental
Cotel when he acco&panied a +irl out
of the hotel to send then the accused
were likewise downstairs at the hotel
that .atsu&i thou+ht he was onl" bein+
tested b" the accused whether he
would escape. *esides, we have to
consider that as far as .atsu&i /a+ao
was concerned he was in a forei+n
countr" with no relatives nor close
friends. Ce could not speak or
understand an" 5hilippine Aan+ua+e.
1n top of this, he had no &ore &one"
as this was taken fro& hi& b" the
police and, worse, his passport was
bein+ held b" the accused thus
destro"in+ an" hope of escape fro&
the&. Dven if he did escape, where
would he +o without an" &one" or
passport and how would he be able to
co&&unicate with people since he
could not speak Dn+lish or ta+alo+I
!oreover, what was fore&ost in his
&ind was that he was &erel" on a
te&porar" leash ,sic- fro& the police
who were poised arrest hi& an"ti&e he
rene+ed on his alle+ed pro&ise to pa".
.his would &ean at least si< "ears
i&prison&ent not to &ention i+no&in"
he would cause on his person and the
conse;uent scandal since he is a
*uddhist priest. 8urin+ all this ti&e
that he was with accused he knew that
the onl" wa" he could prevent an"
further restraint on his person was to
pa" the accused fro& the re&ittance of
his father in 0apan. .hat is wh", even
the accused were not ar&ed and did
not ph"sicall" restrain his &ove&ents,
all these circu&stances taken to+ether
created in .atsu&i /a+ao such fear
which actuall" restrained hi& fro&
doin+ what he freel" wanted to do and
resulted in a deprivation of his libert".
4
2n other words, while there was no
&one" to +ive to the accused he was
stuck with the&.
.he )ourt does not believe the
alle+ation of the accused that the"
were not de&andin+ an" &one" fro&
.atsu&i /a+ao for wh" would the", who
onl" ca&e to know .atsu&i /a+ao on
!a" , stick to hi& like a leech that
date until the" were arrested on !a"
1I 2t could not have been bein+
si&pl" charitable since it would have
been &ore lo+ical to take /a+ao
te&poraril" into their ho&es to avoid
&ore e<penses if their intention was
reall" onl" to help their fellow
countr"&an.
Ehat was then the purpose in
de&andin+ for the &one"I .he
accused su++est that it was for the
purpose of rei&bursin+ the& for the
e<penses the" had incurred in
acco&&odatin+ .atsu&i /a+ao in the
hotels and other places. Dven if the
purpose of the deprivation of Aibert" of
.atsu&i /a+ao alle+ed b" the defense
be accepted J that is, to co&pel
pa"&ent for the e<penses incurred b"
the accused J under Article %4 of the
'evised 5enal )ode, as a&ended b"
'epublic Act /o. 1:$4, the ofense is
still kidnappin+ for ranso&. >nder
A&erican rulin+s, Kranso&K has been
held to &ean in its ordinar" sense as
K&one",K price or reconsideration paid
or de&anded b" for rede&ption of a
captured person or persons, a pa"&ent
that releases fro& captivit"' ,=ee 45
).0. 45$L 3% Eords and 5hrases, 1:L
3eith vs. =tate, 1%3, =o. 13% 1: 9la.
4$4-. =ince the accused in this case
de&anded and received &one" as a
re;uisite for releasin+ .atsu&i /a+ao
fro& their hold, whatever other &otive
&a" have i&pelled the& to do so, the
&one" is still Kranso&K under the law.
9
1n 0ul" 1#$%, Att". Arro"o 6led with this )ourt his
Eithdrawal of Appearance as counsel for the appellant
!aida .o&io.
10
the law 6r& of Atien(a, .abora, 8el
'osario and )astillo then entered its appearance for
the latter.
1n 1$ Au+ust 1#$%, before the" could 6le their *rief,
appellants, throu+h another law"er, Att". 8o&inador '.
=ta. !aria, 0r., 6led with this )ourt a petition for habeas
corpus,
11
which was docketed as G.". No. ())(*. .he"
alle+e therein that the decision of the court below in
)ri&inal )ase /o. $%-4%:55, sub@ect of ?.'. /o. 44%3:,
is Kvoid and ille+alK because, a&on+ other thin+s,
before bein+ investi+ated, the" were tortured,
threatened and deprived of their constitutional ri+hts
to due process and e;ual protection of the lawsL
&oreover, aside fro& the fact that no preli&inar"
investi+ation was conducted, the co&plainant's father
inMuenced the 0ud+e directl" &akin+ the latter's
decision Kpartial, bias ,sic- and pre@udiced,K and the
trial court lacked @urisdiction over the ofense char+ed
as it was co&&itted at the Colida" 2nn Cotel in 'o<as
*oulevard, +asay $ity, not in !anila. 2n the resolution
of 1# Au+ust 1#$%,
1/
the )ourt noted that the
;uestions raised in the petition are also the sub@ect of
the appeal in ?.'. /o. 44%3:L conse;uentl", the for&er
is but a duplication of the latter which is awaitin+ the
6lin+ of briefs. Cowever, without +ivin+ due course to
said petition, it re;uired respondents to co&&ent
thereon.
2n the &eanti&e, speci6call" on # Au+ust 1#$%,
appellant .a+ahiro /aka@i&a 6led his *rief in ?.'. /o.
44%3:
13
wherein he ascribes to the trial court the
co&&ission of the followin+ errors:
2
... 2/ )1/72).2/? .CD A))>=D8 19
.CD )'2!D 19 328/A552/?L
22
... 2/ 92/82/? .CA. 9'1! .CD
D7D/2/? 19 !AF .1 !AF 1, .CD
A))>=D8 EA= AAEAF= E2.C /A?A1L
222
... 2/ )1/)A>82/? .CA. D=)A5D 91'
.A.=>!2 /A?A1 EA= 2!51==2*AD
*D)A>=D CD 2= 2/ A 91'D2?/ )1>/.'F
E2.C /1 )A1=D 'DAA.27D= A/8
9'2D/8=, *D)A>=D CD )1>A8 /1.
D7D/ =5DA3 1' >/8D'=.A/8 D/?A2=C
EDAA 1' >/8D'=.A/8 A/F 5C2A2552/D
AA/?>A?D, A/8 *D)A>=D CD CA8 /1
!1/DF A/8 5A==51'., E2.C
/1ECD'D .1 ?1L
27
... 2/ 92/82/? .CA. .CD A))>=D8
CDA8 .CD 5A==51'. 19 .A.=>!2
/A?A1L
7
... 2/ )1/)A>82/? .CA. 2. E1>A8
CA7D *DD/ !1'D A1?2)AA 29 .CDF
.113 /A?A1 .1 .CD2' 1E/ C1>=D=L
72
5
... 2/ )1/)A>82/? .CA. .CD A))>=D8
8D!A/8D8 91' 'A/=1!: and
722
... 2/ 92/82/? .CA. .CD A))>=D8
8D!A/8D8 'D)D27D8 !1/DF A=
5'D'DH>2=2.D 91' 'DADA=2/? /A?A1.
*" wa" of an additional assi+ned error, which is
unnu&bered, but which he clai&s to invoke for the ,rst
time, he alle+es the trial court has no @urisdiction over
the cri&e char+ed because it was not co&&itted in
!anilaL if it were co&&itted the Colida" 2nn Cotel,
which is not located in !anila but 5asa" )it", it is the
proper court of the latter cit" which has @urisdiction
over it.
>pon the other hand, appellant .o&io !aeda, throu+h
counsel, 6led his *rief
14
on 1$ 1ctober 1#$%. Ce
contends that:
2
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/ 2.=
C>''2D8 A/8 'A2A'1A8D8
82=51=2.21/ 19 .CD )A=D 19 .CD
A))>=D8 .1!21 !AD8A A/8
.A?AC2'1 /A3A02!A EC1=D '2?C.=
.1 8>D 5'1)D== A/8 9A2' A/8
2!5A'.2AA 5>*A2) .'2AA ED'D 8D/2D8.
22
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/
)1!5AD.DAF 82='D?A'82/? .CD
51=2.27D A/8 )A.D?1'2)AA
.D=.2!1/2D= 19 .CD A))>=D8 .1!21
!AD8A A/8 .A?AC2'1 /A3A02!A.CDF
828 /1. 328/A5 1' 8D.A2/
)1!5AA2/A/. /A?A1 /1' 828 .CDF
8D!A/8 !1/DF 91' C2= 'DADA=D.
222
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/ 92/82/?
.CA. AAA .CD DAD!D/.= 19
328/A552/? E2.C 'A/=1! ED'D
5'D=D/. /1.E2.C=.A/82/? .CD 9A).
.CA. .CD D728D/)D 5'D=D/.D8 *F
.CD 5'1=D)>.21/ ED'D ?'1==AF
2/=>992)2D/. .1 D=.A*A2=C .CD
DN2=.D/)D 19 .CD AAAD?D8 199D/=D.
27
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/ /1.
A)H>2..2/? A))>=D .1!21 !AD8A
A/8 .A?AC2'1 /A3A02!A 1/ .CD
?'1>/8 .CA. .CD2' ?>2A. CA= /1.
*DD/ 5'17D/ *DF1/8 'DA=1/A*AD
81>*..
1n 4 /ove&ber 1#$%, the 5laintif-Appellee, throu+h
the 1Bce of the =olicitor ?eneral, 6led a &otion for
leave to 6le a consolidated Appellee's *rief,
1*
which
the court +ranted in the resolution of 8ece&ber
1#$%.
16
.hen, on 4 8ece&ber 1#$%, the 1Bce of the =olicitor
?eneral 6led a )o&&ent for the respondents in ?.'.
/o. 4554$
17
assertin+ therein that considerin+ that
petitioners ,accused-appellants- perfected their appeal
fro& the challen+ed decision, the" cannot avail of the
writ of haeas corpus since the &ain purpose of the
latter is to deter&ine whether or not a petitioner is
le+all" detained.
10
.he issues then in the petition
should threshed out in the appeal.
2n the resolution of # 0anuar" 1#$4,
19
Ee dis&issed
the petition for habeas corpus on the +round that, per
=ection 4 of 'ule 1: of the 'ules of )ourt, where the
co&&it&ent is pursuant to a @ud+&ent of conviction,
the writ of habeas corpus will not lie. Ee further said:
2n the present case, the petitioners
have been found +uilt" be"ond
reasonable doubt of kidnappin+ with
ranso&. .he" were accordin+l"
sentenced and are now suferin+
i&prison&ent b" virtue thereof.
8is&issal of the petition is thus
warranted, for their assertion that the"
are bein+ ille+all" deprived of freedo&
is without support in law.
!oreover, considerin+ that the
substance of the issues under
consideration is closel" interrelated or
shows a Kparallelis&K to the errors
alle+edl" incurred b" the trial court and
assi+ned b" petitioners in their briefs
6led in ?.'. /o. 44%3:, the )ourt
a+rees with the sub&ission of the
=olicitor ?eneral that the &atters in
controvers" should be resolved in ?.'.
/o. 44%3:. .his is in confor&it" with
the settled rule that Kwhen a court has
@urisdiction of the ofense char+ed and
the person of the accused, its
@ud+&ent, order or decree is valid and
is not sub@ect to collateral attack b"
habeas corpus, for this cannot be &ade
to perfor& the function of a writ of
error, and this holds true even if the
@ud+&ent, order or decree was
erroneous.K ,=otto vs. 8irector of
5risons, 5 =)'A #3, citin+ 7da. de
.alavera vs. =uperintendent and
Earden of the )orrecional ,sic-
2nstitution, %4 5hil. 53$-.
%
>nsatis6ed with the said 'esolution, petitioners 6led on
14 !arch 1#$4 a &otion for its
reconsideration,
/0
focusin+ on the issue of lack of
@urisdiction on the part of the trial court, which a
)o&&ent was 6led b" the 1Bce of the =olicitor
?eneral on 1: April 1#$4.
/1
.hereafter, petitioners
6led a repl" the co&&ent.
//
.his &otion re&ains unresolved.
1n 14 April 1#$4, the 1Bce of the =olicitor ?eneral
6led Appellee's *rief in ?.'. /o. 44%3: wherein it pra"s
that this )ourt aBr& the @ud+&ent of conviction but
reduce the penalt" to reclusion perpetua pursuant to
the new )onstitution.
/3
.he assi+ned errors of both appellants in ?.'. /o.
44%3: boil down to the followin+ issues:
1- 0urisdiction, which, as ad&itted b"
appellant /aka@i&a, is raised for the
6rst ti&eL
- 8enial of due process, as raised b"
appellant .o&io !aedaL and
3- =uBcienc" of the evidence for the
prosecution prove the cri&e char+ed.
2
.here is no &erit in the clai& of lack of @urisdiction.
9ro& totalit" of the evidence presented b" both
parties, the conclusion is inescapable that durin+ the
period fro& to 1 !a" 1#$%, the co&plainant was
brou+ht to or taken fro& diferent places b" the
appellants. !ore speci6call", on !a" 1#$%, the da"
when the" &ade their initial, but crucial &ove on the
tar+et, the co&plainant ,hereinafter referred to as !r.
/a+ao-, appellants, throu+h the overt act of accused
.o&io !aeda alias =ato .oshio and another 0apanese,
brou+ht co&plainant Kso&e other places in
!anilaK
/4
after the" succeeded in +ettin+ his trust and
con6dence, followin+ a conversation over lunch in a
cofee shop at Colida" 2nn Cotel.
.he essential in+redients of the cri&e char+ed were
thus co&&itted in various places.
.he case can, therefore, be 6led with the appropriate
court in an" of the places where the co&plainant was
brou+ht to b" appellants in the pursuit of or in
connection with the cri&e char+ed. =ection 15 of 'ule
11: of the 'ules of )ourt provides that sub@ect to
e<istin+ laws, in all cri&inal prosecutions, action shall
be instituted and tried in the court of the &unicipalit"
or territor" wherein the ofense was co&&itted or an"
one of the essential in+redients thereof took place.
/*
!oreover, in the proceedin+s below, there was not
even the sli+htest su++estion fro& the appellants to
e<press their doubts as to the @urisdiction of the court
over the case. .he" did not present an" evidence to
show that all of the acts involved in or related to the
ofense char+ed took place outside !anila. 1n the
contrar", fro& their arrai+n&ent until the pro&ul+ation
of the decision, the" une;uivocall" reco+ni(ed and
then "ielded to the trial court's @urisdiction over their
persons and the ofense char+ed. .he" voluntaril"
e<pressed their readiness to be arrai+ned,
/6
as in fact
the" were, abandonin+ in efect their ur+ent &otion for
reinvesti+ation. .he" took ver" active part in the trial
b" e<tensivel" and e<haustivel" cross-e<a&inin+ the
witnesses for the prosecution, testif"in+ for the&selves
in the &ost detailed &anner as possible to confor&
with the strate+" of their counsel, and allowin+
the&selves to be cross-e<a&ined b" the prosecutin+
6scal. .here can be no doubt that such active
participation was &otivated b" one desire and was
riveted to one +oal: a @ud+&ent of ac;uittal on the
&erits, which necessaril" carried with it an un;uali6ed
invocation of the @urisdiction and authorit" of the court.
=ettled is the rule that a part" who voluntaril"
sub&itted his cause before a trial court, activel"
participated in the hearin+s therein, or invoked its
@urisdiction, &a" not be heard to ;uestion its
@urisdiction.
/7
2t would be placin+ a pre&iu& on bad
faith and "ieldin+ to atte&pts to &ake a &ocker" of
the @udicial process if a part" would be per&itted to
;uestion the ver" power and authorit" which he
invokes for his own bene6t or advanta+e once he fails
to obtain it.
22
Anent the denial of due process, the &ain +rievance of
appellant .o&io !aeda focuses on the alle+ed
Krailroaded disposition of the case.K .he 6lin+ of the
case pursuant to ?eneral 1rder /o. 3#, which
&andates that it should be disposed of within twent"-
four ,4- hours after 6lin+ b" the arrestin+ oBcer, is
inconsistent with the need to &ake a thorou+h review
assess&ent of the facts, considerin+ the +ravit" of the
i&posable penalt". Ce further clai&s that the" were
tortured and forced to si+n state&ents in the absence
of their law"er, and that the trial on the &erits was an
e<a&ple of K@ustice in haste, @ustice denied.K
Ee are not i&pressed b" the plea.
2n the 6rst place, the state&ents the" &ade durin+
custodial interro+ation were not taken into account
a+ainst the&. 1n the contrar", the trial
court rejected such state&ents in toto and deplored
the failure of the police to co&pl" with the procedure
prescribed b" this )ourt in &akin+ an arrest and in
conductin+ a custodial investi+ation. =aid the trial
court:
At the outset, it &a" not be a&iss to
i&&ediatel" point out in the case
of %orales -s. +once .nrile, 11 =)'A
%3$, and reiterated in the &ore recent
case of +eople -s. Galit, ?.'. /o.
5144:, !arch :, 1#$5,
/0
the
Conorable =upre&e )ourt laid down
4
the correct procedure for peace oBcers
to follow when &akin+ an arrest and in
conductin+ custodial investi+ation,
thus:
4. At the ti&e a person
is arrested, it shall be
the dut" of the
arrestin+ oBcer to
infor& hi& of the
reason for the arrest
and he &ust be shown
the warrant of arrest, if
an". Ce shall be
infor&ed of his
constitutional ri+hts to
re&ain silent and
counsel, and that an"
state&ent he &i+ht
&ake could be use
a+ainst hi&. .he
person arrested shall
have the ri+ht to
co&&unicate with his
law"er, a relative, or
an"one he chooses b"
&ost e<pedient &eans
J b" telephone if
possible J or b" letter
&essen+er. 2t shall be
the responsibilit" of the
arrestin+ oBcer to see
to it that this is
acco&plished. /o
custodial investi+ation
shall be conducted
unless it be in the
presence of counsel
en+a+ed b" the person
arrested, b" an" person
on his behalf, or
appointed b" the court
upon petition of either
the detainee hi&self or
b" an"one on his
behalf. .he ri+ht to
counsel &a" be waived
but the waiver shall not
be valid unless &ade
with assistance of
counsel. An" state&ent
obtained in violation of
the procedure herein
laid down, whether
e<culpator" or
inculpator", in whole or
in part, shall be
inad&issible in
evidence.
.he )ourt notes in this case that there
was not even an atte&pt on the part of
the police investi+ators to allow or +ive
a chance to the accused to be assisted
b" a counsel of their own choice durin+
the custodial investi+ation. Ehen,
indeed a law"er was provided the
accused he turned out to be, after all, a
tea& &e&ber of the sa&e police force
investi+atin+ the accused. Ehen the
accused 6nall" si+ned their respective
state&ents it was alread" in the earl"
&ornin+ of the followin+ da" when the
said law"er who was supposed to assist
the& was no lon+er around. Dven the
waiver of the accused Fa&ada of his
ri+ht to counsel has not been shown to
have been assisted b" counsel. .he
)ourt therefore doubts the
voluntariness of the state&ents of the
accused ,D<hs. K)K and K3K-. Cence, the
sa&e &ust be re@ected in toto.
2n the second place, while it &a" be true that the trial
lasted onl" for a few da"s and the decision was
pro&ul+ated on the twelfth da" after the 6lin+ of the
infor&ation, there is nothin+ on record that &a" cast
an" doubt on the i&partialit" and neutralit" of the
@ud+e or on the fairness of his decision which, as Ee
observe, &anifests a careful and thorou+h anal"sis of
the evidence. Appellants &ade no protest in the court
below as to the &anner the trial was conducted. After
the" co&pleted their testi&onies and ofered their
D<hibit K1,K their counsel announced that Kwe are
respectfull" sub&ittin+ our case for decision of this
Conorable )ourt.K
/9
.he" did not even ask for ti&e to
sub&it a &e&orandu& to aid the court in appreciatin+
the evidence, if indeed the facts and the issues were
co&plicated. .he" cannot now be heard to co&plain
that it hastil" decided the case, or that it did not &ake
a thorou+h review and assess&ent of the evidence.
2n the third place, all the re;uisites of due process are
present in this case, to wit: ,a- a court or tribunal
clothed with @udicial power to hear and deter&ine the
&atter before itL ,b- @urisdiction lawfull" ac;uired b" it
over the person of the appellants and over the ofenseL
,c- the appellants were +iven an opportunit" to be
heardL and ,d- @ud+&ent was rendered upon lawful
hearin+.
30
2n +eople -s. $astillo, et al.,
31
Ee ruled that if an
accused been proceeded a+ainst under an orderl"
process of law, and onl" punished after in;uir" or
investi+ation upon notice to hi&, with opportunit" to be
heard, and a @ud+&ent rendered within the authorit" of
the constitutional law, then he has had due process. 2n
the instant case, as stated in the discussion above on
@urisdiction, the accused-appellants activel"
participated in hearin+ of the case before the trial court
and had full an unha&pered opportunit" to cross-
e<a&ine the witnesses for the prosecution and to
present their own evidence.
.hat ?eneral 1rder /o. 3# directs civil courts to
dispose the case within twent"-four ,4- hours after its
6lin+ b" the arrestin+ oBcer, considerin+ that the
ofended part" is a tourist, does not detract fro& the
above conclusion that appellants we not deprived of
$
due process. .he re;uire&ent, which is &erel"
director", is not wantin+ in reason or purpose. .he sta"
of tourists in the countr" is li&ited in duration. .ouris&
is a &a@or dollar-earnin+ industr" which the
?overn&ent has been to pro&ote. )orollaril", it &ust
have to adopt policies to attract tourists and to insure
their safet" and securit" while the" are in the countr".
=pecial laws bearin+ upon procedure, with the end in
view of e<peditin+ the hearin+s and disposition of
cri&inal cases where tourists are the ofended parties,
&a" be validl" enacted provided that there is
substantial co&pliance procedural due process and
non-i&pair&ent of substantive due process.
222
.he third issue re;uires a deter&ination as to whether
or the prosecution has established be"ond reasonable
doubt the ele&ents of the ofense char+ed. Appellants
contend that it has not, for !r. /a+ao was not
restrained of his libert"L he was free and could have
easil" escaped. As to the ranso&, appellant .a+ahiro
/aka@i&a asserts that:
.he &one" re&itted b" /a+ao's fatter
was for the pa"&ent of his son's hotel
bills, and not for ranso& purposes ,p.
#%, tsn., !a" 1, 1#$%-. 9urther
/a+ao's father testi6ed that K.hat
reason wh" 2 re&itted this &one"
because 2 want to know whether &"
son can +et this &one" and to know
the whereabout of &" son, sir.K,p. 1:4,
tan., !a" 1, 1#$%-.
3/
Cowever, appellant .o&io !aeda has a diferent
version. Accordin+ to hi&, it was in pa"&ent of the
su& which the" advanced to the police for and in
behalf of !r. /a+ao to secure the latter's release, and
the a&ount spent for hotel acco&&odations and
additional e<penses the" incurred in his behalf.
1therwise stated:
... a si&ple contract of loan e<isted
between co&plainant and the accused
whereb" the co&plainant incurred a
le+al as well as &oral obli+ation to pa"
for the e<penses advanced b" the
accused in his favor. .his is another
reason wh" co&plainant sta"ed in the
co&pan" of the accused. 2n the words
of the co&plainant hi&self, he dee&ed
it Kan obli+ation upon hi&self to pa" for
the e<pensesK advanced b" the
accused in acco&&odatin+ hi& ,tsn,
!a" 1, 1#$%, p. 4-5-. Thus, there
/as no force or compulsion in e&actin0
payment from the accused. There /as
no demand, as there /as no need for
it. .he co&plainant knew that he had
an obli+ation and that he had to
co&pl" with it. The money to e paid
/as ri0htfully due to the 1 accused. 2t
/as nothin0 more than a payment for a
det in money.
33
.he trial court found otherwise. 2ts 6ndin+s were based
on its appreciation of the evidence for the parties
which, in turn, revolved upon the credibilit" of the
witnesses. 2t is well-settled that the conclusion of the
trial court on the credibilit" of witnesses is entitled to
+reat wei+ht and respectL and, unless there are
substantial facts and circu&stances that have been
overlooked, which if considered &i+ht efect the result
of the case, such 6ndin+s are +enerall" not disturbed
on appeal. .he reason for this is that the trial court is in
a better position to observe the deport&ent and
de&eanor of witnesses to deter&ine the veracit" of
their answersL
34
it has the inesti&able advanta+e of
observin+ the detailed de&eanor of the witnesses.
3*
Ee 6nd no reason to depart fro& this rule. A
painstakin+ review of the evidence in this case clearl"
discloses the correctness of such 6ndin+s.
.he evidence for the prosecution has established
be"ond reasonable doubt that appellants, to+ether
with their co-conspirators, had an elaborate and
carefull" desi+ned plan to kidnap !r. /a+ao in order to
obtain ranso& fro& hi&. .he plan was efectivel"
carried out at lunchti&e on !a" 1#$% at the cofee
shop in Colida" 2nn Cotel when appellant .o&io !aeda
alia =ato .oshio approached !r. /a+ao to 6nd out if the
latter had 0apanese "en to be converted to 5hilippine
pesos because a friend was to leave for 0apan and
needed the "enL .o&io succeeded in havin+ 51,1::.::
e<chan+ed for 1:,:::.:: "en belon+in+ to !r. /a+ao.
.hen, another 0apanese co&panion of .o&io, one !r.
!ita&ura, invited co&plainant to @oin the& at their
table. .o&io left the& and proceeded to the airport to
send of his friend who was to depart for 0apan.
36
*"
his addition ad&issions on cross-e<a&ination, he
clearl" revealed, thou+h rather unwittin+l", how the
plot would be pursued with the assistance of law
enforce&ent authorities. As earl" as 3::: o'clock in the
afternoon of that da", !r. !ita&ura called .o&io b"
telephone to infor& hi& that a 0apanese was arrested
for havin+ &ari@uana in his possession, althou+h the
na&e of the latter was not &entioned. Eithout even
bein+ infor&ed as to where the arrested part" was
brou+ht, .o&io proceeded to the =outhern 5olice
8istrict and, upon arrivin+ there at 4::: o'clock, &erel"
infor&ed the police that a 0apanese has &ari@uana in
his possession. Ce could not, however, &ention the
na&e of said 0apanese.
37
2t should be stressed that at that ti&e, !r. /a+ao had
not "et been KarrestedK b" 6ve ,5- police&en of the
=outhern 5olice 8istrict for possession of a pack of
ci+arettes alle+edl" containin+ &ari@uana. Ce was
arrested after seven o'clock that evenin+ followin+ a
dinner at Aeo's 'estaurant.
.his visit then of .o&io to the =outhern 5olice 8istrict
&ust have had so&ethin+ to do with a conspiratorial
#
arran+e&ent with so&e personnel of said oBce, &ore
speci6call" the 6ve police&en who, at past 4::: o'clock
that evenin+, pounced on !r. /a+ao and KarrestedK
hi& for alle+ed possession of &ari@uana.
9ro& the =outhern 5olice 8istrict, .o&io called
!ita&ura, who was in the co&plainant's roo& at
Colida" 2nn CotelL !ita&ura told hi& that the" were to
take their dinner at Aeo's 'estaurant. .he" did in fact
have dinner at Aeo's 'estaurant,
30
althou+h on direct
e<a&ination, he said that after the &eetin+ at
lunchti&e, he saw co&plainant a+ain onl" at the
=outhern 5olice 8istrict.
39
At Aeo's 'estaurant, .o&io clai&s:
a ... Aater on we saw
one 0apanese holdin+
&ari@uana inside the
restaurant and then !r.
!ita&ura re;uested to
call or contact the
police in order that this
0apanese who was in
possession of
&ari@uana be arrested.
; =o "ou were infor&ed
b" !ita&ura to contact
the southern police
district ,sic- that there
was this two ,sic-
0apanese inside the
Aeo's restaurant who
was in possession
&ari@uana ci+arette
,sic-I
a Fes, sir.
; .hese two 0apanese
were left at Aeo's
restaurant and one
0apanese was in
possession of
&ari@uana ci+arettesI
a Fes, sir.
; And did this police
oBcer arrested ,sic-
these ,sic- 0apanese
who is ,sic- in
possession of
&ari@uanaI
a Fes, sir.
; And who &ade this
planI
a Ehat plan, sirI
; About "ou and the
southern police. At
about 4::: o'clock were
,sic- this 0apanese
holdin+ &ari@uana was
arrestedI
a .hat was not a plan,
sir. 2 +ot onl" the
infor&ation fro !r.
!ita&ura that so&e
0apanese were in
possession of
&ari@uana.
; Fou @ust +ather ,sic-
this infor&ation fro&
!r. !ita&ura but "ou
reall" infor&,,sic- the
policeI
a Fes, sir.
; =o that is the plan of
!r. !ita&uraI
a 2 think so, sir.
40
1ther than !r. /a+ao, no other 0apanese was
KarrestedK for alle+ed possession of &ari@uana at Aeo's
restaurant in the evenin+ of !a" 1#$%, after a pack
of ci+arettes was place inside his left shirt pocket b",
accordin+ to hi&, a 0apanese.
After co&plainant was KarrestedK b" the 6ve police&en
fro& the =outhern 5olice 8istrict and brou+ht to the
head;uarters, .o&io showed up, talked to !r. /a+ao
and the police&en an reco&&ended the assistance of
an interpreter since, accordin+ to hi&, !r. /a+ao
cannot understand and speak Dn+lish well.
41
.he
interpreter he had in &ind was his co-accused .a+ahiro
/aka@i&a, who he forthwith calledL the latter lost no
ti&e in co&in+ to the =outhern 5olice 8istrict to act
as %r. Na0ao3s interpreter.
4/
!r. /aka@i&a ofered
additional infor&ation not disclosed earlier, i.e., the
police&en KfoundK in the possession of co&plainant,
not @ust one pack of ci+arettes containin+ 15 stick of
&ari@uana, but a smu00lin0 elt.
43
At the =outhern 5olice 8istrict, appellants infor&ed !r.
/a+ao that if found +uilt" of possession of &ari@uana
he can be sentenced an"where fro& % to 1 "ears of
i&prison&ent. .he two then proposed that he should
+ive &one" to the police&en, who, the" clai&ed,
de&anded >.=.G1::,:::.::. .he" infor&ed hi& that if
he will not +ive the &one", his na&e and his case
would be published in the newspapers because, at that
ti&e, there were so&e newspaper reporters outside.
!r. /a+ao, however, did not have the &one"L he
proposed to contact his parents. Cowever, after the"
talked to the police in another roo&, the" infor&ed hi&
that the" had advanced the pa"&ent to the police who
thereafter released hi&. .he appellants and a
1:
police&an then brou+ht hi& to his roo& at the Colida"
2nn Cotel.
44
.he fore+oin+ scenarios were part of the script. Eith
the obvious connivance of the police, the" put the
pressure on the co&plainant b" de&andin+, alle+edl"
for and in consideration of his release, the a&ount
aforestated. >nder the circu&stances, with the threat
of adverse publicit" and i&prison&ent, it was eas" to
work on hi&. .o show that the" co&&iserated with
hi&, the" &ade it appear that the" advanced the
&one" to the police. Ee are, however, convinced that
the accused-appellants never advanced the &one".
.hat is wh" the" stuck to the co&plainant like Ka
leech,K as vividl" described b" the trial court, after he
was eventuall" KreleasedK b" the police. .here is no
doubt in 1ur &ind that durin+ the period fro& 3 !a"
1#$% until the accused-appellants were arrested on 1
!a" 1#$%, co&plainant was &oved fro& one hotel to
another b" the appellants, efectivel" deprivin+ hi& of
his libert". As correctl" observed b" the =olicitor
?eneral, while it &a" be conceded that co&plainant
had the freedo& of loco&otion, he Kdid not have the
freedo& to leave the hotel pre&ises at will and +o
wherever he pleased.K
4*
.o keep hi& within their
control, appellant .a+ahiro /aka@i&a, who is a
business&an and a resident of 1:1 5eter's =treet, *9
Co&es, 5araOa;ue, !etro !anila, had to abandon his
business and his fa&il" to be with !r. /a+ao. .hus, as
he ad&itted upon ;uestion b" the court, he was, fro&
3 to 1 !a" 1#$%, with the co&plainant at Colida" 2nn
Cotel, 2ntercontinental Cotel, 5hilippine 7illa+e Cotel
and 7irra )ondo&iniu&. Ce slept there, not in his
residence.
46
.he suite ,43- which the" occupied 7irra
)ondo&iniu& is owned b" his co-accused .o&io
!aeda.
47
!oreover, appellants never refuted the testi&on" of
/a+ao &ade durin+ cross-e<a&ination, that at the
hotel the" told hi& that if he did not pa" the& the
a&ount de&anded the police&en, plus the hotel bills
and other e<penses, would do so&ethin+ to hi&L the"
kept on tellin+ hi& that if he did not pa" the&, the
police&en would arrest hi&.
40
Ee are not persuaded b" the theor" of the appellants
that &one" involved was not ranso& &one", but
rather pa"&ent of hotel bills ,as clai&ed b" .a+ahiro
/aka@i&a- or for rei&burse&ent of the su& the"
advanced to pa" the police&en and for hotel
acco&&odations and additional e<penses spent for
co&plainant ,as clai&ed b" .o&io !aeda-. 2n the 6rst
place, none of the& clai&ed that either or both of
the& advanced the &one" to the police. As a &atter of
fact, .a+ahiro /aka@i&a testi6ed that he saw the
co&plainant countin+ the &one":
; Awhile ,sic- a+o "ou
stated that he even
ofered &one" the
policeI
a Fes, sir.
; Cow &uchI
a Ehen 2 was reachin+
,sic- to the&, the" are
,sic- writin+ papers,
after that 2 think he was
countin+ dollar and he
told us one hundred
thousand >= dollar, but
surin+ ,sic- that ti&e 2
was doubtful how co&e
that bi+ a&ount he
cannot pa" the ,sic-
a&ount of ,sic- 1ne
Cundred .housand >=
dollar ,sic-.
; /ow, after that, what
happened ne<tI
a After that he told &e
that he will @ust borrow
fro& his friend 1ne
Cundred .housand >=
dollar. 2 told hi& that is
i&possible and that is
too &uch, and 2 also
told hi& better talk to
"our father to send
&one" then after that
he called up to 0apan
,sic-.
; /ow, was he released
b" the policeI
a Fes, sir.
49
>pon the other hand, as far as could be +athered fro&
the testi&on" of !r. .o&io !aeda on direct
e<a&ination, the &one" +iven to the police did not
also co&e fro& hi&. .hus:
; 8id "ou know as to
how &uch &one" did
he pro&ised ,sic- to the
policeI
a Fes, sir.
; Cow &uchI
a 1ne Cundred
.housand >=. 8ollar
,sic- ,G1::,:::.::-, sir.
; And do "ou know if
he was able to put up
that a&ount to the
policeI
11
a /o, sir.
; /ow, fro& the
head;uarter ,sic-,
where did "ou +oI
a At Colida" 2nn Cotel,
sir.
; And upon reachin+
Colida" 2nn Cotel, what
happened or what did
"ou doI
a !r. /a+ao don3t 4sic5
ha-e any money
anymore so we are
talkin+ ,sic- about hotel
acco&&odation and
other e<penses startin+
the ne<t da" and he is
,sic- also tr"in+ to
contact his friend, sir.
*0
Ehat then was the &one" the" advanced to the
policeI /othin+. Cowever, the" succeeded in &akin+ it
appear to !r. /a+ao, after the" ca&e out of the roo&
at the =outhern 5olice 8istrict, that the" advanced the
a&ount to the police, for which reason he was
released. .his was part of the strata+e& to +ive a
se&blance of le+alit" to the de&and for ranso&.
/ow then, if indeed the appellants onl" wanted
rei&burse&ent for the &one" KpaidK to the police, and
that the" were &erel" &otivated b" a desire to help a
fellow 0apanese in distress, wh" did the" have to brin+
hi& fro& one e<pensive hotel to the other, thereb"
incurrin+ &ore e<pensesI Eh" did the" not brin+ hi&
to their ho&es, as the trial court asked, if onl" to show
their +enuine concern for hi&I
Dven +rantin+ for the sake of ar+u&ent that, in efect,
there was created a si&ple loan contract between
appellants and !r. /a+ao, as asserted b" appellant
.o&io !aeda, the deprivation of the for&er's libert"
until the a&ount shall have been full" KpaidK to the&,
is still kidnappin+ or ille+al detention for ranso&.
2n +eople -s. Akiran, et al.,
*1
this )ourt, throu+h 0ustice
0.5. *en+(on, ruled that even if the kidnappin+ were to
co&pel the victi& to ful6ll his pro&ise of defra"in+ the
hospital e<penses of a brother of one of the accused,
there is still kidnappin+ for ranso&, since if that were
indeed the purpose, the accused need not kidnap the
victi&. Dlaboratin+ thereon, the )ourt stated that the
last para+raph of Article %4 of the 'evised 5enal
)ode, as a&ended b" '.A. /o. 1:$4, which took efect
on 15 0une 1#54, which increases the penalt" for
kidnappin+ and serious ille+al detention if it is
co&&itted for the purpose of e<tortin+ ranso& fro&
the victi& or an" other person, even if none of the
circu&stances &entioned in said Article were present
in the co&&ission of the ofense is:
... derived fro& statutes of the >nited
=tates, particularl" the Aindber+h Aaw.
.hus, A&erican @urisprudence thereon
has persuasive application. K'anso&K
under A&erican rulin+s, as used in
statutes &akin+ kidnappin+ with intent
to hold for ranso& a capital ofense,
has been held to &ean in its ordinar"
sense as K&one", price, or
consideration paid or de&anded for
rede&ption of a captured person or
persons, a pa"&ent that releases fro&
captivit".K
*/
=ince the accused in this
case de&anded and received &one" as
a re;uisite for releasin+ a person fro&
captivit", whatever other &otive &a"
have i&pelled the& to do so, the
&one" is still ranso& under the law.
*3
.he doctrine in the Akiran case is applicable here.
.hus, even if the theor" of .o&io is correct, it was not
necessar" for hi& and his co-accused /aka@i&a to
deprive the co&plainant of his libert" to co&pel hi& to
pa" the alle+ed loan.
Ee thus hold that upon the evidence adduced b" the
prosecution, the +uilt of the accused for the cri&e
char+ed was proven be"ond reasonable doubt and the
trial court co&&itted no error in convictin+ the&
accordin+l". 2n view, however, of =ection 1#,1- of
Article 222 of the 1#$4 )onstitution which abolishes the
death penalt" and provides that an" death penalt"
alread" i&posed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, the penalt" i&posed b" the trial court is
dee&ed reduced to reclusion perpetua.
2n the li+ht of the fore+oin+, the &otion of appellants
dated 1% !arch 1#$4 to reconsider 1ur resolution of #
0anuar" 1#$4 in ?.'. /o. 4554% &ust also be 8enied
for lack of &erit.
.his should not, however, end the stor" of !r. /a+ao.
As adverted to earlier, other parties, na&el", !r.
!ita&ura, a 0apanese national, and the 6ve police&en
fro& the =outhern 5olice 8istrict, could be deepl"
involved in the conspirac" to kidnap hi& for ranso&.
1ur e<a&ination of the records fails to show that !r.
!ita&ura and the police&en were investi+ated or
prosecuted in connection with this case. .his )ourt
would be re&iss in its dut" if it were to close its e"es
on this &atter, &ore speci6call" on the alle+ed
involve&ent of the police&en. 5olice&en are supposed
to enforce the law, protect the people, and &aintain
peace and order. At the people's e<pense, the" don the
unifor& of authorit" and are allowed to carr" the
instru&ents of le+al violence. As such, the" are bound
to faithfull" adhere to the )onstitutional directive to be
at all ti&es accountable to the people, serve the& with
ut&ost responsibilit", inte+rit", lo"alt" and
eBcienc".
*4
Ehen the" fail in that sacred dut" and
beco&e the lawbreakers, the" have no business
sta"in+ a &inute lon+er in their oBces and wearin+
their unifor&s. .he" deserve nothin+ but the severest
1
cri&inal and ad&inistrative penalties the law provides.
.he people's ta<es should never be used to &aintain
and support scalawa+s in our law enforce&ent
a+encies who &a" use their unifor&s and their lawfull"
issued weapons as convenient shields or instru&ents
for the perpetration of their evil deeds. Accordin+l", Ee
direct the 5hilippine /ational 5olice to conduct a
thorou+h investi+ation, if none has been done so far,
into the involve&ent of the 6ve police&en of the
=outhern 5olice 8istrict and, should the evidence
warrant, 6le the appropriate cri&inal and
ad&inistrative cases a+ainst the&. As re+ards !r.
!ita&ura, if he is still in the 5hilippines, eforts &ust be
e<erted b" the *ureau of 2&&i+ration and 8eportation,
in coordination with the /ational *ureau of
2nvesti+ation, to have hi& investi+ated and
prosecuted, should the evidence warrant. /o alien
should be allowed to abuse 5hilippine hospitalit" and
&ake our countr" a happ" huntin+ +round for his
cri&inal activities.
ECD'D91'D, @ud+&ent is hereb" rendered:
1. 2n ?.'. /o. 44%3:, A992'!2/?, sub@ect to the above
provision of =ection 1#,1- of Article 222 of the 1#$4
)onstitution, the decision of the trial court in )ri&inal
)ase /o. $%-45:55, and
. 2n ?.'. /o. 4554%, 8D/F2/?, for lack of &erit, the
&otion to reconsider the resolution of : 0anuar" 1#$4.
)osts a+ainst appellants.
=1 1'8D'D8.
.C2'8 8272=21/
G.R. No. 064*4 O1tober 10, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-
appellee,
vs.
,ARMEN LIM 2 3MAMENG LIM3, defendant-
appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintif-appellee.
6errera, 7aurel, !e los "eyes, "o&as # Teehankee for
defendant- appellant.

G-TIERRE4, (R., J.:
.his is an appeal fro& the decision of the 'e+ional .rial
)ourt of !asbate, *ranch 4%, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
<<< <<< <<<
ECD'D91'D, @ud+&ent is hereb"
rendered 6ndin+ the accused )ar&en
Ai& +uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt of
the cri&e char+ed and sentencin+ her
to reclusion perpetua and to pa" the
costs. ,'ollo, p. -
.he infor&ation 6led a+ainst the accused and 0ohn 8oe
reads:
<<< <<< <<<
.hat on or about 0ul" 1, 1#$%, in the
afternoon thereof, at Purbito =treet,
!unicipalit" of !asbate, 5rovince of
!asbate, 5hilippines, within the
@urisdiction of this court, the said
accused who are private persons
conspired and &utuall" helped each
other, did then and there willfull",
unlawfull" and feloniousl" kidnap Aida
and Avel"n both &inors and surna&ed
7illanuevaL separatin+ the& fro& their
parental careL Aida 7illanueva was
detained for about twent" ,:- da"s in
the house of )ar&en Ai& alias
K!a&en+K while Avel"n 7illanueva was
detained and brou+ht to )ebu )it" b"
the co-accused thereb" deprivin+ the
two, Aida and Avel"n of their personal
liberties. ,'ecords, p.1-
.he prosecution evidence upon which the trial court
based its 6ndin+ of +uilt be"ond reasonable doubt is
su&&ari(ed as follows:
<<< <<< <<<
.hat in the &ornin+ of 0ul" 1, 1#$%,
Aida 7illanueva and her "oun+er sister
Avel"n 7illanueva, 1: and 4 "ears old,
respectivel", were sent on an errand b"
their father )harlito ,should be )harito-
7illanueva to bu" rice in !asbate,
!asbate. .he 7illanuevas lived in
!obo, a nei+hborin+ town of the capital
of the province. >pon their arrival at
the poblacion of the capital town of
!asbate at around #::: o'clock in the
&ornin+, Aida and Avel"n went to the
pier, sta"in+ there up to 1::: noon, to
&eet their &other who& the" thou+ht
would arrive b" boat fro& !anila. .he"
left the pier when their &other did not
arrive and went to Celen .heatre on
Purbito =treet, !asbate, !asbate, to
see a picture.
At around ::: o'clock in the afternoon
of the sa&e da" while the" were in
front of the Celen .heatre, the" were
called b" the accused )ar&en Ai&, in a
loud voice. K)o&e here /eneK and
13
asked the& to +o to her house @ust
infront of the &oviehouse. Aida and
Avel"n went to the house of the
accused and +ot inside passin+ throu+h
the front door.
After a brief conversation with the two
children, the accused +ave Aida and
Avel"n rice and kan+kon+ for lunch.
After the" had 6nished eatin+, Aida was
told b" the accused to take a bath. .he
accused +ave Aida a dress to wear.
9ro& 0ul" 1, 1#$% to 0ul" 15, 1#$%, Aida
7illanueva was detained in the house of
the accused doin+ household chores
such as cleanin+ the kitchen, scrubbin+
the Moor, washin+ the plates includin+
re&ovin+ lice fro& the head of the
accused and fannin+ her. Avel"n, the
"oun+er sister of Aida, was brou+ht b"
)ar&en's &other ,should be sister- in
)ebu on the sa&e da" the" arrived in
the house of the accused.
1n 0ul" 15, 1#$%, )harito 7illanueva,
father of the two &inor children, found
his dau+hter Aida in the house of the
accused. Ce asked the accused to let
Aida +o ho&e with hi&, but the
accused refused.
)harito ca&e back to the house of the
accused the followin+ da", 0ul" 1%,
1#$%, acco&panied this ti&e b" =+t.
Antonio Ariate of the %%th 5)
)o&pan" at )a&p *onn" =errano,
!asbate, !asbate, who had with hi&
an ar&alite. After 2dentif"in+ hi&self to
the accused, the soldier told the
accused that he was takin+ Aida with
hi&.
Eithout resistance but utterin+
slanderous re&arks, the accused
released Aida to =+t. Ariate. )harito
7illanueva and his dau+hter Aida were
brou+ht b" =+t. Ariate to the %%th 5)
)o&pan" Cead;uarters where the
co&plaint of )harito was recorded in
the blotter b" )2) 7incent Dlliot
7as;ue( of the 2 Q 2 =ection. ,'ollo, p.
1-
.he appellant's version, on the other hand, is
su&&ari(ed in her brief as follows:
<<< <<< <<<
1n or about 1:3: in the afternoon of 2
0ul" 1#$%, the sisters went to Celen
.heater, located alon+ Purbito =t.,
!asbate, !asbate, to look at the
pictures displa"ed outside. Celen
.heater is located across the store and
residence of the appellant.
.he sisters then proceeded to
appellant's store which she was
tendin+ at that ti&e. Appellant noticed
the sisters and ca+ed the& over. =he
in;uired fro& the sisters as to the
whereabouts of their parents as the"
were apparentl" alone. .he sisters
replied that their parents had
separated and that their &other had
+one to !anila, and that their father
was in *uenavista, >son, !asbate. .he
sisters clai&ed that the" were driven
awa" b" their father and that the" were
not +iven an" food to eat.
.akin+ pit" on the sisters, appellant
+ave the sisters food and allowed the&
to take a bath. )oncerned for their
safet", appellant ofered to shelter the
sisters. As the "oun+er sister of
appellant was at that ti&e visitin+
appellant, appellant proposed to Aida
to let Avel"n acco&pan" appellant's
sister to the latter's ho&e. Aida a+reed,
on condition that she and Avel"n could
&eet ever" week.
Aida sta"ed in appellant's residence for
about two ,- weeks. .o help in the
house, Aida would +o to the &arket to
bu" bread, 6sh and salt for appellant's
household. Aida also helped watch over
appellant's store fro& ti&e to ti&e.
1n or about #::: a.&. of 15 0ul" 1#$%,
)harito 7illanueva, the co&plainant
and father of the sisters, went to
appellant's store. )harito introduced
hi&self to appellant as the father of the
two sisters and infor&ed appellant that
he was +oin+ to brin+ the sisters ho&e.
)harito talked to Aida and asked her to
+o ho&e with hi&. Aida, however,
refused to +o with her father. As a
result, )harito left. Ehen asked b"
appellant wh" she refused to +o with
her father, Aida replied that she was
afraid that her father would beat her
up.
1n 1% 0ul" 1#$%, )harito returned to
appellant's store, this ti&e
acco&panied b" =+t. Antonio Ariate, 0r.
of the 5hilippine )onstabular", =+t.
Ariate introduced hi&self to appellant.
)harito a+ain talked to Aida to
convince her to +o ho&e with hi&. .his
ti&e, Aida a+reed to +o ho&e with her
father. ,'ollo, pp. 44-4%-
14
.he appellant raises the followin+ assi+n&ent of errors
in her appeal, to wit:
2
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/ /1.
82=!2==2/? .CD )A=D A?A2/=. .CD
A55DAAA/. 8D=52.D .CD 8D=2=.A/)D
19 .CD )1!5AA2/A/.
22
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/ ?272/?
)'D8D/)D .1 .CD 5'1=D)>.21/
E2./D==D=' .D=.2!1/F EC2)C ED'D
'D5AD.D E2.C 2/)1/=2=.D/)2D= A/8
)1/.'A82).21/=
222
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/
)1/72).2/? .CD A55DAAA/. 8D=52.D
.CD 9A). .CA. A28A 72AAA/>D7A EA=
/1. 8D.A2/D8 *F .CD A55DAAA/.
27
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/
)1/72).2/? .CD A55DAAA/. 8D=52.D
.CD 9A). .CA. A55DAAA/. CA8 /1
!1.27D .1 8D.A2/ A28A A/8 A7DAF/
72AAA/>D7A ,'ollo, pp. 44-4$-
.he funda&ental a<io& underl"in+ a cri&inal
prosecution is that before the accused &a" be
convicted of an" cri&e, his +uilt &ust be proved
be"ond reasonable doubt. .hus, if there are substantial
facts which were overlooked b" the trial court but
which could alter the results of the case in favor of the
accused, then such facts should be carefull" taken into
account b" the reviewin+ tribunal. ,5eople v. .orre, ?.'.
/o. A-44#:5, April 5, 1##:-
2n the case at bar, after a careful review of the
evidence adduced b" the prosecution, we 6nd the
sa&e to be insuBcient to sustain a conviction.
.he uncorroborated testi&on" of the alle+ed
kidnapped victi&, Aida 7illanueva, which was &ainl"
relied upon b" the trial court in convictin+ the
appellant, was not clear and convincin+ enou+h to
overco&e the constitutional presu&ption of innocence.
.here is no kidnappin+ in this case. .he two &inors
voluntaril" entered the appellant's residence throu+h
the front entrance. .he fact of detention which is an
essential ele&ent in the cri&e char+ed, was not clearl"
established. .here was no showin+ that there was
actual con6ne&ent or restriction of the person of the
ofended part". ,=ee 5eople v. !ercado, 131 =)'A 5:1,
5:% R1#$4SL >= v. )abanas, $ 5hil. %4, %4 R1#:4S-. .he
appellant's residence has a store frontin+ the street
where &an" custo&ers presu&abl" co&e and +o. .he
place is bus" with a &ovie house in front. .here is no
indication that Aida was locked up, ph"sicall"
restrained of her libert" or unable to co&&unicate with
an"one.
.here are other circu&stances which create +rave
doubts in Aida's version of her two week detention. 2n
her testi&on", Aida clai&ed that she atte&pted to
escape three ti&es but she was not able to do so. ,.=/,
0ul" 1, 1#$4, p. 34-. 0ust how she tried to escape or
wh" she did not succeed is not e<plained clearl". Ehen
Aida saw her father for the 6rst ti&e on 0ul" 15, 1#$%,
she ine<plicabl" did not shout for help or run to hi& but
@ust observed hi& and the appellant talk for half an
hour. ,.=/, 0ul" 1, 1#$4, p. 3- .he =olicitor ?eneral
counters the appellant's clai& statin+ that Aida did ask
for help fro& her father when the latter was about to
leave, but the appellant pushed her and refused to let
her +o with her father. ,.=/, 0ul" 1, 1#$4, pp. 5-%-.
.he actuations of both Aida and her father are hi+hl"
incredible. .he" are not the natural reactions of a ten-
"ear old child who has been detained a+ainst her will
for two weeks and who has tried unsuccessfull" to
escape three ti&es.
.he fact that her father was alread" there was the
perfect opportunit" for Aida to tr" and +et awa" fro&
the appellant. =he could have clun+ to hi& fro& the
&o&ent he ca&e in instead of ;uietl" observin+ hi&
and the appellant talk for so&e ti&e. Aida did not +o
with her father because the appellant alle+edl" told her
not to +o. 9or so&eone who had been detained a+ainst
her will, as between her father and her detainor, Aida
would have disre+arded the appellant's order and
would have run to her father. /either is it believable
that a father who has been desperatel" lookin+ for his
two &inor dau+hters for two weeks would @ust cal&l"
accept the appellant's refusal to let +o of his dau+hter.
.he )ourt is not unaware of previous pronounce&ents
that the testi&on" of a sin+le witness, if positive and
credible, is suBcient to support a conviction. ,5eople v.
Alde+uer, ?.'. /o. A-44##1, April 3, 1##:L 5eople v.
=alufrania, 15# =)'A 4:1, 41541% R1#$$S- *ut as
discussed above, the testi&on" of Aida 7illanueva does
not inspire credibilit". Eell-settled is the rule that
evidence to be believed, &ust not onl" proceed fro&
the &outh of a credible witness but it &ust be credible
itself. /o better test has "et been found to &easure the
value of a witness than its confor&it" to the knowled+e
and co&&on e<perience of &ankind. ,5eople v. !aspil,
?.'. /o. $5144, Au+ust :, 1##:L 5eople v. !aribun+,
14# =)'A #, #4 R1#$4S-
.he fact of detention is also denied b" the testi&on" of
one of the prosecution witnesses. =+t. Ariate stated
that:
<<< <<< <<<
15
H Fou also saw Aida
7illanuevaI
A Fes, sir.
H Ehere did "ou see
herI
A *" the door of her
store ... +oin+ inside.
,.=/, 1ctober ,
1#$4, p.1:-
2t is apparent that Aida had free access +oin+ in and
out of the appellant's residence. 2n fact, Aida could
have escaped at that particular period of ti&e. =he was
three feet awa" fro& the appellant when =+t. Ariate
saw her ,.=/, 1ctober , 1#$4, p. 1:- so she could
have &ade a run for it if she reall" wanted to +o.
.here is also the ;uestion of =+t. Ariate's conMictin+
state&ents as to the answer of Aida's father about his
&issin+ dau+hters which was dis&issed b" the trial
court as a &inor inconsistenc". 2n his testi&on", he
stated that Aida's father said that he @ust sent his two
dau+hters on an errand and the" were alread" &issin+
,.=/, 1ctober , 1#$4, p. #- while in his answer to the
;uestions propounded to hi& he stated that Aida's
father ad&itted that his dau+hter ran awa". ,'ecords,
p. 15-
=uch conMictin+ state&ents taken to+ether with the
state&ent of )harito 7illanueva, the father of the
victi& that KAida 7illanueva and Avel"n 7illanueva, 1:
and % "rs. old were ,sic- left their house without his
consent,K ,'ecords, p. 1%- recorded in the blotter
dated 0ul" 3, 1#$% cast doubt on the cri&inal liabilit"
of the appellant. .he answer of =+t. Ariate to the
;uestions propounded to hi& and the state&ent in the
blotter corroborate the appellant's testi&on" that the
two children ran awa" fro& ho&e. ,.=/, April , 1#$$,
pp. 4-5-
.he unbelievable and conMictin+ evidence of the
prosecution stren+thens the version of the appellant
that she took pit" on the two runawa" children and
decided to +ive the& food and shelter. Ehether or not
she treated the& like unpaid servants is not in issue.
Ehat is apparent fro& the records is the absence of
proof showin+ kidnappin+ and serious ille+al detention.
Another circu&stance that belies the kidnappin+
char+e is the une<plained dela" in the lod+in+ of the
co&plaint a+ainst the appellant. An entire week passed
before the co&plaint was lod+ed on 0ul" 3, 1#$%. ,=ee
5eople v. Antonio, 1%1 =)'A 4, $1 R1#$$S-
.he fourth circu&stance present which calls for the
reversal of the conviction is that there is no &otive
whatsoever for the appellant to kidnap the two
children. .he appellant is a wo&an of suBcient &eans.
2t is undisputed that she is the owner of a store and
was the e&plo"er of two &aids at the ti&e of the
incident. =he did not know the two children prior to the
incident. Cad she wanted to hire an additional &aid,
she could certainl" aford to hire another one without
+oin+ to the e<tent of co&&ittin+ a cri&e as serious as
kidnappin+. .here was no need to kidnap a &inor and
force her to work a+ainst her will. .he appellant had
ever"thin+ to lose and nothin+ to +ain if it is true that
she kidnapped the two children. /o &otive was ever
propounded b" the prosecution. Ee are thus ushered to
appl"in+ the precept that thou+h proof of &otive is not
indispensable to conviction, "et a void in the evidence
in this respect discloses a weakness in the case for the
prosecution. ,5eople v. !odesto, 5 =)'A 3%, 4% R1#%$S
2t has also been held in 5eople v. Pa&ora, 5# 5hil. 5%$,
5%#, R1#34S-:
<<< <<< <<<
2n the case at bar, no &otive for the
killin+ has been established, and
+rantin+ that proof of particular &otive
for takin+ the life of a hu&an bein+ is
not indispensable to conviction for
ho&icide, the absence of such &otive
is nevertheless i&portant in
deter&inin+ which of two conMictin+
theories is &ore likel" to be true.
,D&phasis supplied-
And 6nall", the e<ecution of the aBdavit of desistance
b" )harito 7illanueva, co&plainant in the kidnappin+
case, statin+ that his dau+hters were not detained after
all b" the appellant taken to+ether with the
circu&stances above&entioned has the efect of
e<culpatin+ the appellant fro& the char+e of
kidnappin+. As held in Gomez -. 2ntermediate Appellate
$ourt ,135 =)'A %:, %3: R1#$5S-:
<<< <<< <<<
2t is conceded that the =tate has the
soverei+n ri+ht to prosecute cri&inal
ofenses under the full control of the
6scal and that the dis&issal of cri&inal
cases b" the e<ecution of an aBdavit
of desistance b" the co&plainant is not
looked upon with favor. Cowever, it is
also true that an aBdavit of desistance
&a" create serious doubts as to the
liabilit" of the accused. At the ver"
least, it calls for a second hard look at
the records of the case and the basis
for the @ud+&ent of conviction.
0urisprudence on the efect of
desistance notwithstandin+, the
aBdavit should not be pere&ptoril"
dis&issed as a useless scrap of paper.
,D&phasis supplied-
.he instant case falls under the e<ception where an
aBdavit of desistance is +iven due consideration.
=i+ni6cantl", the father of the two +irls testi6ed in open
1%
court on /ove&ber 4, 1#$4 that he was withdrawin+
the case and that his children were not detained. .he
prosecution had ever" opportunit" to cross-e<a&ine or
tear apart the retraction and prove that the facts were
as earlier alle+ed. 2t failed to do so.
.he =olicitor ?eneral ;uotes the trial court's state&ent
that:
<<< <<< <<<
2f the accused thou+ht that the
evidence of the prosecution was
fabricated or false, the accused could
have presented her two &aids as
witnesses to testif" to rebut said
evidence. Cer failure to introduce the&
as witnesses could onl" &ean that the
testi&onies of the prosecution
witnesses about the detention of Aida
in her house were all true. ,'ollo, p. 1-
2t is a well-entrenched rule in our @urisprudence that
the prosecution &ust rel" on the stren+th of its
evidence rather than on the weakness of the defense.
,5eople v. de 8ios, ?.'. /o. 5$144, 0ul" %, 1##:L 5eople
v. 8o&in+o, 1%5 =)'A %:, %% R1#$$S- 2n this case,
the prosecution has failed to prove the +uilt of the
appellant be"ond reasonable doubt.
ECD'D91'D, the @ud+&ent of the trial court is hereb"
'D7D'=D8 and =D. A=28D and appellant )ar&en Ai& is
A)H>2..D8 of the cri&e char+ed for failure to prove
her +uilt be"ond reasonable doubt.
=1 1'8D'D8.
=D)1/8 8272=21/
G.R. No. 10/64*. Apr#" 7, 1993.
5D15AD 19 .CD 5C2A2552/D=, plaintif-appellee,
vs.
'1!D1 5A82)A " A1'2)A, AD=A2D ?A/= " !DAD/8'D=,
9A1'D/.2/1 9A*'2?A=, '1!D1 5'A8DP, AD1/A'81
!A'A0A=, AD151A81 !A'A0A= and AD1/ !A'A0A=, 0'.
" 'A!1=, TT accused. AD1/ !A'A0A=, 0'. " 'A!1=,
accused-appellant.
.he =olicitor ?eneral for plaintif-appellee.
An+ara, Abello, )oncepcion, 'e+ala Q )ru( for accused-
appellant.
=FAAA*>=
1. )'2!2/AA AAEL A??'A7A.2/? )2')>!=.A/)D=L
>/2/CA*2.D8 5AA)DL 5'D=D/. ECD'D A))>=D8
8DA2*D'A.DAF )C1=D 8D=1A>.21/ 19 5AA)D .1
5D'5D.'A.D )'2!D 9A' 9'1! ?APD 19 51.D/.2AA
DFDE2./D==D=L A55'D)2A.D8 .C1>?C /1. AAAD?D8
2/ 2/91'!A.21/. J Althou+h the trial court and both
parties herein have a+ain passed sub silentio thereon,
it is evident that the a++ravatin+ circu&stance of
uninhabited place was present since appellant and his
co-accused obviousl" and deliberatel" chose the
desolation and isolation of the su+arcane plantation to
perpetrate the cri&e far fro& the +a(e of potential
e"ewitnesses. .his circu&stance is underscored b" the
fact that the" co&&itted the cri&e at about 1:::
noon, a ti&e of da" when an" passersb" or assistance
could hardl" be e<pected in the vicinit" of the locus
cri&inis. .his a++ravatin+ circu&stance of despoblado
should, therefore, be considered a+ainst appellant
even if it was not alle+ed in the infor&ations since it
was dul" proved.
. 28.L 28.L A*>=D 19 =>5D'21' =.'D/?.CL 5'D=D/.
ECD'D A))>=D8 8DA2*D'A.DAF 'D=1'.D8 .1
)1AAD).27D =.'D/?.C 2/ 17D'51ED'2/? 72).2!'=
8D9D/=D. J Abuse of superior stren+th was likewise
present, for the accused deliberatel" resorted to their
collective stren+th for the purpose of overpowerin+
whatever feeble defense the poor 9rancis *ana+a could
ofer. .he" thus insured the co&&ission of the cri&e
with practicall" no risk at all to the&selves.
3. 28.L 28.L .'DA)CD'FL 5'D=D/. ECD'D A==A>A. 2=
=>88D/ A/8 >/DN5D).D8 A/8 72).2! 827D=.D8 19
1551'.>/2.F .1 D99D).272.F 'D=2=. 1' D=)A5D. J
.here was treacher" since, under the aforestated
circu&stances, the victi& was lured b" his killers into
+oin+ with the& to Aa+una without the sli+htest inklin+
of their nefarious desi+n, coupled with the sudden and
une<pected assault b" the &alefactors on the hapless
victi& in the isolated su+arcane plantation in )ala&ba,
which thereb" divested hi& of an opportunit" either to
efectivel" resist or to escape.
4. 28.L 28.L A*>=D 19 =>5D'21' =.'D/?.C A/8 )'A9.
A*=1'*D8 2/ .'DA)CD'F. J >nder the factual
features present in the co&&ission of the cri&e,
however, we are inclined to +rant that the
circu&stance of superior stren+th should not be
appreciated distinctl" but should be considered as
bein+ absorbed in and b" treacher", and the sa&e is
true with re+ard to the alle+ation of craft. Cence, abuse
of superior stren+th &a" not be taken into account
separatel" in this case, either as a ;ualif"in+ or as an
a++ravatin+ circu&stance.
5. 28.L !>'8D'L ECD'D .A32/? 19 72).2! 9'1! 1/D
5AA)D .1 A/1.CD' 2/)28D/.AA .1 *A=2) 5>'51=D
.1 32AA )'2!D 2= !>'8D'L /1. )1/7D'.D8 .1
328/A552/? *F 8D!A/8 91' 'A/=1! ECD'D 72).2!
/1. 8D.A2/D8 1' 8D5'27D8 19 A2*D'.F. J Ee have
consistentl" held that where the takin+ of the victi&
was incidental to the basic purpose to kill, the cri&e is
onl" &urder, and this is true even if, before the killin+
but for purposes thereof, the victi& was taken fro&
one place to another. .hus, where the evident purpose
of takin+ the victi&s was to kill the&, and fro& the
acts of the accused it cannot be inferred that the
latter's purpose was actuall" to detain or deprive the
victi&s of their libert", the subse;uent killin+ of the
14
victi&s constitute the cri&e of &urder, hence the
cri&e of kidnappin+ does not e<ist and cannot be
considered as a co&ponent felon" to produce a
co&ple< cri&e of kidnappin+ with &urder. 2n fact, as
we held in the aforecited case of !asilan+, et al.,
althou+h the accused had planned to kidnap the victi&
for ranso& but the" 6rst killed hi& and it was onl" later
that the" de&anded and obtained the &one", such
de&and for ranso& did not convert the cri&e into
kidnappin+ since no detention or deprivation of libert"
was involved, hence the cri&e co&&itted was onl"
&urder. .hat fro& the be+innin+ of their cri&inal
venture appellant and his bothers intended to kill the
victi& can readil" be deduced fro& the &anner b"
which the" swiftl" and cold-bloodedl" snufed out his
life once the" reached the isolated su+arcane
plantation in )ala&ba, Aa+una. 9urther&ore, there was
no evidence whatsoever to show or fro& which it can
be inferred that fro& the outset the killers of the victi&
intended to e<chan+e his freedo& for ranso& &one".
1n the contrar", the de&and for ranso& appears to
have arisen and was conse;uentl" &ade as an
afterthou+ht, as it was rela"ed to the victi&'s fa&il"
ver" &uch later that afternoon after a suBcient
interval for consultation and deliberation a&on+ the
felons who had killed the victi& around 6ve hours
earlier.
%. 28.L 328/A552/?L D==D/.2AA DAD!D/. .CD'D19L
)A=D A. *A'. J .he essential ele&ent in the cri&e of
kidnappin+ that the victi& &ust have been restrained
or deprived of his libert", or that he was transported
awa" a+ainst his will with the pri&ar" or ori+inal intent
to efect that restraint, is absent in this case. .he
&alefactors evidentl" had onl" &urder in their hearts
when the" invited the trustin+ 9rancis *ana+a to +o
with the& to Aa+una, and not to con6ne or detain hi&
for an" len+th of ti&e or for an" other purpose.
4. 28.L 28.L 2!51=A*AD 5D/AA.F 'A2=D8 .1 8DA.C
ECD'D )'2!D 5D'5D.'A.D8 91' 'A/=1!L
)>'.A2A!D/. 19 9'DD81! 19 !17D!D/. E2.C1>.
8D.D'!2/A/. 2/.D/. A/8 8D5'27A.21/ 19 A2*D'.F
91' A55'D)2A*AD 5D'218 19 .2!D )1/=.2.>.D
)1D')21/. J >nder Article %4 of the 'evised 5enal
)ode, the circu&stance that the kidnappin+ is
perpetrated for the purpose of ranso& raises the
i&posable penalt" to death. 2t is essential, however,
that the ele&ent of deprivation or restraint of libert" of
the victi& be present. .he fact alone that ranso&
&one" is de&anded would not per se ;ualif" the act of
preventin+ the libert" of &ove&ent of the victi& into
the cri&e of kidnappin+, unless the victi& is actuall"
restrained or deprived of his libert" for so&e
appreciable period of ti&e or that such restraint was
the basic intent of the accused. Absent such
deter&inant intent and duration of restraint, the &ere
curtail&ent of freedo& of &ove&ent would at &ost
constitute coercion.
$. 'D!D82AA AAEL )'2!2/AA 5'1)D8>'DL /A!D 19
A))>=D8 *D =>992)2D/.AF AAAD?D8 2/ .CD
)1!5AA2/. 1' 2/91'!A.21/L )1/=DH>D/)D 19
9A2A>'D .1 )1!5AF .CD'DE2.CL .D=. 19
=>992)2D/)F. J .he rule is that the co&plaint or
infor&ation should suBcientl" alle+e the na&e of the
accused, failin+ which the co&plaint or infor&ation
would be rendered invalid. .he test of suBcienc" is laid
down in =ection 4, 'ule 11: of the 'ules of )ourt,
which states: K=ec. 4. /a&e of the accused. J A
co&plaint or infor&ation &ust state the na&e and
surna&e of the accused or an" appellation or nickna&e
b" which he has been or is known, or if his na&e
cannot be discovered he &ust be described under a
6ctitious na&e with a state&ent that his true na&e is
unknown. 2f in the course of the proceedin+ the true
na&e of the accused is disclosed b" hi&, or appears in
so&e other &anner to the court, the true na&e of the
accused shall be inserted in the co&plaint or
infor&ation and record.K
#. 28.L 28.L A!D/8!D/. 19 )1!5AA2/. 1'
2/91'!A.21/L 2/=D'.21/ 19 A))>=D8'= .'>D /A!D
2/ 2/91'!A.21/ A 91'!AA A!D/8!D/.. J .he
subse;uent a&end&ent to insert in the infor&ation
Aeon !ara@as, 0r.'s real na&e involved &erel" a &atter
of for& as it did not, in an" wa", deprive appellant of a
fair opportunit" to present his defense. !oreover, the
a&end&ent neither afected nor altered the nature of
the ofense char+ed since the basic theor" of the
prosecution was not chan+ed nor did it introduce new
and &aterial facts. =uch an a&end&ent is e<plicitl"
allowed under the second para+raph of =ection 4, in
relation to =ection 14, 'ule 11: of the 'ules of )ourt,
the pertinent portion of which provides that K,t-he
infor&ation or co&plaint &a" be a&ended, in
substance or for&, without leave of court, at an" ti&e
before the accused pleadsL and thereafter and durin+
the trial as to all &atters of for&, b" leave and at the
discretion of the court, when the sa&e can be done
without pre@udice to the ri+hts of the accused.K At an"
rate, whatever irre+ularit" &a" have attended the
inclusion of appellant's na&e as an accused in the
a&ended infor&ation has been waived b" his
subse;uent appearance and entr" of plea at his
arrai+n&ent under said a&endator" infor&ation.
1:. 28.L 28.L !1.21/ .1 H>A=CL D''1' A= .1
28D/.2.F 5'15D'AF 'A2=D8 2/ !1.21/ .1 H>A=C 1/
?'1>/8 19 AA)3 19 0>'2=82).21/ 17D' A))>=D8'=
5D'=1/L )1/=DH>D/)D 19 9A2A>'D .1 'A2=D
H>D=.21/ 19 28D/.2.F. J 2n the case at bar, there is
no dispute that appellant was arrai+ned under the
ori+inal infor&ation and that he entered thereto a plea
of not +uilt" under the na&e of KAeonardo !ara@as.K At
that @uncture, appellant should have raised the error as
to his identit" b" 6lin+ a &otion to ;uash on the +round
of lack of @urisdiction over his person, in line with the
doctrine e<plained in 5eople vs. /arvaes laid down as
earl" as 1#34. *ut, as aforestated, appellant did not do
so but instead voluntaril" appeared at the arrai+n&ent
and pleaded not +uilt" thereat, albeit under the
diferent na&e. )onse;uentl", the trial court ac;uired
@urisdiction over his person and it could have rendered
a valid @ud+&ent of conviction based on the ori+inal
infor&ation even without need of an a&endator"
infor&ation to correct appellant's na&e. Ehat we
stated in /arvaes is worth repeatin+: K< < < ,w-hen the
appellant was arrai+ned under the na&e of 5edro
1$
/arvaes, which is the na&e appearin+ in the
infor&ation, he &erel" entered his plea of 'not +uilt"'
under the said na&e. 2t was on that occasion that he
should have for the 6rst ti&e raised the ;uestion of his
identit", b" 6lin+ a de&urrer based on the court's lack
of @urisdiction over his person, inas&uch as he was
then considered as 5edro /arvaes, not 5ri&o /arvaes.
/ot havin+ 6led the said de&urrer, it &ust necessaril"
be understood that he renounced it and therefore he is
now estopped fro& raisin+, or insistin+ to raise, the
sa&e ;uestion, not onl" in this appeal but even at the
trial . . .K
11. 28.L 28.L 82=)CA'?D 19 A))>=D8 .1 *D =.A.D
E2./D==L A2D= E2.C2/ )1>'.'= =1>/8 82=)'D.21/L
)1>'. /1. 'DH>2'D8 .1 *D A*=1A>.DAF )D'.A2/
.CA. AAA 'DH>2'D!D/.= 91' 5'15D' 82=)CA'?D *D
5'D=D/.. J Appellant has also clearl" lost si+ht of the
rule that the dischar+e of an accused to be a state
witness, lies within the sound discretion of the court
before who& it is sou+ht and in the e<ercise of that
discretion, it is not re;uired that the court be
absolutel" certain that all the re;uire&ents for the
proper dischar+e of a co-accused be present. 2n the
case under consideration, the prosecution presented
enou+h evidence to support its &otion for the
dischar+e of 5adica. .he trial court's reliance thereon
and its conse;uent 6ndin+ on the basis thereof that
5adica did not appear to be the &ost +uilt" &ust be
respected as it was in better position to evaluate such
evidence.
1. 28.L D728D/)DL AA2*2L EDA3 8D9D/=D )ADA'AF
/D?A.27D 2/ /A.>'DL )A//1. 5'D7A2A A?A2/=.
51=2.27D 8D)AA'A.21/= 19 5'1=D)>.21/
E2./D==D=L ECD/ 8D9D/=D 19 AA2*2 !AF 5'1=5D'. J
Appellant's defense that he was in another place at the
ti&e of 9rancis *ana+a's disappearance and killin+
&ust necessaril" fail. 2ndeed, trite as our innu&erable
reiterations have alread" &ade this state&ent of
re@ection, we &ust perforce a+ain reprobate appellant's
alibi as an inherentl" weak defense decidedl" eas" of
concoction. Apart fro& that, it is considered as clearl"
ne+ative in nature. Cence, when arra"ed a+ainst the
positive declarations of the witnesses for the
prosecution, the sa&e would all the &ore be +iven little
consideration. 9or it to prosper, it &ust be shown that
not onl" was the accused at so&e other place at the
ti&e of the co&&ission of the ofense, but that it was
also ph"sicall" i&possible for hi& to have been there
when it happened. 2ndeed, as correctl" pointed out b"
the trial court in its decision, appellant was not even
sure as to his whereabouts on 9ebruar" $, 1#4$. Ce
si&pl" ofered as an e<planation therefor that he was
K&ore or lessK in *atan+as, which alle+ation was
co&pletel" uncorroborated.
13. 28.L 28.L .D=.2!1/F 19 5A'.2)D5= )'2!2/2=
72DED8 E2.C )A>.21/L )A=D A. *A'. J 2t is true that
the testi&on" of a particeps cri&inis is to be invariabl"
viewed with &uch caution, co&in+ as it does fro& a
polluted source. Cowever, in the case at bar and after a
careful evaluation, we 6nd no plausible reason to
depart fro& the favorable appreciation b" the trial
court of 5adica's testi&on" which the said court
characteri(ed as reasonable and probable, +iven in a
clear, strai+htforward and convincin+ &anner thereb"
leavin+ no doubt in the &ind of said court that he was
tellin+ the truth.
14. 28.L 28.L )'D82*2A2.F 19 E2./D==D=L .'2AA
)1>'.'= 92/82/?= A))1'8D8 92/AA2.F *F A55DAAA.D
)1>'.=. J 0urisprudentiall" e&bedded is the rule that
the sta&p of approval +iven b" the trial court on the
testi&on" of a particular witness as a conse;uence of
its factual 6ndin+s is nor&all" accorded 6nalit" b"
appellate courts, the court below havin+ had the
opportunit" to observe closel" the &anner b" which
such witness testi6ed. 9urther&ore, not a sin+le shred
of evidence was introduced b" the defense to show an"
ill &otive on the part of 5adica to i&pute such a serious
cri&e on appellant and his brothers, thus entitlin+ to
considerable credit his testi&on" re+ardin+ the
circu&stances surroundin+ 9rancis *ana+a's death.
.hese conclusions we con6r&, not b" &ere reliance on
dicta, but fro& our own review and calibration of the
evidence.
8 D ) 2 = 2 1 /
'D?AAA81, 0 p:
Accused-appellant Aeon !ara@as, 0r. " 'a&os appeals
fro& the @ud+&ent of the 'e+ional .rial )ourt of 5asa"
)it", *ranch )N72, dated 0anuar" $, 1##:, 6ndin+ hi&
+uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt of the cri&e of
3idnappin+ for ranso& with &urder upon an a&ended
infor&ation dated /ove&ber 1%, 1#$4 and readin+ as
follows:
K.hat on or about the $th da" of 9ebruar", 1#4$, in the
!unicipalit" of 5araOa;ue, !etro !anila, 5hilippines,
within the @urisdiction of this Conorable )ourt, the
above-na&ed accused, conspirin+, confederatin+
to+ether with 0ohn 8oe U *o" .a+a, 5eter 8oe U Dddie
*o" !ara@as, 'ichard 8oe U .ito and Ddward 8oe U
Dl&er whose true na&es, identities and whereabouts
are still unknown and &utuall" helpin+ and aidin+ one
another, with the use of three ,3- 6rear&s with the
diferent caliber ,sic- b" &eans of craft, violence
a+ainst and inti&idation of person, did then and there
kidnap 9rancis *ana+a, detain and deprive hi& of his
libert" for a period of three ,3- da"s and de&anded
,sic- 6ve hundred thousand pesos ,55::,:::.::- for his
release and while thus ille+all" detainin+ the latter,
said accused, pursuant to said conspirac" did then and
there wilfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl", with intent to
kill and with treacher" shoot 9rancis *ana+a, thereb"
inMictin+ on hi& +unshot wounds on the head and
other parts of his bod" which caused his instantaneous
death as a conse;uences.K 1
.he records show that Aeon !ara@as, 0r., 'o&eo 5adica,
Aeslie ?ans, 9lorentino 9abri+as, 'o&eo 5rade(,
Aeonardo !ara@as and Aeopoldo !ara@as were ori+inall"
char+ed in the latter part of 1#4$ with kidnappin+ for
ranso& with &urder and ille+al possession of 6rear&s
1#
before !ilitar" )o&&ission /o. 4 in )ri&inal )ase /o
4-1%3 thereof. Cowever, on 0anuar" 11, 1#4#, counsel
for accused Aeon !ara@as, 0r. pra"ed for the transfer of
the case to the civil courts.
1n Au+ust 14, 1#$1, the 1Bce of the 5rovincial 9iscal
of 'i(al 6led an infor&ation for kidnappin+ for ranso&
with &urder, docketed as )ri&inal )ase /o. 5;-$1-
15#%-5, before *ranch 222 of the then )ourt of 9irst
2nstance of 5asa" )it" a+ainst the afore&entioned
accused, but with the e<ception of herein appellant
whose na&e was inadvertentl" not included therein. 3
A separate char+e for ille+al possession of 6rear&s was
lod+ed before *ranch 14% of the !akati 'e+ional .rial
)ourt but the case was later placed in the archives
so&e ti&e in 1#$5. 4
Accused 'o&eo 5adica and herein appellant were both
arrai+ned on 0anuar" 15, 1#$ and, with the assistance
of their respective counsel, both pleaded not +uilt". 5 2t
appears, however, that appellant entered his plea
durin+ the arrai+n&ent under the na&e of KAeonardo
!ara@as.K % .rial thereafter ensued but, subse;uentl",
the case was reraVed to *ranch )N72, 5asa" )it", of
the 'e+ional .rial )ourt where it re&ained until the
conclusion of the trial in 1##:.
Darlier thereto, however, upon discover" of the
o&ission of herein appellant's na&e in the ori+inal
infor&ation, the prosecution 6led a &otion on
/ove&ber 1%, 1#$4 for the ad&ission of an a&ended
infor&ation includin+ appellant's na&e as one of the
accused. 4 1n !a" 3:, 1#$5, the trial court issued an
order ad&ittin+ the a&ended infor&ation. $
.hereafter, or on 0ul" 14, 1#$5, appellant, dul" assisted
b" counsel, entered a plea of +uilt" upon bein+
arrai+ned on the a&ended infor&ation. # 1n the other
hand, in an order dated Au+ust 4, 1#$5, 1: accused
5adica was dischar+ed fro& the infor&ation to be
utili(ed as a state witness.
.he 5eople's brief, drawin+ principall" fro& the factual
6ndin+s of the court a ;uo based on the evidence
adduced in this case, with supple&ental data and
docu&entation of the testi&onial evidence as borne
out b" the transcripts, which we 6nd to be correct,
presented the prosecution's case in this wise:
K1n or about #::: o clock in the &ornin+ of 9ebruar" $,
1#4$, appellant and his brother, Aeopoldo !ara@as,
usin+ a car driven b" Aeopoldo, visited 'o&eo 5adica in
his house in !untinlupa, !etro !anila. Aeopoldo
re;uested 5adica, his co&padre, to drive for Dddie *o"
!ara@as, a brother of Aeopoldo and appellant, and his
class&ates, +ivin+ 5adica 51::.:: for the purpose.
>pon receivin+ the a&ount, 5adica, pursuant to the
instructions of Aeopoldo, drove the car, with Aeopoldo
and appellant on board, and proceeded to =a&son .ech
in 5asa" )it", arrivin+ there at about 1:::: A.!.
Aeopoldo left the vehicle and, upon co&in+ back after a
while, he told 5adica that the" were +oin+ to =ukat,
5araOa;ue. 2n =ukat, the three stopped at a restaurant
when ,sic- the" ordered so&ethin+ to eat ,.=/,
/ove&ber 14, 1#$$, pp. %-1:-.
K.hereafter, with 5adica still drivin+ the car, the"
proceeded to the =uperville =ubdivision, also in =ukat,
where the" arrived at about 11:3: A.!. of the sa&e
date. Dddie *o" !ara@as and 9rancis *ana+a, both
fourteen ,14- "ears of a+e, &ore or less, were in said
subdivision. Aeopoldo ali+hted fro& the car and talked
to the&. =ubse;uentl", Aeopoldo to+ether with 9rancis
and Dddie *o", boarded the car. All of the& proceeded
to )ala&ba, Aa+una, with 5adica still drivin+ the
vehicle. =eated beside 5adica was Aeopoldo !ara@as,
while appellant and Dddie *o" occupied the back seat,
with 9rancis *ana+a between the& ,2bid, pp.-1:-13-.
K>pon reachin+ )ala&ba at about 1::: noon of the
sa&e date, Aeopoldo !ara@as told 5adica, to drive the
car into the su+arcane plantation at the side of the
road. 1nce inside the plantation, 5adica stopped the
car when told to do so b" Aeopoldo, who then ali+hted
fro& the vehicle and told 9rancis *ana+a to ali+ht.
Cowever, 9rancis refused to +et down fro& the car.
/otwithstandin+ his resistance, he was forced out of
the car b" Aeopoldo !ara@as, Dddie *o" and appellant,
who pulled hi& out of the vehicle. .hereafter, the three
brou+ht 9rancis *ana+a to a place inside the su+arcane
plantation, &ore or less ten ,1:- &eters awa" fro& the
car, while 5adica re&ained in the vehicle. Aeopoldo
!ara@as then delivered several stabbin+ blows at
*ana+a after which appellant shot *ana+a with a
hand+un. *ana+a fell on the +round. Aeopoldo, Dddie
*o" and appellant returned to the car. Aeopoldo took
the wheel fro& 5adica and drove the car to !untinlupa,
where 5adica ali+hted and was left behind with
Aeopoldo warnin+ 5adica, '5are, stead" ka lan+, isan+
bala ka lan+.' ,2bid., pp. 1:-1#-.
K1n or about 5::: 5.!. of the sa&e da", while in his
house at ?atchalian =ubdivision in 5araOa;ue, .o&as
*ana+a, father of 9rancis, beca&e alar&ed when his
son failed to co&e ho&e. A few &inutes after %::: 5.!.
of ,the- sa&e date, so&eone called up b" phone,
tellin+ .o&as not to look for his son as he was in +ood
condition, and de&andin+ 55::,:::.:: for his
,9rancis'- release. .o&as reported the incident to the
5hilippine )onstabular" authorities in )a&p )ra&e,
Hue(on )it". =+t. 'odolfo *ucao, =+t. 7illanueva and
=+t. )ierlito were dispatched to the *ana+a residence
,.=/, 0anuar" 15, 1#$, pp. 4-%-.
K1n 9ebruar" #, 1#4$, .o&as received a second phone
call in the course of which the caller reduced the
a&ount de&anded to 5::,:::.::. 1n 9ebruar" 1:,
1#4$, there was another phone call with ,the- caller
lowerin+ the a&ount to 53,:::.:: and +ivin+
instructions that the &one" be wrapped in a
newspaper, placed in a paper ba+, and delivered b" a
+irl wearin+ a .-shirt to Auneta, in front of the /ational
Aibrar", under a true with red Mowers, at $:3: 5.!. of
9ebruar" 1:, 1#4$ ,2bid., pp. %-1:-.
K/or&a )a&ello, sister-in-law of .o&as *ana+a,
volunteered to deliver the &one" as the &aid of ,the-
*ana+a fa&il" who was supposed to do it was scared.
*etween 4::: and 4:3: 5.!. of 9ebruar" 1:, 1#4$,
)a&ello was brou+ht b" =+t. *ucao and )2) 1ca&po in
:
front of *a"view Cotel at 'o<as *lvd., !anila. At about
$::: 5.!. of the sa&e date, she went to the /ational
Aibrar" at Auneta and positioned herself under a tree
with red Mowers, pursuant to the instructions of the
caller. A few &inutes later, a ta<icab arrived. Appellant
ali+hted fro& the vehicle, approached )a&ello and +ot
the &one" fro& her which was in a paper ba+, sa"in+:
'Cihinta"in na lan+ nin"o an+ bata &a&a"a sa baha".'
,.=/, =ept. 1#, 1#$5, pp. %-1-. Ehen appellant
returned to the waitin+ ta<icab and was about to board
it, =+t. =i&plicio 8ula", one of those sent to Auneta to
entrap the person who would receive the ranso&
&one", apprehended and arrested appellant ,.=/,
!arch 11, 1#$%, pp. -5-.
K,At- or about ::: 5.!. of 9ebruar" 11, 1#4$, pursuant
to the infor&ation +iven b" appellant durin+ the
investi+ation, a 5hilippine )onstabular" tea& led b" At.
/apoleon )achuela, acco&panied b" appellant, went to
)ala&ba, Aa+una search for the bod" of 9rancis
*ana+a. Appellant led the tea& to the place where the
cadaver was du&ped, which was inside a su+arcane
plantation about 45 &eters awa" fro& the road. .he
tea& recovered the bod" of 9rancis *ana+a and
brou+ht it to the !unicipal Cealth 1Bcer of )ala&ba
for autops" ,.=/, 1ctober , 1#$%, pp. 1:-14-.
KAccordin+ to the necrops" report of 8r. Dusebio
5an+aniban of the )ala&ba !unicipal Cealth 1Bce,
9rancis *ana+a sustained two ,- entr" +unshot
wounds, one on the head and the other on the chest,
with two ,- e<it +unshot wounds and several lacerated
wounds. .he death of 9rancis was caused b" 'intra-
thoracic brain he&orrha+e due to +unshot wounds.'
,.=/, 0ul" 5, 1#$%, pp. 14-%#-.
KAfter three ,3- "ears in hidin+ out of fear for his life,
'o&eo 5adica 6nall" revealed to At. )ru( ,sic- of
'e+ional =ecurit" >nit 2ntelli+ence 8ivision, Aucena )it"
that he ,5adica- witnessed the killin+ of 9rancis
*ana+a. 5adica had &et At. )ru( ,sic- near the Aucena
)it" !arket and after &akin+ the disclosure,
surrendered to the authorities ,.=/, 8ece&ber 1,
1#$$, p. %-.K 11
Appellant predictabl" presented a diferent narration of
the events that led to his arrest. Ce insists that he was
the victi& of an elaborate fra&e-up b" the &ilitar"
authorities assi+ned to investi+ate the case. Appellant
clai&s that on 9ebruar" $, 1#4$, the da" that the
victi& disappeared, he was in *atan+as province,
where he was a resident. 2n the earl" &ornin+ of
9ebruar" 1:, 1#4$, he decided to +o to !anila, with
=to. .o&as, *atan+as as his point of departure, in order
to thresh out so&e 6nancial &atters in connection with
his business of bu" and sell. 1
Ce arrived in !anila at around #::: A.!. and
proceeded to the oBce of !rs. A;uilina !ar;ue(-
!ara@as, his sister-in-law, at !abini =treet in !alate to
talk to his brother, Aeonardo. /ot 6ndin+ Aeonardo
there, he then went to the house of his sister, /ell"
!ara@as, a nei+hbor of the *ana+a fa&il", at ?atchalian
=ubdivision in 5araOa;ue. Ce was about to board a
tric"cle at the &ain +ate of the subdivision at around
#:3: A.!. when he was suddenl" accosted b" two
!etroco& oBcers in civilian clothes who forcibl" took
hi& to a car. Appellant was later brou+ht at about
1::: noon to the =iesta )ourt Cotel, also in !alate,
where he was repeatedl" beaten and sub@ected to
torture b" his abductors who tried in vain to e<tract
infor&ation about the disappearance of 9rancis
*ana+a. 13
2n the evenin+ of the sa&e da", he was taken out of
the hotel and was taken b" the &en to an unspeci6ed
safehouse where, once a+ain, his ordeal at their hands
was resu&ed. >nable to bear the &altreat&ent an"
further, appellant then tried to fool the& b" ad&ittin+
that the &issin+ 9rancis *ana+a could be found in
5aete, Aa+una. Ce then led a +roup of his captors to
the said place but the" found no trace of the &issin+
bo". 2ncensed at the deception, the &en took hi& back
to the safehouse. 14
Aater, appellant was a+ain taken out of the safehouse
and, to+ether with another captive who& he identi6ed
onl" as K9lorentino,K he was brou+ht to an isolated
su+arcane plantation. .here 9lorentino led the &ilitar"
tea& to the cadaver of 9rancis *ana+a. 15 Appellant
and 9lorentino were later brou+ht back to the
safehouse. .he for&er clai&s that he was kept there
for about two &onths, durin+ which ti&e he helped in
the &aintenance and care of the safehouse and its
surroundin+s. Ce also &et at the safehouse Aeslie
?ans, one of the accused, but he had no occasion to
discuss their predica&ent with hi&. After appellant's
con6ne&ent, he was turned over to the prison
authorities of *icutan 'ehabilitation )enter where he
re&ained until the start of the trial. 1%
After &ore than ei+ht "ears of trial, which for one
reason or another was punctuated b" nu&erous and
needless postpone&ents, the trial court rendered its
assailed decision pronouncin+ the +uilt of appellant for
the cri&e of kidnappin+ for ranso& with &urder and
sentencin+ hi& to sufer the penalt" of reclusion
perpetua and to pa" .o&as *ana+a, father of 9rancis
*ana+a, the su& of 53:,:::.:: as inde&nit" for the
death of the child, without pronounce&ent a to costs.
14
Appellant is now before us insistin+ on the reversal of
the @ud+&ent of conviction b" theori(in+ that the court
below erred: ,a- in rulin+ that the +uilt of appellant was
proven be"ond reasonable doubtL ,b- in +ivin+ full
credence to the testi&on" of state witness 'o&eo
5adicaL ,c- in la"in+ e&phasis on the weakness of the
defense interposed b" appellantL and ,d- in
disre+ardin+ the inconsistencies raised b" the defense
as &inor and insubstantial. 1$
After a careful and e<haustive review of the records,
the testi&onial and docu&entar" evidence, and the
ar+u&ents of the prosecution and the defense, we are
satisfactoril" persuaded that the prosecution has dul"
dischar+ed its onus probandi insofar as the culpabilit"
of appellant is concerned, but we do not adopt as
1
correct the nature or cate+ori(ation of the ofense for
which he &ust do penance.
1. At the outset, fro& the evidence on record, we are
not convinced that the cri&e of kidnappin+ for ranso&
was co&&itted as char+ed in both the ori+inal and
a&ended infor&ations. 'ather the cri&e co&&itted
was &urder, attended b" the ;ualif"in+ circu&stances
of treacher" andWor abuse of superior stren+th, and not
the co&ple< cri&e of kidnappin+ for ranso& with
&urder as found b" the trial court without ob@ection b"
either the prosecution or defense. .he essential
ele&ent in the cri&e of kidnappin+ that the victi&
&ust have been restrained or deprived of his libert",
1# or that he was transported awa" a+ainst his will
with the pri&ar" or ori+inal intent to efect that
restraint, is absent in this case. .he &alefactors
evidentl" had onl" &urder in their hearts when the"
invited the trustin+ 9rancis *ana+a to +o with the& to
Aa+una, and not to con6ne or detain hi& for an" len+th
of ti&e or for an" other purpose.
Ee have consistentl" held that where the takin+ of the
victi& was incidental to the basic purpose to kill, the
cri&e is onl" &urder, : and this is true even if, before
the killin+ but for purposes thereof, the victi& was
taken fro& one place to another. 1 .hus, where the
evident purpose of takin+ the victi&s was to kill the&,
and fro& the acts of the accused it cannot be inferred
that the latter's purpose was actuall" to detain or
deprive the victi&s of their libert", the subse;uent
killin+ of the victi&s constitute the cri&e of &urder,
hence the cri&e of kidnappin+ does not e<ist and
cannot be considered as a co&ponent felon" to
produce a co&ple< cri&e of kidnappin+ with &urder. 2n
fact, as we held in the aforecited case of !asilan+, et
al., althou+h the accused had planned to kidnap the
victi& for ranso& but the" 6rst killed hi& and it was
onl" later that the" de&anded and obtained the
&one", such de&and for ranso& did not convert the
cri&e into kidnappin+ since no detention or deprivation
of libert" was involved, hence the cri&e co&&itted
was onl" &urder. 3
.hat fro& the be+innin+ of their cri&inal venture
appellant and his brothers intended to kill the victi&
can readil" be deduced fro& the &anner b" which the"
swiftl" and cold-bloodedl" snufed out his life once the"
reached the isolated su+arcane plantation in )ala&ba,
Aa+una. 9urther&ore, there was no evidence
whatsoever to show or fro& which it can be inferred
that fro& the outset the killers of the victi& intended
to e<chan+e his freedo& for ranso& &one". 1n the
contrar", the de&and for ranso& appears to have
arisen and was conse;uentl" &ade as an afterthou+ht,
as it was rela"ed to the victi&'s fa&il" ver" &uch later
that afternoon after a suBcient interval for consultation
and deliberation a&on+ the felons who had killed the
victi& around 6ve hours earlier.
2t will be observed that under Article %4 of the 'evised
5enal )ode, the circu&stance that the kidnappin+ is
perpetrated for the purpose of ranso& raises the
i&posable penalt" to death. 4 2t is essential, however,
that the ele&ent of deprivation or restraint of libert" of
the victi& be present. .he fact alone that ranso&
&one" is de&anded would not per se ;ualif" the act of
preventin+ the libert" of &ove&ent of the victi& into
the cri&e of kidnappin+, unless the victi& is actuall"
restrained or deprived of his libert" for so&e
appreciable period of ti&e or that such restraint was
the basic intent of the accused. Absent such
deter&inant intent and duration of restraint, the &ere
curtail&ent of freedo& of &ove&ent would at &ost
constitute coercion.
2n addition, 9rancis *ana+a, then alread" fourteen
"ears of a+e and a fourth "ear hi+h school student, was
neither forced nor coerced unlawfull" into +oin+ alon+
with his killers. Ce voluntaril" boarded the car and
went with the !ara@as brothers to Aa+una. .he victi&
had ever" reason to trust the& as the" were his
nei+hbors in ?atchalian =ubdivision. 2n fact, one of the
brothers, accused Aeonardo !ara@as alias KDddie *o",K
was his school&ate and a pla"&ate. 5
.here was treacher" since, under the aforestated
circu&stances, the victi& was lured b" his killers into
+oin+ with the& to Aa+una without the sli+htest inklin+
of their nefarious desi+n, coupled with the sudden and
une<pected assault b" the &alefactors on the hapless
victi& in the isolated su+arcane plantation in )ala&ba,
which thereb" divested hi& of an opportunit" either to
efectivel" resist or to escape. % Abuse of superior
stren+th was likewise present, for the accused
deliberatel" resorted to their collective stren+th for the
purpose of overpowerin+ whatever feeble defense the
poor 9rancis *ana+a could ofer. 4 .he" thus insured
the co&&ission of the cri&e with practicall" no risk at
all to the&selves.
>nder the factual features present in the co&&ission
of the cri&e, however, we are inclined to +rant that the
circu&stance of superior stren+th should not be
appreciated distinctl" but should be considered as
bein+ absorbed in and b" treacher", $ and the sa&e
is true with re+ard to the alle+ation of craft. Cence,
abuse of superior stren+th &a" not be taken into
account separatel" in this case, either as a ;ualif"in+
or as an a++ravatin+ circu&stance. 1n the other hand,
althou+h the trial court and both parties herein have
a+ain passed sub silentio thereon, it is evident that the
a++ravatin+ circu&stance of uninhabited place was
present since appellant and his co-accused obviousl"
and deliberatel" chose the desolation and isolation of
the su+arcane plantation to perpetrate the cri&e far
fro& the +a(e of potential e"e-witnesses. # .his
circu&stance is underscored b" the fact that the"
co&&itted the cri&e at about 1::: noon, a ti&e of
da" when an" passersb" or assistance could hardl" be
e<pected in the vicinit" of the locus cri&inis. 3: .his
a++ravatin+ circu&stance of despoblado should,
therefore, be considered a+ainst appellant even if it
was not alle+ed in the infor&ations since it was dul"
proved. 31
Appellant's defense that he was in another place at the
ti&e of 9rancis *ana+a's disappearance and killin+

&ust necessaril" fail. 2ndeed, trite as our innu&erable

reiterations have alread" &ade this state&ent of
re@ection, we &ust perforce a+ain reprobate appellant's
alibi as an inherentl" weak defense decidedl" eas" of
concoction. Apart fro& that, it is considered as clearl"
ne+ative in nature. Cence, when arra"ed a+ainst the
positive declarations of the witnesses for the
prosecution, the sa&e would all the &ore be +iven little
consideration. 3
9or it to prosper, it &ust be shown that not onl" was
the accused at so&e other place at the ti&e of the
co&&ission of the ofense, but that it was also
ph"sicall" i&possible for hi& to have been there when
it happened. 33 2ndeed, as correctl" pointed out b" the
trial court in its decision, appellant was not even sure
as to his whereabouts on 9ebruar" $, 1#4$. Ce si&pl"
ofered as an e<planation therefor that he was K&ore or
lessK in *atan+as, which alle+ation was co&pletel"
uncorroborated. 34
2n li+ht of the fore+oin+, appellant's further denial that
he was entrapped on the ni+ht of 9ebruar" 1:, 1#4$ b"
the authorities after receivin+ ranso& &one" fro&
/or&a )a&ello &ust likewise be re@ected. *oth /or&a
)a&ello and =+t. =i&plicio 8ula", one of the police
operatives, positivel" and without hesitation identi6ed
appellant as the person who was collared at Auneta
5ark. 35 !oreover, the police report clearl" and
de6nitel" bears out the fact that appellant was
arrested b" the investi+atin+ police oBcers on that
ni+ht pursuant to the dra+net plan that was prepared
for the purpose, 3% the veracit" of which record further
en@o"s the presu&ption of re+ularit" in the
perfor&ance of oBcial duties which appellant failed to
rebut.
. Appellant asserts that the trial court should not have
+iven credence to the testi&on" of 'o&eo 5adica as it
is incredible and inconsistent with the other evidence
on record. Ce afects surprise as to wh" the !ara@as
brothers would +o to the e<tent of hirin+ 5adica to
drive for the& when, in fact, 5adica hi&self knew that
Aeopoldo !ara@as was a skilled driver. !oreover, he
e<presses disbelief that 'o&eo 5adica never conversed
with the +roup while the" were on the road and that,
althou+h the latter clai&s to be a close friend of
Aeopoldo, he never even knew what was Aeopoldo's
profession and what was the surna&e of their co&&on
Kco&padre.K Ce likewise characteri(es as incredible the
circu&stance that he and his cohorts supposedl"
carried out the cri&e in broad da"li+ht and that
thereafter the" si&pl" dis&issed 5adica with a casual
threat of K5are, stead" ka lan+, isan+ bala ka lan+.K
.here is no &erit in all the fore+oin+ sub&issions and
pretensions of appellant. 2t is true that the testi&on" of
a particeps cri&inis is to be invariabl" viewed with
&uch caution, co&in+ as it does fro& a polluted
source. 34 Cowever, in the case at bar and after a
careful evaluation, we 6nd no plausible reason to
depart fro& the favorable appreciation b" the trial
court of 5adica's testi&on" which the said court
characteri(ed as reasonable and probable, +iven in a
clear, strai+htforward and convincin+ &anner thereb"
leavin+ no doubt in the &ind of said court that he was
tellin+ the truth. 3$
0urisprudentiall" e&bedded is the rule that the sta&p
of approval +iven b" the trial court on the testi&on" of
a particular witness as a conse;uence of its factual
6ndin+s is nor&all" accorded 6nalit" b" appellate
courts, the court below havin+ had the opportunit" to
observe closel" the &anner b" which such witness
testi6ed. 3# 9urther&ore, not a sin+le shred of
evidence was introduced b" the defense to show an" ill
&otive on the part of 5adica to i&pute such a serious
cri&e on appellant and his brothers, thus entitlin+ to
considerable credit his testi&on" re+ardin+ the
circu&stances surroundin+ 9rancis *ana+a's death.
.hese conclusions we con6r&, not b" &ere reliance on
dicta, but fro& our own review and calibration of the
evidence.
.here is certainl" nothin+ stran+e in the &atter of the
!ara@as brothers re;uestin+ 5adica to drive for the&.
As testi6ed to b" the latter, he was then a close friend
of one of the brothers, Aeopoldo, who was the one who
re;uested hi& to drive, and the latter presu&abl" had
full con6dence in hi& as he was at the ti&e a
professional driver of ta<icabs. 'o&eo 5adica, likewise,
can not be discredited @ust because of his silence on
the road and for not knowin+ Aeopoldo's profession and
the surna&e of a co&&on Kco&padre.K 2t is of co&&on
knowled+e that there are persons who are taciturn and
not as in;uisitive as others, or who disdain pr"in+ into
the afairs even of their close friends.
*e that as it &a", this witness did testif" to and narrate
in his sworn state&ent so&e personal &atters
re+ardin+ the !ara@as siblin+s, such as the fact that
Aeopoldo was sta"in+ at a house ad@acent to that of the
*ana+as in .ion+uiao =treet at ?atchalian =ubdivision
to+ether with his wife, children and Dddie *o" !ara@asL
that said house was owned b" a sister of the brothersL
and that 9rancis *ana+a, whose picture he positivel"
identi6ed in court, was a pla"&ate and school&ate of
Dddie *o" !ara@as, thus lendin+ credence to his clai&
of close and fraternal ties with Aeopoldo !ara@as. 4:
.he fact that appellant and his co-accused carried out
the &urder of 9rancis *ana+a in broad da"li+ht is
hardl" surprisin+. As pointedl" noted b" the =olicitor
?eneral, Kit is not diBcult to believe that appellant and
his co-accused co&&itted the cri&e in broad da"li+ht
because there were no other persons at the scene of
the incident,K as the sa&e was inside a desolate
su+arcane plantation in the outskirts of )ala&ba,
Aa+una and the cri&e was perpetrated at noon of that
da", as we have earlier e<plained.
Cavin+ de&onstrated to 5adica the brutal and
&erciless &anner in which the" disposed of 9rancis
*ana+a, appellant and his brothers were undoubtedl"
secure in the thou+ht that 5adica would have been
suBcientl" terrori(ed thereb" and would thereafter
keep his silence, and so, @ust for +ood &easure, the"
uttered the threat on the latter's life si&pl" as a
3
re&inder of what the" had in store for hi& should he
waver and i+nore that in@unctive warnin+.
2t is further contended b" appellant that the trial court
should not have +ranted the &otion to dischar+e
'o&eo 5adica fro& the infor&ation, as one of the
conditions for its +rant has not been &et, na&el", that
the prosecution has not shown that 5adica did not
appear to be the &ost +uilt". 2ncidentall", appellant
slurs over the fact that this order of the trial court was
sustained b" the )ourt of Appeals in )A-?.'. /o. 1%3:
which denied appellant's petition for certiorari and
prohibition assailin+ said order, the @ud+&ent therein
havin+ beco&e 6nal and e<ecutor" on 0anuar" :,
1#$#. 41
Appellant has also clearl" lost si+ht of the rule that the
dischar+e of an accused to be a state witness, lies
within the sound discretion of the court before who& it
is sou+ht and in the e<ercise of that discretion, it is not
re;uired that the court be absolutel" certain that all
the re;uire&ents for the proper dischar+e of a co-
accused be present. 4 2n the case under
consideration, the prosecution presented enou+h
evidence to support its &otion for the dischar+e of
5adica. .he trial court's reliance thereon and its
conse;uent 6ndin+ on the basis thereof that 5adica did
not appear to be the &ost +uilt" &ust be respected as
it was in better position to evaluate such evidence.
Appellant likewise points to portions in the testi&on" of
5adica which are alle+edl" not substantiated b" the
evidence on record. .hus, appellant ar+ues that while
5adica clai&ed that the victi& was stabbed b"
Aeopoldo !ara@as and then shot at four ti&es b"
appellant, "et the necrops" report of the &edico-le+al
oBcer, 8r. Dusebio 5. 5an+aniban, showed no stab
wounds but onl" lacerated wounds and two +unshot
wounds. 9urther, 5adica's testi&on" that the victi&
was dra++ed inside the plantation and instantl"
stabbed and shot to death is supposedl" belied b" the
6ndin+s in the necrops" report that 9rancis *ana+a's
bod" had several he&ato&as and contusions. 43
Ee nonetheless a+ree with and +ive due credit to the
followin+ e<planation of the court below re+ardin+
these see&in+ conMictin+ aspects:
K.he defense counsel also capitali(ed on the supposed
inconsistenc" between the alle+ation of 5adica that
Aeon !ara@as, 0r. shot *ana+a four ,4- ti&es and the
autops" report statin+ that the victi& sustained two ,-
entr" +unshot wounds. 5adica testi6ed that Aeon
!ara@as, 0r. shot 9rancis *ana+a four ,4- ti&es without
statin+ that the victi& was hit also four ,4- ti&es. .he
fact that he sufered two ,- entr" +unshot wounds
clearl" indicates that 9rancis was shot, supportin+ the
version of 5adica that the child was 6red upon b" Aeon
!ara@as, 0r.
KAlso pointed out as a basis for not believin+ the
testi&on" of 5adica is the supposed conMict between
his assertion that Aeopoldo !ara@as stabbed *ana+a
with a knife and the 6ndin+ of 8r. 5an+aniban that the
victi&, aside fro& the +unshot wounds, sustained onl"
lacerated wounds and contusions. .he defense i&plied
that *ana+a was not stabbed b" Aeopoldo !ara@as as
there is no 6ndin+ that he sustained stab wounds. A
lo+ical anal"sis of this point shows that there is no
inconsistenc". 5adica stated that he saw the accused
Aeopoldo !ara@as stab the victi& but he did not sa"
that *ana+a was hit b" the stabbin+ blows delivered b"
the said accused. 2t could also be that one of the blows
hit the bo" but without piercin+ his bod", causin+ onl"
lacerations thereon.K 44
As for the several he&ato&as and contusions that
were discovered on the bod" of 9rancis *ana+a, it is
entirel" possible that the sa&e were inMicted when the
victi& put up a furious stru++le for his life a+ainst his
assailants. Accordin+ to 5adica, the !ara@as brothers
forcefull" pulled out *ana+a fro& the car when the"
stopped b" the roadside. .he" continued to inMict
ph"sical har& on the bo" while proddin+ hi& to
proceed inside the su+arcane plantation until the"
reached a clearin+ where, after Aeopoldo !ara@as
delivered stabbin+ blows on the victi& which &a" not
have inMicted knife wounds but contusions fro& the
assailant's clenched 6sts, Aeon !ara@as, 0r. then 6red
awa" with the fatal shots. All the while and @ust before
he was shot to death, 5adica narrated that the victi&
desperatel" e<erted all eforts to ward of the assault
on his person. 45
Appellant also raises as an issue the ;uestionable
&anner in which 5adica surrendered, after nearl" three
"ears of hidin+, to At. )esar 5ere( of the Aucena 5)
'e+ional =ecurit" >nit who& he &et onl" for the 6rst
ti&e at the Aucena )it" &arketplace.
*ut, as 5adica candidl" revealed, and we 6nd his
e<planation satisfactor" and credible, he had desired
all alon+ to surrender as he had +rown tired of
constantl" fearin+ for his life and of his diBcult pli+ht
as a fu+itive fro& @ustice. Ce was obviousl" alwa"s on
the lookout for persons in authorit" who& he could
trust durin+ his sta" of two to three &onths in Aucena
)it" where he had in the &eanti&e found work as a
porter in the public &arket. 2n the course of his sta"
there, he had heard about the Kkind-heartedK At. 5ere(,
a rankin+ oBcer of the local constabular". 4% Cis
subse;uent &eetin+ and surrender to At. 5ere( at the
&arketplace was no stran+e coincidence as it is
obviousl" a place where all kinds of people +o to and
cross paths.
.hat it &a" have taken 5adica over two "ears to 6nall"
+ive hi&self up to the authorities is understandable. Ce
had witnessed a heinous cri&e perpetrated on a
defenseless fourteen-"ear old bo" b" his killers, and
the latter had threatened hi& with bodil" har& should
he reveal what the" had done. 2n view thereof, it was
but natural that 5adica would hide, awa" fro& the
possible clutches of the !ara@as brothers, and keep
unto hi&self the dark secret lest he sufer the sa&e
+ri& fate that befell 9rancis *ana+a.
4
3. Appellant 6nall" contends that the failure of the
prosecution to char+e hi& as an accused in the ori+inal
infor&ation is a fatal defect. A+ain, we 6nd no &erit in
this fatuous assertion.
.he rule is that the co&plaint or infor&ation should
suBcientl" alle+e the na&e of the accused, failin+
which the co&plaint or infor&ation would be rendered
invalid. .he test of suBcienc" is laid down in =ection 4,
'ule 11: of the 'ules of )ourt, which states:
K=ec. 4. /a&e of the accused. J A co&plaint or
infor&ation &ust state the na&e and surna&e of the
accused or an" appellation or nickna&e b" which he
has been or is known, or if his na&e cannot be
discovered he &ust be described under a 6ctitious
na&e with a state&ent that his true na&e is unknown.
2f in the course of the proceedin+ the true na&e of the
accused is disclosed b" hi&, or appears in so&e other
&anner to the court, the true na&e of the accused
shall be inserted in the co&plaint or infor&ation and
record.K
2n the case at bar, there is no dispute that appellant
was arrai+ned under the ori+inal infor&ation and that
he entered thereto a plea of not +uilt" under the na&e
of KAeonardo !ara@as.K At that @uncture, appellant
should have raised the error as to his identit" b" 6lin+
a &otion to ;uash on the +round of lack of @urisdiction
over his person, in line with the doctrine e<plained in
5eople vs. /arvaes 44 laid down as earl" as 1#34.
*ut, as aforestated, appellant did not do so but instead
voluntaril" appeared at the arrai+n&ent and pleaded
not +uilt" thereat, albeit under a diferent na&e.
)onse;uentl", the trial court ac;uired @urisdiction over
his person and it could have rendered a valid @ud+&ent
of conviction based on the ori+inal infor&ation even
without need of an a&endator" infor&ation to correct
appellant's na&e. Ehat we stated in /arvaes is worth
repeatin+:
K. . . ,w-hen the appellant was arrai+ned under the
na&e of 5edro /arvaes, which is the na&e appearin+
in the infor&ation, he &erel" entered his plea of 'not
+uilt"' under the said na&e. 2t was on that occasion
that he should have for the 6rst ti&e raised the
;uestion of his identit", b" 6lin+ a de&urrer based on
the court's lack of @urisdiction over his person,
inas&uch as he was then considered as 5edro /arvaes,
not 5ri&o /arvaes. /ot havin+ 6led the said de&urrer,
it &ust necessaril" be understood that he renounced it
and therefore he is now estopped fro& raisin+, or
insistin+ to raise, the sa&e ;uestion, not onl" in this
appeal but even at the trial . . .K
.he subse;uent a&end&ent to insert in the
infor&ation Aeon !ara@as, 0r.'s real na&e involved
&erel" a &atter of for& as it did not, in an" wa",
deprive appellant of a fair opportunit" to present his
defense. 4$ !oreover, the a&end&ent neither afected
nor altered the nature of the ofense char+ed since the
basic theor" of the prosecution was not chan+ed nor
did it introduce new and &aterial facts. 4# =uch an
a&end&ent is e<plicitl" allowed under the second
para+raph of =ection 4, in relation to =ection 14, 'ule
11: of the 'ules of )ourt, the pertinent portion of
which provides that K,t-he infor&ation or co&plaint
&a" be a&ended, in substance or for&, without leave
of court, at an" ti&e before the accused pleadsL and
thereafter and durin+ the trial as to all &atters of for&,
b" leave and at the discretion of the court, when the
sa&e can be done without pre@udice to the ri+hts of the
accused.K At an" rate, whatever irre+ularit" &a" have
attended the inclusion of appellant's na&e as an
accused in the a&ended infor&ation has been waived
b" his subse;uent appearance and entr" of plea at his
arrai+n&ent under said a&endator" infor&ation.
ECD'D91'D, the assailed @ud+&ent of the trial court is
hereb" =D. A=28D and another one is rendered
)1/72).2/? accused-appellant Aeon !ara@as, 0r. "
'a&os of the cri&e of &urder and 2!51=2/? upon hi&
the penalt" of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is
further 1'8D'D8 to pa" the heirs of the late 9rancis
*ana+a the su& of 55:,:::.:: as death inde&nit", in
line with current @urisprudential polic", and likewise to
pa" the costs.
=1 1'8D'D8.
5G.R. No. 1/1*19. O1tober 30, 19966
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appellee,
vs. .I,ENTE T) !%& ,ARMEN T), accused-
appellants.
E , I S I O N
'AP-NAN, J.7
7icente ." A/8 )ar&en ." were char+ed with the
cri&e of kidnappin+ and failure to return a &inor in an
infor&ation 6led b"
nd
Assistant )it" 5rosecutor of
3alookan )it" 'osauro 0. =ilverio, the accusator"
portion of which reads:
.hat on or about the &onth of April 1#$#, in 3alookan
)it", !etro !anila, and within the @urisdiction of this
Conorable )ourt, the above-na&ed accused, bein+
then the owners, proprietors, &ana+ers and
ad&inistrators of =ir 0ohn )linic and as such said
accused had the custod" of Arabella =o&blon+, a
&inor, conspirin+ to+ether and &utuall" helpin+ one
another and with deliberate intent to deprive the
parents of the child of her custod", did then and there
willfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl" fail to restore the
custod" of said Arabella =o&bon+ to her parents b"
+ivin+ said custod" of sub@ect &inor to another person
without the knowled+e and consent of her parents.
)ontrar" to Aaw.
R1S
5
*oth accused were arrested, and then arrai+ned
on 1ctober 4, 1## when the" pleaded not +uilt" to
the cri&e char+ed.
After trial, on !a" 31, 1##5, a decision was
rendered b" the 'e+ional .rial )ourt of 3alookan )it",
*ranch 13, the decretal portion of which disposes as
follows:
ECD'D91'D, this )ourt 6nds both accused =pouses
7icente ." and )ar&en ." +uilt" be"ond reasonable
doubt of the cri&e of kidnappin+ a &inor and failure to
return the sa&e as de6ned and penali(ed b" Article
4: of the 'evised 5enal )ode and hereb" sentences
the& to sufer i&prison&ent of reclusion
perpetua. .he accused are hereb" ordered to pa" the
private co&plainant the su& of51::,:::.:: b" wa" of
&oral da&a+es caused b" an<iet", b" her bein+
e&otionall" drained coupled b" the fact that up to this
date she could not deter&ine the whereabouts of her
child Arabella =o&bon+.
=1 1'8D'D8.
RS
.he accused now interposes this appeal alle+in+
the ensuin+ assi+n&ent of errors, vi(:
I
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/ 92/82/? .CA.
A55DAAA/.= X8DA2*D'A.DAF 9A2AD8 .1
'D=.1'D .CD )C2A8 .1 CD' !1.CD',Y A/8
)1/72).2/? .CD! >/8D' A'.. 4: 19 .CD
'D72=D8 5D/AA )18D, A/8 =D/.D/)2/?
.CD! .1 X'D)A>=21/ 5D'5D.>AYL
II
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/ /1. C1A82/?
.CA. .CD )'2!D )1!!2..D8, 29 A/F, 2=
.CA. 8D92/D8 A/8 5D/AA2PD8 >/8D' A'..
4 19 .CD 'D72=D8 5D/AA )18DL
III
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/ /1.
'D)1!!D/82/? DND)>.27D )AD!D/)F
5>'=>A/. .1 5'D)D8D/. 2/ X5D15AD vs.
?>.2D''DP,Y 1#4 =)'A 5%#L and
I.
.CD .'2AA )1>'. D''D8 2/ AEA'82/?
X)1!5AA2/A/. .CD =>! 19 51::,:::.:: *F
EAF 19 !1'AA 8A!A?D=.Y
R3S
.he relevant antecedents surroundin+ the case
are as follows:
1n /ove&ber 1$, 1#$4, co&plainant 0ohanna
=o&bon+ brou+ht her sick dau+hter Arabella, then onl"
seven ,4- &onths old, for treat&ent to the =ir 0ohn
!edical and !aternit" )linic located at /o. 11 9irst
Avenue, ?race 5ark, 3alookan )it" which was owned
and operated b" the accused-appellants. Arabella was
dia+nosed to be suferin+ bronchitis and diarrhea, thus
co&plainant was advised to con6ne the child at the
clinic for speed" recover". About three ,3- da"s later,
Arabella was well and was read" to be dischar+ed but
co&plainant was not around to take her ho&e. A week
later, co&plainant ca&e back but did not have enou+h
&one" to pa" the hospital bill in the a&ount
of53::.::. )o&plainant likewise con6ded to accused-
appellant 8r. )ar&en ." that no one would take care of
the child at ho&e as she was workin+. =he then
in;uired about the rate of the nurser" and upon bein+
told that the sa&e was 55:.:: per da", she decided to
leave her child to the care of the clinic
nurser". )onse;uentl", Arabella was transferred fro&
the ward to the nurser".
R4S
.hereafter, hospital bills started to &ount and
accu&ulate. 2t was at this ti&e that accused-appellant
8r. ." su++ested to the co&plainant that she hire a
Z"a"a[ for 54::.:: instead of the dail" nurser" fee
of 55:.::. )o&plainant a+reed, hence, a Z"a"a[ was
hired. Arabella was then a+ain transferred fro& the
nurser" to the e<tension of the clinic which served as
residence for the hospital staf.
R5S
9ro& then on, nothin+ was heard of the
co&plainant. =he neither visited her child nor called to
in;uire about her whereabouts. Cer estran+ed
husband ca&e to the clinic once but did not +et the
child. Dforts to +et in touch with the co&plainant were
unsuccessful as she left no address or telephone
nu&ber where she can be reached. .his develop&ent
pro&pted 8r. ." to notif" the baran+a" captain of the
childYs abandon&ent.
R%S
Dventuall", the hospital staf
took turns in takin+ care of Arabella.
R4S
=o&eti&e in 1#$#, two ,- "ears after Arabella
was abandoned b" co&plainant, 8r. 9e !allon+a, a
dentist at the clinic, su++ested durin+ a hospital staf
conference that Arabella be entrusted to a +uardian
who could +ive the child the love and afection,
personal attention and carin+ she badl" needed as she
was thin and sickl". .he su++estion was favorabl"
considered, hence, 8r. !allon+a +ave the child to her
aunt, Ailibeth /eri.
R$S
2n 1##, co&plainant ca&e back to clai& the
dau+hter she abandoned so&e 6ve ,5- "ears back.
Ehen her pleas alle+edl" went unanswered, she
6led a petition for haeas corpus a+ainst accused-
appellants with the 'e+ional .rial )ourt of Hue(on
)it". =aid petition was however denied due course and
was su&&aril" dis&issed without pre@udice on the
+round of lack of @urisdiction, the alle+ed detention
havin+ been perpetrated in 3alookan )it".
.hereafter, the instant cri&inal case was 6led
a+ainst accused-appellants.
)o&plainant likewise 6led an ad&inistrative case
for dishonorable conduct a+ainst accused-appellant 8r.
)ar&en ." before the *oard of !edicine of the
5rofessional 'e+ulation )o&&ission. .his case was
subse;uentl" dis&issed for failure to prosecute.
1n 1ctober 13, 1##, co&plainant 6led a petition
for haeas corpus with the 'e+ional .rial )ourt of
Hue(on )it", this ti&e a+ainst the alle+ed +uardians of
her dau+hter, na&el", !arietta /eri Alviar and Ailibeth
/eri. 1n 0anuar" 15, 1##3, the trial court rendered a
%
decision +rantin+ the petition and orderin+ the
+uardians to i&&ediatel" deliver the person of )ristina
?race /eri to the co&plainant, the court havin+ found
)ristina to be the co&plainantYs child. 1n appeal to
the )ourt of Appeals, however, said decision was
reversed on the +round that the +uardians were not
unlawfull" withholdin+ fro& the co&plainant the
ri+htful custod" of )ristina after 6ndin+ that )ristina
and co&plainantYs dau+hter are not one and the sa&e
person. 1n 0anuar" 31, 1##%, this )ourt in Somon0 -.
$ourt of Appeals
R#S
aBr&ed the )ourt of AppealsY
decision.
2n this appeal, accused-appellants would want us
to take a second look and resolve the issue of whether
or not the" are +uilt" of kidnappin+ and failure to
return a &inor. Accused-appellants of course contend
that the" are not +uilt" and the =olicitor ?eneral
a+rees. 2n its !anifestations and !otion in lieu of
AppelleeYs *rief, the 1Bce of the =olicitor ?eneral
reco&&ends their ac;uittal.
Ee a+ree.
As we have &entioned above, this )ourt
in Somon0 -. $ourt of Appeals
R1:S
aBr&ed the decision
of the )ourt of Appeals reversin+ the trial courtYs rulin+
that co&plainant has ri+htful custod" over the child,
)ristina ?race /eri, the latter not bein+ identical with
co&plainantYs dau+hter, Arabella. .he )ourt
discoursed, thusl":
5etitioner does not have the ri+ht of custod" over the
&inor )ristina because, b" the evidence disclosed
before the court a 8uo, )ristina has not been shown to
be petitionerYs dau+hter, Arabella. .he evidence
adduced before the trial court does not warrant the
conclusion that Arabella is the sa&e person as )ristina.
<<<
2n the instant case, the testi&onial and circu&stantial
proof establishes the individual and separate e<istence
of petitionerYs child, Arabella, fro& that of private
respondentsY foster child, )ristina.
Ee note, a&on+ others, that 8r. .rono, who is
petitionerYs own witness, testi6ed in court that,
to+ether with Arabella, there were several babies left in
the clinic and so she could not be certain whether it
was Arabella or so&e their bab" that was +iven to
private respondents. 5etitionerYs own evidence shows
that, after the con6ne&ent of Arabella in the clinic in
1#$4, she saw her dau+hter a+ain onl" in 1#$# when
she visited the clinic. .his corroborates the testi&on"
of petitionerYs own witness, 8ra. .", that Arabella was
ph"sicall" con6ned in the clinic fro& /ove&ber, 1#$4
to April, 1#$#. .his testi&on" tallies with her assertion
in her counter-aBdavit to the efect that Arabella was
in the custod" of the hospital until April, 1#$#. All this,
when @u<taposed with the unwaverin+ declaration of
private respondents that the" obtained custod" of
)ristina in April, 1#$$ and had her bapti(ed at the
?ood =a&aritan )hurch on April 3:, 1#$$, leads to the
conclusions that )ristina is not Arabella.
=i+ni6cantl", 0ustice Aourdes 3. .a"ao-0a+uros, herself a
&other and the ponente of the herein assailed
decision, set the case for hearin+ on Au+ust 3:, 1##3
pri&aril" for the purpose of observin+ petitionerYs
de&eanor towards the &inor )ristina. =he &ade the
followin+ personal but relevant &anifestation:
.he undersi+ned ponente as a &other herself of four
children, wanted to see how petitioner as an alle+ed
&other of a &issin+ child supposedl" in the person of
)ristina /eri would react on seein+ a+ain her lon+ lost
child. .he petitioner appeared in the scheduled
hearin+ of this case late, and she walked inside the
courtroo& lookin+ for a seat without even stoppin+ at
her alle+ed dau+hterYs seatL without even castin+ a
+lance on said child, and without even that tearful
e&brace which characteri(es the reunion of a lovin+
&other with her &issin+ dear child. .hrou+hout the
proceedin+s, the undersi+ned ponente noticed no si+ns
of endear&ent and afection e<pected of a &other who
had been deprived of the e&brace of her little child for
&an" "ears. .he conclusion or 6ndin+ of undersi+ned
ponente as a &other, herself, that petitioner-appellee
is not the &other of )ristina /eri has been +iven
support b" aforestated observation <<<.
<<<
=ince we hold that petitioner has not been established
b" evidence to be entitled to the custod" of the &inor
)ristina on account of &istaken identit", it cannot be
said that private respondents are unlawfull"
withholdin+ fro& petitioner the ri+htful custod" over
)ristina. At this @uncture, we need not in;uire into the
validit" of the &ode b" which private respondents
ac;uired custodial ri+hts over the &inor, )ristina.
<<<
>nder the facts and rulin+ in Somon0, as well as
the evidence adduced in this case accused-appellants
&ust perforce be ac;uitted of the cri&e char+ed, there
bein+ no reason to hold the& liable for failin+ to return
one )ristina ?race /eri, a child not conclusivel" shown
and established to be co&plainantYs dau+ther,
Arabella.
.he fore+oin+ notwithstandin+, even if we were to
consider )ristina ?race /eri and Arabella =o&bon+ as
one and the sa&e person, still, the instant cri&inal
case a+ainst the accused-appellants &ust fall.
*efore a conviction for kidnappin+ and failure to
return a &inor under Article 4: of the 'evised 5enal
)ode can be had, two ele&ents &ust concur, na&el":
,a- the ofender has been entrusted with the custod" of
the &inor, and ,b- the ofender deliberatel" fails to
restore said &inor to his parents or +uardians. .he
essential ele&ent herein is that the ofender is
entrusted with the custod" of the &inor but what is
actuall" punishable is not the kidnappin+ of the &inor,
as the title of the article see&s to indicate, but rather
thedeliberate failure or refusal of the custodian of the
&inor to restore the latter to his parents or +uardians.
R11S
=aid failure or refusal, however, &ust not onl" be
4
deliberate but &ust also be persistent as to obli+e the
parents or the +uardians of the child to seek the aid of
the courts in order to obtain custod".
R1S
.he ke" word
therefore of this ele&ent is deliberate and *lackYs Aaw
8ictionar" de6nes deliberate as:
e"#ber!te, adj. Eell advisedL carefull" consideredL
not sudden or rashL circu&spectL slow in
deter&inin+. Eillful rather than &erel"
intentional. 9or&ed, arrived at, or deter&ined upon as
a result of careful thou+ht and wei+hin+ of
considerations, as a deliberate @ud+&ent or
plan. )arried on cooll" and steadil", especiall"
accordin+ to a preconceived desi+nL +iven to wei+hin+
facts and ar+u&ents with a view to a choice or
decisionL careful in considerin+ the conse;uences of a
stepL slow in actionL unhurriedL characteri(ed b"
reMectionL dispassionateL not rash. 5eople v. .ho&as,
5 )al. d $$:, 15% 5. d 4, 14, 1$.
*" the use of this word, in describin+ a cri&e, the
idea is conve"ed that the perpetrator wei+hs the
&otives for the act and its conse;uences, the nature of
the cri&e, or other thin+s connected with his
intentions, with a view to a decision thereonL that he
carefull" considers all these, and that the act is not
suddenl" co&&itted. 2t i&plies that the perpetrator
&ust be capable of the e<ercise of such &ental powers
as are called into use b" deliberation and the
consideration and wei+hin+ of &otives and
conse;uences.
R13S
=i&ilarl", the word deliberate is de6ned in $orpus
Juris Secundum as:
ELI+ERATE.
A$ ! .erb
.he word is derived fro& two Aatin words which &ean
literall" Xconcernin+Y and Xto wei+h,Y it i&plies the
possession of a &ind capable of conceivin+ a purpose
to act, and the e<ercise of such &ental powers as are
called into use b" the consideration and wei+hin+ of
the &otives and the conse;uences of the actL and has
been de6ned as &eanin+ to consider, reMect, take
counsel, or to wei+h the ar+u&ents for and a+ainst a
proposed course of actionL to consider and e<a&ine the
reasons for and a+ainst, consider &aturel", ponder,
reMect upon, or wei+h in the &indL to reMect, with a
view to &ake a choiceL to wei+h the &otives for an act
and its conse;uences, with a view to a decision
thereon.
A$ !% A&8e1t#9e
.he word, used ad@ectivel", i&plies action after thou+ht
and reMection, and relates to the end proposedL
indicates a purpose for&ed in a &ind capable of
conceivin+ a purposeL and is based upon an intention
acco&panied b" such circu&stances as evidence a
&ind full" conscious of its own purpose and desi+n. 2t
has been de6ned as &eanin+ carefull" consideredL
circu&spectL entered upon after deliberation and with
6<ed purpose, for&ed after careful consideration, and
full" or carefull" considerin+ the nature or
conse;uences of an act or &easureL &aturel"
reMectedL not sudden or rash, carefull" considerin+ the
probable conse;uences of a stepL pre&editatedL slow
in deter&inin+L wei+hin+ facts and ar+u&ents with a
view to a choice of decisionL well-advised.
>nder so&e circu&stances, it has been held
s"non"&ous with, or e;uivalent to, Xintentional,Y
Xpre&editated,Y and Xwillful.Y
>nder other circu&stances, however, it has been
co&pared with, or distin+uished fro&, Xpre&editated,Y
Xsudden,Y and Xwillful.Y
R14S
Dssentiall", the word deliberate as used in the
article &ust i&pl" so&ethin+ &ore than &ere
ne+li+enceL it &ust be pre&editated, obstinate,
headstron+, foolishl" darin+ or intentionall" and
&aliciousl" wron+.
2n the case at bar, it is evident that there was no
deliberate refusal or failure on the part of the accused-
appellants to restore the custod" of the co&plainantYs
child to her. Ehen the accused-appellant learned that
co&plainant wanted her dau+hter back after 6ve ,5-
lon+ "ears of apparent wanton ne+lect, the" tried their
best to help herein co&plainant 6nd the child as the
latter was no lon+er under the clinicYs care. Accused-
appellant 8r. ." did not have the address of ArabellaYs
+uardians but as soon as she obtained it fro& 8r. 9e
!allon+a who was alread" workin+ abroad, she
personall" went to the +uardiansY residence and
infor&ed the& that herein co&plainant wanted her
dau+hter back. 8r. ." testi6ed as follows:
H: /ow, since "ou said a while a+o that when "ou
placed the child under the ,sic- +uardianship,
"ou are ,sic- aware that the natural &other
will +et back the child, wh" did "ou not return
the &inor to the natural &otherI
A: 8urin+ that ti&e &a&, the resident ph"sician
who will ,sic- dischar+ed the bab" was not
present because she was abroad.
H: *ut then &ada& witness, are "ou aware
where the child was and to who& it was
+ivenI
A: .he e<act address was not +iven to &e, &a&,
before the resident ph"sician left for abroad
so, 2 asked the 5A1 to +ive &e one &onth to
have ,sic- a lon+ distance call to this doctor
and asked her for the whereabout,s- of the
child.
H: And where "ou +ranted the thirt"-da" period
b" the 1Bcer of the 5A1I
A: Fes, &a&.
H: Ehat happened if an" durin+ that thirt"-da"
periodI
$
A: 2 was able to talk to 9e !allon+a in *ahrain
and she told &e the e<act address of the
+uardian, &a&.
H: Eere ,sic- "ou infor&ed ,of- the e<act address
of the +uardian, did "ou infor&ed ,sic- the
5A1I
A: Fes, &a&.
A..F. EA'8:
H: .hen, what happened ne<t, &ada& witnessI
A: 2 was the one who went to the address to be
sure that the child was reall" there, &a&.
H: And did "ou see the childI
A: Fes, &a&.
H: Ehat did "ou do with the childI
A: 2 @ust tell ,sic- the child. XA" and laki &o na
pala.Y 2 @ust told the child like that and 2Yve
,sic- talked also to the +uardian durin+ that
ti&e, &a&.
H: And what did "ou tell the +uardianI
A: 2 told the +uardian that the ri+htful &other
was clai&in+ for the child and that we should
talked ,sic- with each other at the 5A1 for the
decision, &a&.
H: 8id the +uardian brin+ the child to the 5A1Ys
1Bce ,sic-I
A: /o &a&, she did not appear.
H: Eh"I
A: .he" told &e 6rst that the" are ,sic- +oin+ to
contact a law"er but for ,sic- several da"s,
she did not respond an"&ore, &a&.
R15S
Ehen the +uardians refused to return the child,
accused-appellant 8r. ." sou+ht the assistance of the
/ational *ureau of 2nvesti+ation ,/*2- which conducted
a conference a&on+ the parties but since a case was
"et to be 6led, the custod" of the &inor re&ained with
the +uardians. .his fact is evident fro& the followin+
testi&on", thus:
H: Fou testi6ed on cross-e<a&ination that "ou
located the whereabouts of the child
so&eti&e later, what steps did "ou take up
,sic- after "ou found the childI
A: 2 e<plained to the +uardian that the verbal
a+ree&ent between the supposed to be
+uardianship was onl" a plain +uardianship
and not as an adoption, sir.
H: Fou said "ou went to the /*2 after "ou found
the child, wh" did "ou +o to the /*2I
A: *ecause the +uardian are ,sic- not willin+ to
surrender the child to the 5A1Ys 1Bce ,sic-.
that is wh" 2 asked their help, sir.
R1%S
<<<
H: /ow, when "ou infor&ed the present
custodian that the natural &other is now
clai&in+ the child, wh" were "ou not able to
+et the &inorI
A: 2 was not able to +et the &inor so 2 asked the
help of the /*2 to have the child surrender
,sic-, &a&.
A..F. EA'8:
H: And what happened when "ou +et ,sic- the
assistance of the /*2I
A: .he" were the ones who asked the +uardian
to surrender the child, &a&.
H: Fou stated a while a+o that there was no
written a+ree&ent between "ou or "our
hospital and the +uardian of the &inor, is that
correctI
A: Fes, &a&.
H: 9or what reason if "ou know, wh" ,did- the
+uardian did ,sic- not follow "ou or obe" "ou
when "ou want ,sic- to +et back the childI
A: 2 donYt know of an" reason, &a&.
R14S
.he eforts taken b" the accused-appellants to help the
co&plainant in 6ndin+ the child clearl" ne+ate the
6ndin+ that there was a deliberate refusal or failure on
their part to restore the child to her &other. Dvidence
is si&pl" wantin+ in this re+ard.
2t is worth" to note that accused-appellantsY
conduct fro& the &o&ent the child was left in the
clinicYs care up to the ti&e the child was +iven up for
+uardianship was &otivated b" nothin+ &ore than an
earnest desire to help the child and a hi+h re+ard for
her welfare and well-bein+.
:HEREFORE, pre&ises considered, the decision
appealed fro& is hereb" 'D7D'=D8 and =D.
A=28D. Accordin+l", accused-appellant 72)D/.D .F and
)A'!D/ .F are hereb" A)H>2..D8 of the cri&e
char+ed and are ordered to be released i&&ediatel"
unless the" are bein+ detained for other lawful
causes. )osts de o,cio.
SO ORERE.
+adilla 4$hairman5, 9ellosillo,
:itu0 and 6ermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 9347* (;%e *, 1991
ANTONIO A. LAMERA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORA+LE ,O-RT OF APPEALS !%& THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
.smeraldo ;. Guloy for petitioner.

A.IE, (R., J.:p
#
At around $:3: o'clock in the evenin+ of 14 !arch
1#$5, alon+ >rbano =treet, 5asi+, !etro !anila, an
owner-t"pe @eep, then driven b" petitioner, alle+edl"
Khit and bu&pedK a tric"cle then driven b" Drnesto
'e"es resultin+ in da&a+e to the tric"cle and in@uries
to Drnesto 'e"es and 5aulino ?on(al.
1
As a conse;uence thereof, two infor&ations were 6led
a+ainst petitioner: ,a- an 2nfor&ation for reckless
i&prudence resultin+ in da&a+e to propert" with
&ultiple ph"sical in@uries under Article 3%5 of the
'evised 5enal )ode readin+ as follows:
.hat on or about the 14th da" of
!arch, 1#$5, in the !unicipalit" of
5asi+, !etro !anila, 5hilippines and
within the @urisdiction of this Conorable
)ourt the above-na&ed accused, bein+
then the driver and person in char+e of
an 1wner 0eep .o"ota bearin+ 5late /o.
/))-313 >7 5ilipinas '$5, and without
due re+ard to traBc laws, rules and
re+ulations and without takin+ the
necessar" care and precautions to
avoid da&a+e to propert" and in@uries
to persond ,sic-, did, then and there
willfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl"
drive, &ana+e and opefate ,sic- said
1wner 0eep in a careless, reckless,
ne+li+ent and i&prudent &anner, as a
result of which said &otor vehicle bein+
then driven and operated b" hi&, hit
and bu&ped a tric"cle =>P>ki ,sic-
bearin+ 5late /o. /A-%545 !) 5ilipinas
'$5, driven b" Drnesto 'e"es " Ds+uerra
and owned b" Drnesto Antonel, thereb"
causin+ da&a+e to the =u(uki tric"cle
in the a&ount of 54,$45.::L and due to
the i&pact the driver and the
passen+ers of a ,sic- tric"cle =u(uki,
sustained ph"sical in@uries which
re;uired &edical attendance as stated
opposite their respective na&es to wit:
1. Drnesto 'e"es J !ore than thirt"
,3:- da"s
. 5aulino ?on(al J !ore than thirt"
,3:- da"s
3. 5atricio Huitali+ J Aess than nine ,#-
da"s
and incapacitated the& fro&
perfor&in+ their custo&ar" labor for
the sa&e period of ti&e.
which was 6led on 1: =epte&ber 1#$5 with the
'e+ional .rial )ourt of 5asi+, !etro !anila and
docketed therein as )ri&inal )ase /o. %4#4 and
assi+ned to *ranch %$ thereofL and ,b- an 2nfor&ation
for violation of para+raph of Article 45 of the
'evised 5enal )ode on Abandon&ent of one's victi&
readin+ as follows:
.hat on or about the 14th da" of
!arch, 1#$5, in the !unicipalit" of
5asi+, !etro !anila, 5hilippines, and
within the @urisdiction of this Conorable
)ourt the above-na&ed accused, bein+
the driver of an owner-t"pe @eep with
5late /o. /))-313 >7 5il. '$5 which hit
and bu&ped a &otori(ed tric"cle with
5late /o. /A-%545-!) '$5 driven b"
Drnesto 'e"es and as a conse;uence of
which 5aulino ?on(al and Drnesto
'e"es sustained ph"sical in@uries and
lost consciousness, did then and there
wilfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl"
abandoned ,sic- the& and failed ,sic-
to help or render assistance to the&,
without @usti6able reason.
which was 6led on 14 /ove&ber 1#$5 with the
!etropolitan .rial )ourt of 5asi+ ,*ranch 41- and was
docketed as )ri&inal )ase /o. 4#3.
1n # 0une 1#$4 the !etropolitan .rial )ourt of 5asi+
rendered its decision in )ri&inal )ase /o. 4#3 6ndin+
the petitioner +uilt" of the cri&e of Abandon&ent of
one's victi& as de6ned and penali(ed under para+raph
of Article 45 of the 'evised 5enal )ode and
sentenced hi& to sufer i&prison&ent for a period of
si< ,%- &onths ofarresto mayor and to pa" the costs.
5etitioner appealed fro& said 8ecision to the 'e+ional
.rial )ourt of 5asi+, !etro !anila which docketed the
appeal as )ri&inal )ase /o. 4:%4$.
2n the &eanti&e, on 4 April 1#$#, petitioner was
arrai+ned in )ri&inal )ase /o. %4#4 before *ranch %$
of the 'e+ional .rial )ourt of 5asi+. Ce entered a plea
of not +uilt".
/
5etitioner's appeal, )ri&inal )ase /o. 4:%4$, was
decided on 31 0ul" 1#$#. .he court aBr&ed with
&odi6cation the decision appealed fro&. .he
&odi6cation consisted &erel" in the reduction of the
penalt" of i&prison&ent fro& si< ,%- to two ,-
&onths.
3
=till unsatis6ed with the new verdict, petitioner 6led
with the )ourt of Appeals on 31 Au+ust 1#$# a petition
for its review, docketed as ).A.-?.'. )' /o. :4351,
assi+nin+ therein the followin+ alle+ed errors:
2
.CD 'D=51/8D/. C1/. 0>8?D8 ,S2$-
D''D8 2/ A992'!2/? .CD 92/82/? 19
.CD !D.'151A2.A/ .'2AA )1>'. 19
5A=2?, !D.'1 !A/2AA, .CA. K.CD
.'2)F)AD 8'27D/ *F D'/D=.1 'DFD=
3:
EA= *>!5D8 *F .CD 0DD5 8'27D/ *F
.CD 5D.2.21/D'.K
22
.CD 'D=51/8D/. C1/. 0>8?D D''D8
2/ A992'!2/? .CD 92/82/? 19 .CD
!D.'151A2.A/ .'2AA )1>'. 19 5A=2?.
!D.'1 !A/2AA, .CA. .CD 5D.2.21/D',
KA1=2/? 5'D=D/)D 19 !2/8 A= .CD
*A118F =)D/A'21 E1>A8 2/8>)D 2/
.CD A7D'A?D !1.1'2=., CD ,S2$-
15.D8, 5D'CA5= 2/=.2/).27DAF .1
C28D 28D/.2.F, A55'DCD/=27D !AF *D
17D' .CD D/1'!2.F 19 C2=
!2=8D!DA/1' A/8 .C>= 8D)28D8
,S2$- .1 E2.CC1A8 A==2=.A/)D .1
C2= 9AAAD/ 72).2!=.K
222
.CD 'D=51/8D/. C1/. 0>8?D D''D8
2/ 8D)AA'2/? .CA., KA= .CD
5'D=282/? 0>8?D 19 .CD
!D.'151A2.A/ .'2AA )1>'. CA8 .CD
1551'.>/2.F .1 1*=D'7D .CD
8D!DA/1' 19 .CD E2./D==D=, 2. 2=
82992)>A. .1 82=!2== .CD 92/82/?=
19 9A). 19 =A28 )1>'. ?272/?
)'D8D/)D .1 5'1=D)>.21/'=
E2./D==D=K 91' /1. *D2/? ,S2$-
=>551'.D8 *F =>*=.A/.2AA
D728D/)D A/8 )ADA'AF .CD AAE A/8
0>'2=5'>8D/)D.
27
.CD 'D=51/8D/. C1/. 0>8?D8 ,S2$-
D''D8 2/ A992'!2/? .CD 0>8?!D/.
19 .CD !D.'151A2.A/ .'2AA )1>'.
19 5A=2?, !D.'1 !A/2AA, 92/82/?
.CD 5D.2.21/D' ?>2A.F 19 .CD )'2!D
19 A*A/81/!D/. >/8D' A'.. 45,
5A'. , 19 .CD 'D72=D8 5D/AA )18D
A/8 =D/.D/)2/? C2! .1 =>99D' .CD
5D/AA.F 19 .E1 ,- !1/.C= A/8
1/D ,1- 8AF 19A"".ST< %A=<" A/8
.1 5AF .CD )1=.=.
7
.CD 'D=51/8D/. C1/. 0>8?D D''D8
2/ /1. 8D)AA'2/? />AA A/8 7128
AAA .CD 5'1)DD82/?= 2/ .CD
!D.'151A2.A/ .'2AA )1>'. 19 5A=2?
A/8 AAA .CD 5'1)DD82/?= *D91'D
2..
4
.he )ourt of Appeals found no &erit in the petition and
dis&issed it in its 8ecision pro&ul+ated on #
/ove&ber 1#$#.
*
5ertinentl", it ruled:
Ee cannot sustain the contention of
the petitioner that par. of Art. 45 of
the 'evised 5enal )ode does not appl"
to hi& since the evidence alle+edl"
shows that it was Drnesto 'e"es, the
tric"cle driver, who ne0li0ently caused
the accident. 5etitioner &isses the
i&port of the provision. .he provision
punishes the failure to help or render
assistance to another who& the
ofender accidentallywounded or
in@ured. Accidental &eans that which
happens b" chance or fortuitousl",
without intention and desi+n and which
is une<pected, unusual and unforeseen
,!oreno, 5hil. Aaw 8ictionar", 1#4 ed.,
p. 4 citin0 8e Aa )ru( v. )apital
2nsurance Q =uret" )o., 14 =)'A 55#-.
)onse;uentl", it is enou+h to show that
petitioner accidentall" in@ured the
passen+ers of the tric"cle and failed to
help or render the& assistance. .here
is no need to prove that petitioner was
ne+li+ent and that it was his
ne+li+ence that caused the in@ur". 2f the
factor of cri&inal ne+li+ence is
involved, Article 3%5 of the 'evised
5enal )ode will co&e into pla". .he last
para+raph of Art. 3%5 provides that
Kthe penalt" ne<t hi+her in de+ree to
those provided for in this article shall
be i&posed upon the ofender who fails
to lend on the spot to the in@ured part"
such help as &a" be in his bands to
+ive.K 5etitioner was char+ed under
par. of Art. 45 not under Art. 3%5 of
the 'evised 5enal )ode.
Cis &otion to reconsider the above decision wherein he
stron+l" ur+ed for reconsideration because:
<<< <<< <<<
. . . Ee 6nd it hard to visuali(e that the
accused &a" be penali(ed twice for an
KaccidentK and another for
KrecklessnessK, both of which arose
fro& the sa&e act. Ee sub&it that
there could not be a valid char+e under
Article 45, when, as in the case at bar,
there is alread" a pendin+ char+e for
reckless i&prudence under Article 3%5
of the 'evised 5enal )ode. 2t is our
view that the char+e under Article 45
presupposes that there is no other
char+e for reckless i&prudence.
havin+ been denied in the 'esolution of 14 !a"
1##:,
6
petitioner 6led the instant petition.
7
*efore >s he raises this sole issue:
31
)ould there be a valid char+e for
alle+ed abandon&ent under Article
45, par. of the 'evised 5enal )ode
which provides as basis for
prosecution. K. An"one who shall fail
to help another who& he
has accidentallywounded or in@uredK
when, he was previousl" char+ed with
Kreckless i&prudence resultin+ in
da&a+e to propert" with &ultiple
ph"sical in@uriesK under Article %5 ,sic-
of the 'evised 5enal )odeI
0
Ce &aintains the ne+ative view and supports it with
the ar+u&ent that KRfSor the sa&e act, that is, the
vehicular collision, one could not be indicted in two
separate infor&ations at the sa&e ti&e based on
KaccidentK and Krecklessness', for there is a world of
diference between Kreckless i&prudenceK and
Kaccidentall"'.K As e<panded b" hi&:
. . . since petitioner is facin+ a cri&inal
char+e for reckless i&prudence
pendin+ before *ranch %$ of the
'e+ional .rial )ourt of 5asi+, !etro
!anila . . . which ofense carries
heavier penalties under Article 3%5 of
the 'evised 5enal )ode, he could no
lon+er be char+ed under Article 45,
par. , for abandon&ent . . . for havin+
alle+edl" failed Kto help or render
assistance to another who& he
has accidentally wounded or in@uredK.
9
2n 1ur resolution of 1 Au+ust 1##: Ee re;uired
respondents to co&&ent on the petition.
2n its )o&&ent 6led on 1: =epte&ber 1##:,
respondent 5eople of the 5hilippines, throu+h the 1Bce
of the =olicitor ?eneral, puttin+ the issue s;uarel",
thus:
. . . whether or not prosecution for
ne+li+ence under Article 3%5 of the
'evised 5enal )ode is a bar to
prosecution for abandon&ent under
Article 45 of the sa&e )ode.
answers it in the ne+ative because said Articles
penali(e diferent and distinct ofenses. .he rule on
double @eopard", which petitioner has, in efect,
invoked, does not, therefore, appl" pursuant to e<istin+
@urisprudence. Cence, the petition should be dis&issed
for lack of &erit.
2n 1ur resolution of 13 !arch 1##1 Ee +ave due course
to the petition and re;uired the parties to sub&it
si&ultaneousl" their respective &e&oranda. 5etitioner
sub&itted his on April 1##1
10
while the 5eople
&oved that its )o&&ent be considered as its
&e&orandu&.
Ee a+ree with the =olicitor ?eneral that the petitioner
is actuall" invokin+ his ri+ht a+ainst double @eopard".
Ce, however, failed to directl" and cate+oricall" state it
in his petition or deliberatel" obscured it behind a
su++estion of possible resultant absurdit" of the two
infor&ations. .he reason see&s obvious. Ce for+ot to
raise s;uarel" that issue in the three courts below. 2n
an" case, to do so would have been a futile e<ercise.
Ehen he was arrai+ned, tried, and convicted in the
!etropolitan .rial )ourt of 5asi+ in )ri&inal )ase /o.
4#3, he was not "et arrai+ned in )ri&inal )ase /o.
%4#4 before the 'e+ional .rial )ourt. As stated above,
the @ud+&ent of conviction in the for&er was rendered
on 1> June ?>@(, while his arrai+n&ent in the latter
took place onl" on 1( April ?>@>. A&on+ the conditions
for double @eopard" to attach is that the accused &ust
have been arrai+ned in the previous case.
11
2n +eople
-s. 9ocar, supra., Ee ruled:
Ae+al @eopard" attaches onl" ,a- upon a
valid indict&ent, ,b- before a
co&petent court, ,c- after arrai+n&ent,
,d- a valid plea havin+ been entered,
and ,e- the case was dis&issed or
otherwise ter&inated without the
e<press consent of the accused.
!oreover, he is char+ed for two separate ofenses
under the 'evised 5enal )ode. 2n +eople
-s. !ori8uez,
1/
Ee held:
2t is a cardinal rule that the protection
a+ainst double @eopard" &a" be
invoked onl" for the sa&e ofense or
identical ofenses. A si&ple act &a"
ofend a+ainst two ,or &ore- entirel"
distinct and unrelated provisions of law,
and if one provision re;uires proof of
an additional fact or ele&ent which the
other does not, an ac;uittal or
conviction or a dis&issal of the
infor&ation under one does not bar
prosecution under the other. 5hrased
elsewhere, where two diferent laws ,or
articles of the sa&e code- de6nes two
cri&es, prior @eopard" as to one of
the& is no obstacle to a prosecution of
the other, althou+h both ofenses arise
fro& the sa&e facts, if each cri&e
involves so&e i&portant act which is
not an essential ele&ent of the
other.
13
2n +eople -s. 9acolod, supra., fro& the act of 6rin+ a
shot fro& a sub-&achine +un which caused public
panic a&on+ the people present and ph"sical in@uries
to one, infor&ations for ph"sical in@uries throu+h
reckless i&prudence and for serious public disturbance
were 6led. Accused pleaded +uilt" and was convicted
in the 6rst and he sou+ht to dis&iss the second on the
+round of double @eopard". Ee ruled:
.he protection a+ainst double @eopard"
is onl" for the sa&e ofense. A si&ple
3
act &a" be an ofense a+ainst two
diferent provisions of law and if one
provision re;uires proof of an additional
fact which the other does not, an
ac;uittal or conviction under one does
not bar prosecution under the other.
=ince the infor&ations were for separate ofenses J
the 6rst a+ainst a person and the second a+ainst public
peace and order J one cannot be pleaded as a bar to
the other under the rule on double @eopard".
.he two infor&ations 6led a+ainst petitioner are clearl"
for separate ofenses. .he 6rst, )ri&inal )ase /o.
%4#4, for reckless i&prudence ,Article 3%5-, falls
under the sole chapter ,)ri&inal /e+li+ence- of .itle
9ourteen ,Huasi 1fenses- of *ook .wo of the 'evised
5enal )ode. .he second, )ri&inal )ase /o. 4#3, for
Abandon&ent of one's victi& ,par. , Art. 45-, falls
under )hapter .wo ,)ri&es A+ainst =ecurit"- of .itle
/ine ,)ri&es A+ainst 5ersonal Aibert" and =ecurit"- of
*ook .wo of the sa&e )ode.
Huasi ofenses under Article 3%5 are co&&itted b"
&eans of culpa. )ri&es a+ainst =ecurit" are co&&itted
b" &eans of dolo.
14
!oreover, in Article 3%5, failure to lend help to one's
victi& is neither an ofense b" itself nor an ele&ent of
the ofense therein penali(ed. 2ts presence &erel"
increases the penalt" b" one de+ree. .he last
para+raph of the Article speci6call" provides:
.he penalt" ne<t hi+her in de+ree to
those provided for in this article shall
be i&posed upon the ofender who fails
to lend on the spot to the in@ured
parties such help as &a" be in hand to
+ive.
=uch bein+ the case, it &ust be speci6call" alle+ed in
the infor&ation. .he infor&ation a+ainst petitioner in
this case does not so alle+e.
>pon the other hand, failure to help or render
assistance to another who& one has accidentall"
wounded or in@ured is an ofense under para+raph of
Article 45 of the sa&e code which reads:
.he penalt" of arresto mayor shall be
i&posed upon:
<<< <<< <<<
. An"one who shall fail to help or
render assistance to another who& he
has accidentall" wounded or in@ured.
.he fore+oin+ distinctions satisf" the +uidelines Ee
&ade in +eople -s. "elo-a, et al.,
1*
wherein Ee held:
2t is perhaps i&portant to note that the
rule li&itin+ the constitutional
protection a+ainst double @eopard" to a
subse;uent prosecution for the sa&e
ofense is not to be understood with
absolute literalness. .he identit" of
ofenses that &ust be shown need not
be absolute identit": the 6rst and
second ofenses &a" be re+arded as
the Ksa&e ofenseK where the second
ofense necessaril" includes the 6rst
ofense or is necessaril" included in
such 6rst ofense or where the second
ofense is an atte&pt to co&&it the
6rst or a re+istration thereof. .hus, for
the constitutional plea of double
@eopard" to be available, not all the
technical ele&ents constitutin+ the 6rst
ofense need be present in the
technical de6nition of the second
ofense. .he law here seeks to prevent
harass&ent of an accused person b"
&ultiple prosecutions for ofenses
which thou+h diferent fro& one
another are nonetheless each
constituted b" a co&&on set or
overlappin+ sets of technical ele&ents.
>ndoubtedl" then, no constitutional, statutor" or
procedural obstacle barred the 6lin+ of the two
infor&ations a+ainst petitioner.
ECD'D91'D, for lack of &erit, the 5etition is 8D/2D8
without pronounce&ents as to costs.
=1 1'8D'D8.
G.R. No$. L</1*/0 !%& L</1*/9 M!r1=
/0, 1969
ROSA-RO RE)ES, petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Jose A. %aBacop for petitioner.
<'ce of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz,
Assistant Solicitor General +aci,co +. de $astro and
Solicitor Antonio %. %artinez for respondent.
MA'ALINTAL, J.:
.his case is before us on appeal b" certiorari,
fro& the decision of the )ourt of Appeals aBr&in+ that
a the &unicipal court of )avite )it", convictin+ 'osauro
'e"es of the cri&es of +rave threats and +rave oral
defa&ation, and sentencin+ hi&, in the 6rst case
,)ri&inal )ase /o. 5#4-, to four ,4- &onths and ten
,1:- da"s of arresto mayor and to pa" a 6ne of 53::,
with subsidiar" i&prison&ent in case of insolvenc"L
and in the second case ,)ri&inal )ase /o. 5#5-, to an
indeter&inate penalt" of fro& four ,4- &onths
of arresto mayor to one ,1- "ear and ei+ht ,$- &onths
of prison correccional and to pa" A+ustin Callare the
33
su& of 5$:: as &oral da&a+es, with costs in both
cases.
.he petitioner herein, 'osauro 'e"es, was a
for&er civilian e&plo"ee of the /av" D<chan+e,
=an+le" 5oint, )avite )it", whose services were
ter&inated on !a" %, 1#%1. 2n the afternoon of 0une %,
1#%1, he led a +roup of about : to 3: persons in a
de&onstration sta+ed in front of the &ain +ate of the
>nited =tates /aval =tation at =an+le" 5oint. .he"
carried placards bearin+ state&ents such as, KA+ustin,
&a&ata" kaLK K.o, alla boss con /olanLK K9rank do not
be a co&&on funkLK KA+ustin, &a&a&ata" ka rinKL
KA+ustin, /olan for "ouLK KA+ustin alla bos con /olanLK
KA+ustin, dille+a, el dia di ;uida rin bo chi;uitin+LK and
others. .he base co&&ander, )apt. !cAllister, called
up )ol. 5atricia !on(on, who as 5hilippine !ilitar"
Aiaison 1Bcer at =an+le" 5oint was in char+e of
preservin+ har&onious relations between personnel of
the naval station and the civilian population of )avite
)it". )apt. !cAllister re;uested )ol. !on(on to @oin hi&
at the &ain +ate of the base to &eet the
de&onstrators. )ol. !on(on went to the place and
talked to 'osauro 'e"es and one Auis *uenaventura
upon learnin+ that the de&onstration was not directed
a+ainst the naval station but a+ainst A+ustin Callare
and a certain 9rank /olan for their havin+ alle+edl"
caused the dis&issal of 'osauro 'e"es fro& the /av"
D<chan+e, )ol. !on(on su++ested to the& to
de&onstrate in front of Callare's residence, but the"
told hi& that the" would like the people in the station
to know how the" felt about Callare and /olan. .he"
assured hi&, however, that the" did not intend to use
violence, as Kthe" @ust wanted to blow of stea&.K
At that ti&e A+ustin Callare was in his oBce
inside the naval station. Ehen he learned about the
de&onstration he beca&e apprehensive about his
safet", so he sou+ht )ol. !on(on's protection. .he
colonel thereupon escorted Callare, his brother, and
another person in +oin+ out of the station, usin+ his
,!on(on's- car for the purpose. 1nce outside, )ol.
!on(on purpose slowed down to acco&&odate the
re;uest of 'e"es. Ce told Callare to take a +ood look at
the de&onstrators and at the placards the" were
carr"in+. Ehen the de&onstrators saw Callare the"
shouted, K!abuha" si A+ustin.K .hen the" boarded
their @eeps and followed the car. 1ne @eep overtook
passed the car while the other to led behind. After
Callare and his co&panions had ali+hted in front of his
residence at #%4 *ur+os =t., )avite )it", )ol. !on(on
sped awa".
.he three @eeps carr"in+ the de&onstrators
parked in front of Callare's residence after havin+ +one
b" it twice 'osauro 'e"es +ot of his @eep and posted
hi&self at the +ate, and with his ri+ht hand inside his
pocket and his left holdin+ the +ate-door, he shouted
repeatedl", KA+ustin, putan+ ina &o. A+ustin,
&awawala ka. A+ustin lu&abas ka, papata"in kita.K
.hereafter, he boarded his @eep and the &otorcade left
the pre&ises. !eanwhile, Callare, fri+htened b" the
de&eanor of 'e"es and the other de&onstrators,
sta"ed inside the house.lC/phi?.Bet
1n the basis of the fore+oin+ events 'osauro
'e"es was char+ed on 0ul" 4 and 5, 1#%1 with +rave
threats and +rave oral defa&ation, respectivel"
,)ri&inal )ases /os. 5#4 and 5#5, !unicipal )ourt of
)avite )it"-, as followsL
.he undersi+ned )it" 9iscal of the )it"
of )avite accuses 'osauro 'e"es of the cri&e
of ?rave .hreats, as de6ned b" Article $ of
the 'evised 5enal )ode and penali(ed b"
para+raph of the sa&e Article, co&&itted as
follows:
.hat on or about 0une %, 1#%1, in the
)it" of )avite, 'epublic of the 5hilippines and
within the @urisdiction of this Conorable )ourt,
the above na&ed accused, did then and there,
willfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl", orall"
threaten to kill, one A+ustin Callare.
)ontrar" to law.
)avite )it", 0ul" 4, 1#%1.
8D1?'A)2A= =. =1A2=
)it" 9iscal
*F: ,=?8.- *>D/ /. ?>.2D''DP
=pecial )ounsel
.he undersi+ned co&plainant, after
bein+ dul" sworn to an oath in accordance with
law, accuses 'osauro 'e"es of the cri&e of
?rave 1ral 8efa&ation, as de6ned and
penali(ed b" Article 35$ of the 'evised 5enal
)ode, co&&itted as follows:
.hat on or about 0une %, 1#%1, in the
)it" of )avite, 'epublic of the 5hilippines and
within the @urisdiction of this Conorable )ourt,
the above na&ed accused, without an"
@usti6able &otive but with the intention to
cause dishonor, discredit and conte&pt to the
undersi+ned co&plainant, in the presence of
and within hearin+ of several persons, did then
and there, willfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl"
utter to the undersi+ned co&plainant the
followin+ insultin+ and serious defa&ator"
re&arks, to wit: KA?>=2/, 5>.A/? 2/A !1K.
which if translated into Dn+lish are as follows:
KA+ustin, Four &other is a whore.K
)ontrar" to law.
)avite )it", 0ul" 5, 1#%1.
,=?8.- A?>=.2/ CAAAA'D
)o&plainant
34
=ubscribed and sworn to before &e
this. 5th da" of 0ul", 1#%1, in the )it" of
)avite, 5hilippines.
,=?8.- *>D/ /. ?>.2D''DP
=pecial )ounsel
>pon arrai+n&ent, the accused pleaded not
+uilt" to both char+es and the cases were set for @oint
trial. 1n the da" of the hearin+ the prosecution &oved
to a&end the infor&ation in )ri&inal )ase /o. 5#4 for
+rave threats b" deletin+ therefro& the word Korall"K.
.he defense counsel ob@ected to the &otion on the
+round that the accused had alread" been arrai+ned
on the ori+inal infor&ation and that the a&end&ent
Kwould afect &ateriall" the interest of the accused.K
/evertheless, the a&end&ent was allowed and the
@oint trial proceeded.
9ro& the @ud+&ent of conviction the accused
appeal to the )ourt of Appeals, which returned a
verdict of aBr&ance. A &otion for reconsideration
havin+ been denied, the accused brou+ht this appeal
b" certiorari.
5etitioner avers that the )ourt of Appeals erred:
,1- in aBr&in+ the proceedin+s in the lower court
allowin+ the substantial a&end&ent of the infor&ation
for +rave threats after petitioner had been arrai+ned on
the ori+inal infor&ationL ,- in proceedin+ with the trial
of the case of +rave threats without 6rst re;uirin+
petitioner to enter his plea on the a&ended
infor&ationL ,3- in convictin+ petitioner of both
ofenses when he could le+all" be convicted of onl"
one ofense, thereb" puttin+ hi& in @eopard" of bein+
penali(ed twice for the sa&e ofenseL ,4- in convictin+
petitioner of +rave threats when the evidence adduced
and considered b" the court tend to establish the
ofense of li+ht threats onl"L and ,5- in convictin+
petitioner of +rave oral defa&ation when the evidence
tend to establish that of si&ple slander onl".
1n the 6rst error assi+ned, the rule is that after
the accused has pleaded the infor&ation &a" be
a&ended as to all &atters of for& b" leave and at the
discretion of the court when the sa&e can be done
without pre@udice to the ri+hts of the defendant
,=ection 13, 'ule 11:, /ew 'ules of )ourt-.
A&end&ents that touch upon &atters of substance
cannot be per&itted after the plea is entered.
After a careful consideration of the ori+inal
infor&ation, we 6nd that all the ele&ents of the cri&e
of +rave threats as de6ned in Article $ 1 of the
'evised 5enal )ode and penali(ed b" its para+raph
were alle+ed therein na&el": ,1- that the ofender
threatened another person with the inMiction upon his
person of a wron+L ,- that such wron+ a&ounted to a
cri&eL and ,3- that the threat was not sub@ect to a
condition. Cence, petitioner could have been convicted
thereunder. 2t is to be noted that under the
afore&entioned provision the particular &anner in
which the threat is &ade not a ;ualif"in+ in+redient of
the ofense, such that the deletion of the word Korall"K
did not afect the nature and essence of the cri&e as
char+ed ori+inall". /either did it chan+e the basic
theor" of the prosecution that the accused threatened
to kill 'osauro 'e"es so as to re;uire the petitioner to
under+o an" &aterial chan+e or &odi6cation in his
defense. )ontrar" to his clai&, &ade with the
concurrence of the =olicitor ?eneral, petitioner was not
e<posed after the a&end&ent to the dan+er of
conviction under para+raph 1 of Article $, which
provides for a diferent penalt", since there was no
alle+ation in the a&ended infor&ation that the threat
was &ade sub@ect to a condition. 2n our view the
deletion of the word Korall"K was efected in order to
&ake the infor&ation confor&able to the evidence to
be presented durin+ the trial. 2t was &erel" a for&al
a&end&ent which in no wa" pre@udiced petitioner's
ri+hts.
5etitioner ne<t contends that even assu&in+
that the a&end&ent was properl" allowed, the trial
court co&&itted a reversible error in proceedin+ with
the trial on the &erits without 6rst re;uirin+ hi& to
enter his plea to the a&ended infor&ation.
)onsiderin+, however, that the a&end&ent was not
substantial, no second plea was necessar" at all.
.he third and fourth issues are related and will
be discussed to+ether. 5etitioner avers that the
appellate court erred in aBr&in+ the decision of the
trial court erred in aBr&in+ hi& of +rave threats and of
+rave oral defa&ation when he could le+all" be
convicted of onl" one ofense, and in convictin+ hi& of
+rave threats at all when the evidence adduced and
considered b" the court indicates the co&&ission of
li+ht threats onl".
.he de&onstration led b" petitioner A+ustin
Callare in front of the &ain +ate of the naval stationL
the fact that placards with threatenin+ state&ents
were carried b" the de&onstratorsL their persistence in
trailin+ Callare in a &otorcade up to his residenceL and
the de&onstration conducted in front thereof,
cul&inatin+ in repeated threats Mun+ b" petitioner in a
loud voice, +ive rise to onl" one conclusion: that the
threats were &ade Kwith the deliberate purpose of
creatin+ in the &ind of the person threatened the belief
that the threat would be carried into efect.K

2ndeed,
Callare beca&e so apprehensive of his safet" that he
sou+ht the protection of )ol. !on(on, who had to
escort hi& ho&e, wherein he sta"ed while the
de&onstration was +oin+ on. 2t cannot be denied that
the threats were &ade deliberatel" and not &erel" in a
te&porar" 6t of an+er, &otivated as the" were b" the
dis&issal of petitioner one &onth before the incident.
Ee, therefore, hold that the appellate court was correct
in upholdin+ petitioner's conviction for the ofense of
+rave threats.
.he char+e of oral defa&ation ste&&ed fro&
the utterance of the words, KA+ustin, putan+ ina &oK.
.his is a co&&on enou+h e<pression in the dialect that
is often e&plo"ed, not reall" to slander but rather to
e<press an+er or displeasure. 2t is seldo&, if ever,
35
taken in its literal sense b" the hearer, that is, as a
reMection on the virtues of a &other. 2n the instant
case, it should be viewed as part of the threats voiced
b" appellant a+ainst A+ustin Callare, evidentl" to &ake
the sa&e &ore e&phatic. 2n the case of Febra, ?.'. /o.
A-1434$, =ept. 3:, 1#%:, this )ourt said:
.he letter containin+ the alle+edl"
libelous re&arks is &ore threatenin+ than
libelous and the intent to threaten is the
principal ai& and ob@ect to the letter. .he
libelous re&arks contained in the letter, if so
the" be considered, are &erel" preparator"
re&arks cul&inatin+ in the 6nal threat. 2n other
words, the libelous re&arks e<press the beat of
passion which en+ulfs the writer of the letter,
which heat of passion in the latter part of the
letter cul&inates into a threat. .his is the &ore
i&portant and serious ofense co&&itted b"
the accused. >nder the circu&stances the
)ourt believes, after the stud" of the whole
letter, that the ofense co&&itted therein is
clearl" and principall" that of threats and that
the state&ents therein dero+ator" to the
person na&ed do not constitute an
independent cri&e of libel, for which the writer
&a"be prosecuted separatel" fro& the threats
and which should be considered as part of the
&ore i&portant ofense of threats.
.he fore+oin+ rulin+ applies with e;ual force to
the facts of the present case.
ECD'D91'D, the decision appealed fro& is
hereb" reversed and petitioner is ac;uitted, with
costs de o,cio, insofar as )ri&inal )ase /o. 5#5 of the
)ourt a 8uo ,for oral defa&ation- is concernedL and
aBr&ed with respect to )ri&inal )ase /o. 5#4, for
+rave threats, with costs a+ainst petitioner.
$oncepcion, $.J., "eyes, J.9.7., !izon, Daldi-ar, Santos,
Sanchez, Aernando, Teehankee and 9arredo, JJ., concur.
$astro and $apistrano, JJ., took no part.
G.R. No. 171*11 M!r1= 4, /009
RONNIE ,AL-AG, 5etitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 'espondent.
8 D ) 2 = 2 1 /
>-IS-M+ING, J.:
9or review on certiorari are the 8ecision
1
dated
8ece&ber #, ::5 of the )ourt of Appeals in )A-?.'.
)' /o. $4:4 and its 'esolution

dated 9ebruar" 15,

::%, den"in+ reconsideration. .he appellate court had
aBr&ed the 8ecision
3
dated Au+ust 3, ::4 of the
'e+ional .rial )ourt ,'.)- of Aas 5iOas )it", *ranch 1#$,
in )ri&inal )ase /o. :4-:1$3-$4, which aBr&ed the
0oint 8ecision
4
dated 0anuar" $, ::4 of the
!etropolitan .rial )ourt ,!e.)- of Aas 5iOas )it",
*ranch 4#, in )ri&inal )ases /os. 4435$ and 443$1
6ndin+ petitioner 'onnie )alua+ and 0esus =entillas
+uilt" of sli+ht ph"sical in@uries and 'onnie )alua+
+uilt" of +rave threats.
.he factual antecedents of this case are as follows:
1n !a" 1$ and 3, :::, two separate
2nfor&ations
5
docketed as )ri&inal )ases /os. 443$1
and 4435$, respectivel", were 6led a+ainst )alua+ and
=entillas. .he 2nfor&ation in )ri&inal )ase /o. 443$1
char+ed )alua+ and =entillas with sli+ht ph"sical
in@uries co&&itted as follows:
.hat on or about the 1#th da" of !arch, :::, in the
)it" of Aas 5iOas, 5hilippines and within the @urisdiction
of this Conorable )ourt, the above-na&ed accused,
conspirin+ and confederatin+ to+ether, and both of
the& &utuall" helpin+ and aidin+ one another did then
and there willfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl" attack,
assault, and e&plo" personal violence upon the person
of /D=.1' 5>')DA 8D/281, b" then and there &aulin+
hi&, thereb" inMictin+ upon hi& ph"sical in@uries which
re;uired &edical attendance for less than nine ,#- da"s
and incapacitated hi& fro& perfor&in+ his custo&ar"
labor for the sa&e period of ti&e.
)1/.'A'F .1 AAE.
%
.he 2nfor&ation in )ri&inal )ase /o. 4435$ char+ed
)alua+ with +rave threats co&&itted as follows:
.hat on or about the 1#th da" of !arch :::, in the
)it" of Aas 5iOas, 5hilippines and within the @urisdiction
of this Conorable )ourt, the above-na&ed accused,
&oved b" personal resent&ent which he entertained
a+ainst one 0>A2A AA72AA 8D/281, did then and there
willfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl" threaten said 0>A2A
AA72AA 8D/281 with the inMiction on her person of a
har& a&ountin+ to a cri&e, b" then and there pokin+
his +un at her forehead and utterin+ the followin+
words in ta+alo+, to wit:
K=aan ka pupunta +usto &o itoIK
thereb" causin+ said co&plainant to be threatened.
)1/.'A'F .1 AAE.
4
>pon arrai+n&ent, )alua+ and =entillas pleaded not
+uilt". .hereafter, @oint trial ensued.
.he prosecution presented the two private
co&plainants, the spouses /estor and 0ulia 8enido, as
witnesses. .heir version of the facts are as follows:
2n the afternoon of !arch 1#, :::, around 4 oYclock
$
in
the afternoon, /estor learned that two of his +uests
fro& an earlier drinkin+ spree were &auled. At that
ti&e, )alua+ and =entillas were drinkin+ at the store
3%
owned b" the son of =entillas. Ehen /estor in;uired
fro& several people includin+ his own son 'a"&ond
what happened, )alua+ butted in and replied, K*akit
kasa&a ka ba roonI,K and i&&ediatel" bo<ed hi&
without warnin+. /estor retaliated but he was
overpowered b" )alua+ and =entillas. 0ulia saw )alua+
and =entillas bo< her husband. Althou+h she tried to
pacif" the&, the" did not listen to her. .o avoid his
assailants, /estor ran to his house. 0ulia followed hi&.
At around %::: p.&., /estor told his wife to report the
bo<in+ incident to the baran+a" authorities.
#
Aater, at around 4:3: in the evenin+, when 0ulia and
her son 'otsen were on their wa" to their baran+a"
hall, she encountered )alua+, who blocked her wa" at
the alle" near her house. )alua+ confronted 0ulia with a
+un, poked it at her forehead, and said KSaan ka
pupunta, 0usto mo itoEK
1:
8espite this fearful
encounter, she was still able to proceed to the
baran+a" hall where she reported the +un-pokin+
incident to the baran+a" authorities.
11
9or its part, the defense presented the accused )alua+
and =entillasL and the barbecue vendor 5ablo
*arra&eda, 0r. as witnesses. Accordin+ to the&, in the
afternoon of !arch 1#, ::: at around % oYclock in the
evenin+, )alua+ was on his wa" ho&e with his three-
"ear old son when /estor, drunk and unrul", blocked
his wa" and asked hi&, K5are, +alit ka ba sa akinIK Ce
answered in the ne+ative but /estor persisted in his
;uestionin+ and would not allow hi& to pass throu+h.
Anno"ed, he told /estor, KCindi n+a\ An+ kulit kulit
&o\K /estor then bo<ed hi& on his face which caused
hi& to fall down. )alua+ 6rst assured hi&self of the
safet" of his son and then punched /estor back. As
people around paci6ed the&, he was led to the store
owned b" the son of =entillas. /estor pursued hi& and
punched hi& a+ain. As he retaliated, so&e b"standers
separated the&. /estor then shouted, K5utan+ ina &o,
5are\ ?a+o ka\ ?a+o ka\ !ara&i ka n+ taon+ niloko\K
.hereafter, an unidenti6ed &an fro& the crowd ar&ed
with a knife went towards /estor but =entillas ti&el"
interceded and paci6ed the &an. =entillas never bo<ed
/estor. )alua+ also denied pokin+ a +un at 0ulia.
1
2n a 0oint 8ecision dated 0anuar" $, ::4, the !e.)
found )alua+ and =entillas +uilt" of sli+ht ph"sical
in@uries, and )alua+ +uilt" of +rave threats.
.he !e.) relied on /estorYs testi&on". 2t noted that
/estor did not den" that he was drunk at the ti&e of
the incident while )alua+ ad&itted that he +ot
anno"ed b" /estorYs attitude. .he !e.) concluded that
)alua+ and =entillas lost control of their te&pers due
to /estorYs unrul" behavior. 1n the other hand, the
!e.) noted that 0ulia did not waste ti&e reportin+ the
+un-pokin+ incident to the baran+a". Ehile she had
intended to report the &aulin+ of her husband, as he
instructed her, what she reported instead was what
happened to her. Eith such strai+htforward and
see&in+l" natural course of events, the !e.) was
convinced that the ne+ative assertions of )alua+ and
=entillas cannot prevail over the positive testi&onies of
/estor and 0ulia.
.he decretal portion of the @oint decision reads:
ECD'D91'D, all the fore+oin+ pre&ises considered,
the )ourt 6nds and declares accused '1//2D )AA>A?
A/8 0D=>= =RDS/.2AAA= ?>2A.F be"ond reasonable
doubt of the ofense of =li+ht 5h"sical 2n@uries under
)ri&inal )ase /o. 443$1, and sentences the& to pa"
RaS 6ne of 5::.:: each. .he two ,- accused are also
censured to be &ore co&plaisant and well-bred in
dealin+ with people.
.he )ourt also 6nds accused '1//2D )AA>A? +uilt"
be"ond reasonable doubt of the ofense of ?rave
.hreats under Article $, par. of the 'evised 5enal
)ode, under )ri&inal )ase /o. 4435$, and sentences
hi& to sufer two ,- &onths i&prison&ent Rand toS
pa" RaS 6ne of 5::.::.
)ri&inal )ase /o. 443$, as earlier e<plained, is
ordered dis&issed bein+ &erel" a duplication of
)ri&inal )ase /o. 4435$.
=1 1'8D'D8.
13
)alua+ and =entillas appealed to the '.) which
aBr&ed in toto the @oint decision of the !e.).
1n appeal, the )ourt of Appeals aBr&ed the decision
of the '.) on 8ece&ber #, ::5. .he appellate court
noted that the !e.) +ave credence to the testi&onies
of /estor and 0ulia because the" were in accord with
the natural course of thin+s. Aikewise, petitionerYs
ne+ative assertions cannot prevail over the positive
testi&onies of /estor and 0ulia. .he appellate court
disre+arded the purported inconsistencies in the
testi&onies of /estor and 0ulia since these refer to
collateral &atters and not to the essential details of the
incident.1avvphi1
8issatis6ed, petitioner appealed to this )ourt on the
+round that the )ourt of Appeals:
2.
] !A/29D=.AF 17D'A113D8 )D'.A2/ 'DAD7A/.
9A).= /1. 82=5>.D8 *F .CD 5A'.2D= A/8 EC2)C, 29
5'15D'AF )1/=28D'D8 E1>A8 0>=.29F A 8299D'D/.
)1/)A>=21/L
22.
] D''D8 2/ A992'!2/? .CD 92/82/?= 19 .CD R!e.)S
EC2)C !A8D 2/9D'D/)D= 1' )1/)A>=21/= 2/ 2.=
012/. 8D)2=21/ .CA. A'D !A/29D=.AF !2=.A3D/,
A*=>'8 1' 2!51==2*AD A/8 EC2)C A'D ?'1>/8D8
D/.2'DAF 1/ =5D)>AA.21/=, =>'!2=D= 1'
)1/0D).>'D= 1' A'D *A=D8 1/ A !2=A55'DCD/=21/
19 9A).=L
222.
34
] D''D8 2/ '>A2/? .CA. .CD 5D.2.21/D' CD'D2/ 2=
?>2A.F 19 .CD 199D/=D= )CA'?D8 *DF1/8 A
'DA=1/A*AD 81>*..
14
=i&pl", the issue is: Eas there suBcient evidence to
sustain petitionerYs conviction of sli+ht ph"sical in@uries
and of +rave threatsI
5etitioner contends that he was able to present
*arra&eda, an independent and i&partial witness, who
supported his version of events and debunked those of
/estor and 0ulia. )ontrar" to the 6ndin+s of the lower
courts that petitioner ofered &ere denials,
*arra&edaYs testi&on" is actuall" a positive state&ent
that should have been +iven full credit. 5etitioner also
ar+ues that althou+h the lower courts acknowled+ed
that /estor was drunk and troubleso&e at the ti&e of
the incident, the" chose to believe his testi&on" rather
than petitionerYs. 5etitioner adds that there is no basis
for the lower courts to conclude that he lost his te&per
because of /estorYs unrul" behavior. 5etitioner
&aintains that @ust because 0ulia i&&ediatel" reported
the +un-pokin+ incident to the baran+a", this did not
necessaril" &ean that it actuall" happened. 5etitioner
also ar+ues that assu&in+ that he did poke a +un at
0ulia, the cri&e co&&itted was other li+ht threats as
de6ned under Article $5, para+raph 1 of the 'evised
5enal )ode.
15
9or the respondent, the 1Bce of the =olicitor ?eneral
,1=?- counters that the !e.) did not err in +ivin+
credence to the testi&onies of /estor and 0ulia. .he
!e.) found that the positive assertions of /estor and
0ulia, their strai+htforward &anner of testif"in+, and
the see&in+l" natural course of events, constituted the
&ore plausible and credible version. .he !e.) also
noted that 0ulia did not waste ti&e reportin+ the +un-
pokin+ incident to the baran+a" authorities
i&&ediatel" after it happened. .he 1=? also a+rees
with the !e.) that petitioner lost his te&per, +iven the
unrul" behavior of /estor.
Ee 6nd the petition with insuBcient &erit and
accordin+l" sustain petitionerYs conviction.
At the outset, it &ust be stressed that petitioner raises
;uestions of fact. )ertainl", such &atters &ainl"
re;uire a calibration of the evidence or a deter&ination
of the credibilit" of the witnesses presented b" the
parties and the e<istence and relevanc" of speci6c
surroundin+ circu&stances, their relation to each other
and to the whole, and the probabilities of the
situation.
1%
.he well-entrenched rule is that onl" errors of law and
not of fact are reviewable b" this )ourt in petitions for
review on certiorari under 'ule 45 under which this
petition is 6led. 2t is not the )ourtYs function under 'ule
45 to review, e<a&ine and evaluate or wei+h once
a+ain the probative value of the evidence presented.
14
!oreover, 6ndin+s of fact of the trial court, when
aBr&ed b" the )ourt of Appeals, are bindin+ upon this
)ourt. 2t is not the function of this )ourt to wei+h anew
the evidence alread" passed upon b" the )ourt of
Appeals for these are dee&ed 6nal and conclusive and
&a" no lon+er be reviewed on appeal.
1$
A departure fro& the +eneral rule, however, &a" be
warranted where the 6ndin+s of fact of the )ourt of
Appeals are contrar" to the 6ndin+s and conclusions of
the trial court, or when the sa&e is unsupported b" the
evidence on record. /evertheless, we 6nd that there is
no +round to appl" the e<ception in the instant case
because the 6ndin+s and conclusions of the )ourt of
Appeals are in full accord with those of the !e.) and
the '.). .his )ourt will not assess and evaluate all over
a+ain the evidence, both testi&onial and docu&entar",
adduced b" the parties to the appeal particularl"
where, as in this case, the 6ndin+s of the !e.), the
'.) and the )ourt of Appeals co&pletel" coincide.
1#
Dven if the )ourt rela<es the abovecited +eneral rule
and resolves the petition on the &erits, we still 6nd no
reversible error in the appellate courtYs rulin+.
As the lower courts and the )ourt of Appeals correctl"
stated, the testi&onies of /estor and 0ulia were &ore in
accord with the natural course of thin+s. .here could
be no doubt that )alua+ and =entillas lost control of
their te&per as )alua+ hi&self ad&itted that he +ot
anno"ed b" /estorYs unrul" behavior. Aikewise, the
+un-pokin+ incident also happened since 0ulia did not
waste ti&e in reportin+ it to the baran+a" authorities.
2nstead of reportin+ the &aulin+ of her husband, she
reported what happened to her in her hurr",
e<cite&ent and confusion. 2ndeed, the positive
declarations of /estor and 0ulia that petitioner
co&&itted the acts co&plained of under&ined his
ne+ative assertions. .he fact that *arra&eda testi6ed
in petitionerYs behalf cannot be +iven &ore wei+ht than
the strai+htforward and credible state&ents of /estor
and 0ulia. 2ndeed, we 6nd the" had no reason to
concoct stories to pin down petitioner on an" cri&inal
act, hence their testi&onies deserve full faith and
credit.
.he !e.), the '.) and the )ourt of Appeals unifor&l"
found petitioner +uilt" of +rave threats under Article
$, par. of the 'evised 5enal )ode and sentenced
hi& to sufer two &onths of i&prison&ent and to pa" a
6ne of5::. Ee 6nd no reason to reverse the 6ndin+s
and conclusions of the !e.) and '.), as aBr&ed b"
the )ourt of Appeals.
>nder the 'evised 5enal )ode, there are three kinds of
threats: +rave threats ,Article $-, li+ht threats
,Article $3- and other li+ht threats ,Article $5-. .hese
provisions state:
Art. $. ?rave threats. J An" person who shall
threaten another with the inMiction upon the person,
honor or propert" of the latter or of his fa&il" of an"
wron+ a&ountin+ to a cri&e, shall sufer:
3$
1. .he penalt" ne<t lower in de+ree than that
prescribed b" law for the cri&e he threatened to
co&&it, if the ofender shall have &ade the threat
de&andin+ &one" or i&posin+ an" other condition,
even thou+h not unlawful, and said ofender shall have
attained his purpose. 2f the ofender shall not have
attained his purpose, the penalt" lower b" two de+rees
shall be i&posed.
2f the threat be &ade in writin+ or throu+h a
&iddle&an, the penalt" shall be i&posed in its
&a<i&u& period.
. .he penalt" of arresto &a"or and a 6ne not
e<ceedin+ 5:: pesos, if the threat shall not have been
&ade sub@ect to a condition.
Art. $3. Ai+ht threats. J An" threat to co&&it a wron+
not constitutin+ a cri&e, &ade in the &anner
e<pressed in subdivision 1 of the ne<t precedin+
article, shall be punished b" arresto &a"or.
Art. $5. 1ther li+ht threats. J .he penalt" of arresto
&enor in its &ini&u& period or a 6ne not e<ceedin+
:: pesos shall be i&posed upon:
1. An" person who, without bein+ included in
the provisions of the ne<t precedin+ article,
shall threaten another with a weapon or draw
such weapon in a ;uarrel, unless it be in lawful
self-defense.
. An" person who, in the heat of an+er, shall
orall" threaten another with so&e har& not
constitutin+ a cri&e, and who b" subse;uent
acts show that he did not persist in the idea
involved in his threat, provided that the
circu&stances of the ofense shall not brin+ it
within the provisions of Article $ of this )ode.
3. An" person who shall orall" threaten to do
another an" har& not constitutin+ a felon".
2n +rave threats, the wron+ threatened a&ounts to a
cri&e which &a" or &a" not be acco&panied b" a
condition. 2n li+ht threats, the wron+ threatened does
not a&ount to a cri&e but is alwa"s acco&panied b" a
condition. 2n other li+ht threats, the wron+ threatened
does not a&ount to a cri&e and there is no condition.
.he records show that at around 4:3: in the evenin+,
0ulia 8enido left her house to +o to the baran+a" hall to
report the &aulin+ of her husband which she witnessed
earlier at around 4::: oYclock in the afternoon. 1n her
wa" there, petitioner confronted her and pointed a +un
to her forehead, while at the sa&e ti&e sa"in+ KSaan
ka pupunta, 0usto mo itoIK
:
)onsiderin+ what
transpired earlier between petitioner and 0uliaYs
husband, petitionerYs act of pointin+ a +un at 0uliaYs
forehead clearl" enounces a threat to kill or to inMict
serious ph"sical in@ur" on her person. Actions speak
louder than words. .aken in the conte<t of the
surroundin+ circu&stances, the uttered words do not
+o a+ainst the threat to kill or to inMict serious in@ur"
evinced b" petitionerYs acco&pan"in+ act.
?iven the surroundin+ circu&stances, the ofense
co&&itted falls under Article $, par. ,+rave
threats- since: ,1- killin+ or shootin+ so&eone a&ounts
to a cri&e, and ,- the threat to kill was not sub@ect to
a condition.
Article $5, par. 1 ,other li+ht threats- is inapplicable
althou+h it speci6call" states, Kshall threaten another
with a weapon or draw such weapon in a ;uarrelK,
since it presupposes that the threat to co&&it a wron+
will not constitute a cri&e. .hat the threat to co&&it a
wron+ will constitute or not constitute a cri&e is the
distin+uishin+ factor between +rave threats on one
hand, and li+ht and other li+ht threats on the other.
ECD'D91'D, the petition is 8D/2D8 for utter lack of
&erit. .he 8ecision dated 8ece&ber #, ::5 and the
'esolution dated 9ebruar" 15, ::% of the )ourt of
Appeals in )A-?.'. )' /o. $4:4 are A992'!D8.
)osts a+ainst petitioner.
SO ORERE.
G.R. No. L<6/0*0 No9ember /*, 1903
(OSE 3PEPITO3 TIMONER, petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AN THE
HONORA+LE ,O-RT OF APPEALS, I.
I.ISION, respondents.
%arciano $. !atin0, Jr. and Jose # Auenteella for
petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
ES,OLIN, J.:+.wph!1
5etition for review of the aBr&ance in toto b" the
)ourt of Appeals, now the 2nter&ediate Appellate
)ourt, of the @ud+&ent of conviction handed down b"
the then !unicipal )ourt of 8aet, )a&arines /orte, in
)ri&inal )ase /o. 4$1, entitled +eople of the
+hilippines -s. Jose Timoner, 6ndin+ petitioner +uilt" of
the cri&e of +rave coercion, as follows: tFB.GHh8/CG
ECD'D91'D this )ourt 6nds the
accused 01=D '5D52.1' .2!1/D' +uilt"
be"ond reasonable doubt of the cri&e
of ?rave )oercion as penali(ed under
Art. $% in the 'evised 5enal )ode, and
hereb" sentences the said accused
pursuant to the provision of 'ule %4,
5ar. 3, to sufer =2N !1/.C= 19
2!5'2=1/!D/. 19 A''D=.1 !AF1' 2/
2.= !AN2!>! 5D'218, to pa" a 6ne of
3#
53::.:: and to pa" the ofended part"
in the a&ount of 55,:::.:: as
da&a+es, without subsidiar" liabilit" in
case of insolvenc". .he other accused
=A!>DA !1'D/A and D'/D=.1
H>2*'AA are hereb" ordered
A)H>2..D8.
.he salient facts are not disputed. At about 1:::: in
the evenin+ of 8ece&ber 13, 1#41, petitioner, then
!a"or of 8aet, )a&arines /orte, acco&panied b" two
unifor&ed police&en, =a&uel !orena and Drnesto
Huibral, and si< laborers, arrived in front of the stalls
alon+ !aharlika hi+hwa", the &ain thorou+hfare of the
sa&e town. >pon orders of petitioner, these laborers
proceeded to nail to+ether rou+h lu&ber slabs to fence
of the stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the
!aharlika hi+hwa". A&on+ the structures thus
barricaded were the barbershop of 5ascual 8a"aon, the
co&plainin+ witness and the store belon+in+ to one
Aourdes 5ia-'ebustillos. .hese establish&ents had
been reco&&ended for closure b" the !unicipal Cealth
1Bcer, 8ra. Ale+re, for non-co&pliance with certain
health and sanitation re;uire&ents.
.hereafter, petitioner 6led a co&plaint in the )ourt of
9irst 2nstance of )a&arines /orte a+ainst Aourdes 5ia-
'ebustillos and others for @udicial abate&ent of their
stalls. .he co&plaint, docketed as )ivil )ase /o. 54,
alle+ed that these stalls constituted public nuisances
as well as nuisances per se. 8a"aon was never able to
reopen his barbershop business.
=ubse;uentl", petitioner and the two police&en,
!orena and Huibral, were char+ed with the ofense of
+rave coercion before the !unicipal )ourt of 8aet. As
alread" noted, the said court e<onerated the two
police&en, but convicted petitioner of the cri&e
char+ed as principal b" induce&ent.
1n appeal, the )ourt of Appeals aBr&ed in full the
@ud+&ent of the trial court. Cence, the present
recourse.
5etitioner contends that the sealin+ of of co&plainant
8a"aon's barbershop was done in abate&ent of a
public nuisance and, therefore, under lawful authorit".
Ee 6nd &erit in this contention. >n;uestionabl", the
barbershop in ;uestion did constitute a public nuisance
as de6ned under Article /os. %#4 and %#5 of the )ivil
)ode, to wit: tFB.GHh8/CG
A'.. %#4. A nuisance is an" act,
o&ission, establish&ent, business,
condition of propert", or an"thin+ else
which:
,1- 2n@ures or endan+ers the health or
safet" of othersL or
,- Anno"s or ofends the sensesL or
,3- =hocks, de6es or disre+ards
decenc" or &oralit"L or
,4- 1bstructs or interferes with the free
passa+e of an" public hi+hwa" or
street, or an" bod" of waterL or
,5- Cinders or i&pairs the use of
propert".
A'.. %#5. /uisance is either public or
private. A public nuisance afects a
co&&unit" or nei+hborhood or an"
considerable nu&ber of persons,
althou+h the e<tent of the anno"ance,
dan+er or da&a+e upon individuals
&a" be une;ual A private nuisance is
one that is not included in the
fore+oin+ de6nition.
.he barbershop occupied a portion of the sidewalk of
the poblacion's &ain thorou+hfare and had been
reco&&ended for closure b" the !unicipal Cealth
1Bcer. 2n fact, the )ourt of 9irst 2nstance of )a&arines
/orte, in its decision in )ivil )ase /o. 54, declared
said barbershop as a nuisance per-se. .hus: tFB.
GHh8/CG
>nder the facts of the case, as well as
the law in point, there is no se&blance
of an" le+alit" or ri+ht that e<ists in
favor of the defendants to build a stall
and conduct their business in a
sidewalk, especiall" in a hi+hwa" where
it does not onl" constitute a &enace to
the health of the +eneral public passin+
throu+h the street and also of the
unsanitar" condition that is bred
therein as well as the unsi+htl" and
u+l" structures in the said place.
!oreover, even if it is clai&ed and
pretended that there was a license,
per&it or toleration of the defendants'
&akeshift store and livin+ ;uarters for
a nu&ber of "ears does not lend
le+alit" to an act which is a
nuisance per se. =uch nuisance afects
the co&&unit" or nei+hborhood or an"
considerable nu&ber of persons and
the +eneral public which posed a
dan+er to the people in +eneral
passin+ and usin+ that place, for in
addition, this is an anno"ance to the
public b" the invasion of its ri+hts J
the fact that it is in a public place and
anno"in+ to all who co&e within its
sphere R*alta(ar vs. )arolina !idland,
'", )o., 54 =.). 4, 3 =* 5$, cited in
11 .olentino's )ivil )ode of the
5hilippines, p. 345L 3apisanan Ain+kod
n+ *a"an, 2nc. vs. Aacson, )A-?.'. /o.
4%:', !arch 5, 1#%4L %1 1.?.
4$4S.
4:
<<< <<< <<<
... 2/ 72DE 19 .CD 91'D?12/?, the
)ourt hereb" declares that the
structures sub@ect of this co&plaint as
well as those occupied b" the
i&pleaded defendants are nuisances
per se and therefore orders the
defendants to de&olish the stall and
vacate the pre&ises i&&ediatel" ...
*ut even without this @udicial pronounce&ent,
petitioner could not have been faulted for havin+
fenced of said barbershop. 5ara+raph 3, Article %## of
the )ivil )ode authori(es the abate&ent of a public
nuisance without @udicial proceedin+s. tFB.GHh8/CG
A'.. %##. .he re&edies a+ainst a
public nuisance are:
RlS A prosecution under the 5enal )ode
or an" local ordinanceL or
RS A civil actionL or
R3S Abate&ent, without @udicial
proceedin+s.
2n the case at bar, petitioner, as &a"or of the town,
&erel" i&ple&ented the aforesaid reco&&endation of
the !unicipal Cealth 1Bcer. Cavin+ then acted in +ood
faith in the perfor&ance of his dut", petitioner incurred
no cri&inal liabilit".
?rave coercion is co&&itted when Ka person who,
without authorit" of law, shall b" &eans of violence,
prevent another fro& doin+ so&ethin+ not prohibited
b" law or co&pel to do so&ethin+ a+ainst his will,
either it be ri+ht or wron+.K
1
.he three ele&ents of
+rave coercion are: R1S that an" person be prevented
b" another fro& doin+ so&ethin+ not prohibited b"
law, or co&pelled to do so&ethin+ a+ainst his will, be it
ri+ht or wron+L RS that the prevention or co&pulsion
be efected b" violence, either b" &aterial force or
such displa" of it as would produce inti&idation and
control the will of the ofended part", and R3S that the
person who restrained the will and libert" of another
had no ri+ht to do so, or, in other words, that the
restraint was not &ade under authorit" of law or in the
e<ercise of a lawful ri+ht.
/
.he third ele&ent bein+ absent in the case at bar,
petitioner cannot be held +uilt" of +rave coercion.
ECD'D91'D, the decision of the )ourt of Appeals in )A
?.'. /o. 1#534-)', is hereb" set aside and petitioner is
ac;uitted of the cri&e char+ed. )osts de o,cio.
=1 1'8D'D8.?I/phJ?.BKt
G.R. No. 904/3 September 6, 1991
FRAN,IS LEE, petitioner,
vs.
,O-RT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AN PELAGIA PANLINO E ,HIN, respondents.
Arturo S. Santos for petitioner.
MEIALEA, J.:p
.his is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside
the decision of the )ourt of Appeals dated 0une #,
1#$# which reversed the decision of the 'e+ional .rial
)ourt ,'.)-, /ational )apital 0udicial 'e+ion, *ranch
1# at )aloocan )it", !etro !anila, and reinstated as
well as aBr&ed in toto the decision of the !etropolitan
.rial )ourt ,!.)-, *ranch , sa&e cit". .he '.) decision
found the petitioner +uilt" of the cri&e of li+ht
coercion, the dispositive portion of which reads:
2/ 72DE 19 AAA .CD 91'D?12/?, the
@ud+&ent appealed fro& is hereb"
&odi6ed. .he accused 9rancis Aee is
hereb" found +uilt" be"ond reasonable
doubt of the cri&e of li+ht coercion, as
penali(ed under para+raph of Article
$4 of the 'evised 5enal )ode and he
is hereb" sentenced to sufer a penalt"
of .ED/.F ,:- 8AF= of A''D=.1
!D/1' and to pa" one-third ,1W3- of
the costs. ,p. 4:, 'ollo-
1n the other hand, the !.) decision convicted the
petitioner of the ofense of +rave coercion, the
pertinent portion of the sa&e is hereb" ;uoted as
follows:
ECD'D91'D, pre&ises considered, the
)ourt 6nds the accused 9rancis Aee,
+uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt of the
ofense of ?rave )oercion, as char+ed,
de6ned and penali(ed under Art. $% of
the 'evised 5enal )ode, and is hereb"
sentenced to sufer an i&prison&ent of
.C'DD ,3- !1/.C=, of arresto &a"or,
&ediu&, and to pa" a 6ne of 55:.::,
with cost.
.he accused is further ordered to
inde&nif" the ofended part", 5ela+ia
5aulino de )hin, b" wa" of civil liabilit"
the su& of 55,:::.:: as &oral
da&a+es and the su& of 5,:::.:: as
e<e&plar" da&a+es.
... ,p. 33, 'ollo-
.he facts as stated b" the respondent )ourt of Appeals
are undisputed, thus:
At about 1:::: o'clock in the &ornin+
of 0une :, 1#$4, the co&plainant
!aria 5ela+ia 5aulino de )hin, 3 "ears
41
old, was fetched fro& her house at 11
*A2== =ite, $th Avenue, )aloocan )it"
b" Atanacio Au&ba, a bank e&plo"ee,
upon the instruction of the petitioner
*ranch !ana+er 9rancis Aee of 5aci6c
*ankin+ )orporation ,hereinafter
referred to as bank-. >pon arrivin+ at
the oBce of 5aci6c *ankin+
)orporation located at )aloocan )it",
petitioner 9rancis Aee did not attend to
her i&&ediatel". After an hour later,
the petitioner confronted the
co&plainant about a for+ed !idland
/ational *ank )ashier )heck /o.
35%4#4, which the latter alle+edl"
deposited in the account of Conorio
)arpio. 8urin+ the said confrontation,
the petitioner 9rancis Aee was shoutin+
at her with piercin+ looks and
threatened to 6le char+es a+ainst her
unless and until she returned all the
&one" e;uivalent of the sub@ect
cashier check. Accordin+l", the
co&plainant was caused to si+n a
prepared withdrawal slip, and later, an
aBdavit prepared b" the bank's law"er,
where she was &ade to ad&it that she
had swindled the bank and had return
the &one" e;uivalent of the spurious
check. 8urin+ her sta" at the said
bank, the co&plainant, who was 6ve
,5- &onths in the fa&il" wa", was
watched b" the bank's e&plo"ees and
securit" +uards. 2t was about si< o'clock
in the afternoon of the sa&e da" when
the co&plainant was able to leave the
bank pre&ises.
>pon the other hand, the petitioner, 34
"ears old, presented his version,
basicall" a denial of the char+es, to wit:
he was the *ranch *ank !ana+er of
5aci6c *ankin+ )orporation. After
havin+ been infor&ed that !idland
/ational *ank )ashier )heck /o.
35%4#4 was dishonored for bein+
spurious, he e<a&ined the relevant
bank records and discovered that
co&plainant !aria 5ela+ia 5aulino de
)hin was instru&ental in inducin+ their
bank to accept the sub@ect dollar check
and was also the one who withdrew the
proceeds thereof, b" utili(in+ a
withdrawal slip purportedl" si+ned b"
Conorio )arpio. 5etitioner, thru
Atanacio Au&ba, invited the
co&plainant to his oBce. 'espondin+
to his invitation, the co&plainant
arrived at the bank before noon of 0une
:, 1#$4, but was not attended to
i&&ediatel" as the petitioner had to
attend to other bank clients. .he
co&plainant was &erel" infor&ed
about the sub@ect fake dollar check that
was deposited with said bank upon her
assurance that it was +enuine. .he
co&plainant was not co&pelled into
si+nin+ the withdrawal slip, but she
acted freel" and voluntaril" in
e<ecutin+ her aBdavit and in returnin+
the &one" e;uivalent of the sub@ect
check. .here was nothin+ unusual
durin+ her len+th" sta" in the bank.
,pp. 44-45, 'ollo-
.he sole issue posed in this petition is whether or not
the acts of petitioner in si&pl" Kshoutin+ at the
co&plainant with piercin+ looksK and Kthreats to 6le
char+es a+ainst herK are suBcient to convict hi& of the
cri&e of +rave coercion ,p. %, 'ollo-.
Article $% of the 'evised 5enal )ode provides:
A'.. $%. Gra-e coercions. J .he
penalt" of arresto mayor and a 6ne not
e<ceedin+ 5:: pesos shall be i&posed
upon an" person who, without
authorit" of law, shall, b" &eans of
violence, prevent another fro& doin+
so&ethin+ not prohibited b" law, or
co&pel hi& to do so&ethin+ a+ainst
his will, whether it be ri+ht or wron+.
2f the coercion be co&&itted for the
purpose of co&pellin+ another to
perfor& an" reli+ious act or to prevent
hi& fro& so doin+, the penalt" ne<t
hi+her in de+ree shall be i&posed.
)onsiderin+ that the present case does not involve
violence but inti&idation, the provisions of Article 1335
of the /ew )ivil )ode on inti&idation are relevant. 2t
states:
Art. 1335. ...
.here is inti&idation when one of the
contractin+ parties is co&pelled b" a
reasonable and well-+rounded fear of
an i&&inent and +rave evil upon his
person or propert", or upon the person
or propert" of his spouse, descendants
or ascendants, to +ive his consent.
.o deter&ine the de+ree of the
inti&idation, the a+e, se< and condition
of the person shall be borne in &ind.
A threat to enforce once's clai&
throu+h co&petent authorit", if the
clai& is @ust or le+al, does not vitiate
consent.
As a +eneral rule, the 6ndin+s of facts of the )ourt of
Appeals co&&and ut&ost respect. Cowever, such
6ndin+s are disre+arded if there appears in the record
so&e fact or circu&stance of wei+ht and inMuence
4
which has been overlooked or the si+ni6cance of which
has been &isinterpreted that, if considered, would
afect the result of the case ,see =an =ebastian )olle+e
v. )ourt of Appeals, et al., ?.'. /o. $44:1, !a" 15,
1##1-.
Ehile the appellate court e&phasi(ed the pre+nanc"
and fe&inine +ender of the co&plainant, it overlooked
other si+ni6cant personal circu&stances which are
&aterial in deter&inin+ the presence of coercion in this
case.
.he records show that co&plainant is a hi+hl"
educated person who is fa&iliar with bankin+
procedures. =he is a +raduate of *usiness
Ad&inistration &a@or in *ankin+ and 9inance fro&
/)*A. =he also 6nished one se&ester of !A in
+raduate school. 2n 1#$3, co&plainant worked with the
2nsular *ank of Asia and A&erica as a bank teller ,.=/,
/ove&ber :, 1#$4, pp. 5-4L 'ecords, pp. #%-#$-.
Aikewise, it appears that co&plainant activel"
participated in the deposit and withdrawal of the
proceeds of the controversial check. Ee 6nd that she
told Conorio )arpio ,)arpio, for short-, a relative and
pa"ee of the checkL to open a savin+s account with the
5aci6c *ankin+ )orporation ,*ank, for short- and
acco&panied hi&L that subse;uentl", she presented a
!idland /ational *ank )ashier's check pa"able to
)arpio in the su& of G5,::.:: to !r. Aa&berto '. )ru(
,)ru(, for short-, 5'1 !ana+er, 9orei+n 8epart&entL
that she clai&ed that she was re;uested b" her uncle
to deposit the check for collectionL that she was a bank
depositor and she Kknew so&ebod" downstairsKL that
she assured )ru( that the check would be honored
between banks ,.=/, April 15, 1#$5, pp. $#-#L
'ecords, 1$:-1$3-L that on 0une 11, 1#$4, the bank,
after the usual clearin+ period, sent out a notice to
)arpio that the proceeds of the check were alread"
credited to his account but the sa&e was returned to
the bank because the address was false or not trueL
that the total a&ount of the check in pesos was
5#,554.44L that the total deposit of )arpio was
5#,%:4.44, his initial deposit of 55:.:: bein+ added to
the a&ount of the checkL that on the sa&e da",
co&plainant personall" in;uired fro& the bank whether
the proceeds of the check have alread" been credited
to )arpio's account ,.=/, 0une 11, 1#$5, p. 1%3,
records, p. 1%3-L that upon an aBr&ative answer, the
bank records show that on that da", the co&plainant
withdrew the su& of 51,%:4.:: thru a withdrawal slip
purportedl" si+ned b" )arpioL that in the interi&,
)arpio alle+edl" left abroad ,Anne< ), p. 14, 'ecords-L
that on 0une 13, 1#$4, she withdrew the su& of
5$:,:::.44 fro& )arpio's account b" &eans of a
withdrawal slip alle+edl" si+ned b" )arpio and then,
she closed his accountL that out of the said a&ount,
she redeposited the su& of 55:,:::.:: to her own
savin+s account and received in cash the re&ainin+
balance of 53:,:::.44L and on 0une 15 and 1$, 1#$4,
co&plainant withdrew the a&ounts of 5,:::.:: and
51$,:::.::, respectivel" fro& her savin+s account
,D<h. K3K, 'ecords, p. 15, in relation to .=/, 1ctober $,
1#$5, pp. 1#4-1#5, 'ecords, pp. $%-$4-.
2n the li+ht of the fore+oin+ circu&stances, petitioner's
de&and that the private respondent return the
proceeds of the check acco&panied b" a threat to 6le
cri&inal char+es was not i&proper. .here is nothin+
unlawful on the threat to sue. 2n the case of 9er0 -.
National $ity 9ank of Ne/ =ork ,1: 5hil. 3:#, 31%-, Ee
ruled that:
... 2t is a practice followed not onl" b"
banks but even b" individuals to
de&and pa"&ent of their accounts
with the threat that upon failure to do
so an action would be instituted in
court. =uch a threat is proper within the
real& of the law as a &eans to enforce
collection. =uch a threat cannot
constitute duress even if the clai&
proves to be unfounded so lon+ as the
creditor believes that it was his ri+ht to
do so.
.he =olicitor ?eneral ar+ues that the co&plainant was
inti&idated and co&pelled into disclosin+ her ti&e
deposit, si+nin+ the t"pewritten withdrawal slip and the
aBdavit b" the petitioner's threat to detain her at the
bank.
At this point, there is a need to &ake a distinction
between a case where a person +ives his consent
reluctantl" and a+ainst his +ood sense and @ud+&ent
and where he +ives no consent at all, as where he acts
a+ainst his will under a pressure he cannot resist. .hus,
in :ales -. :illa ,35 5hil. 4%#, 4$#-, Ee ruled:
... 2t is clear that one acts as voluntaril"
and independentl" in the e"e of the law
when he acts reluctantl" and with
hesitation as when he acts
spontaneousl" and @o"ousl". Ae+all"
speakin+ he acts as voluntaril" and
freel" when he acts wholl" a+ainst his
better sense and @ud+&ent as when he
acts in confor&it" with the&. *etween
the two acts there is no diference in
law. *ut when his sense, @ud+&ent, and
his will rebel and he refuses absolutel"
to act as re;uested, but is nevertheless
overco&e b" force or inti&idation to
such an e<tent that he beco&es a
&ere auto&aton and acts &echanicall"
onl", a new ele&ent enters, na&el", a
disappearance of the personalit" of the
actor. Ce ceases to e<ist as an
independent entit" with faculties and
@ud+&ent, and in his place is
substituted another J the one
e<ercisin+ the force or &akin+ use of
the inti&idation. Ehile his hand si+ns,
the will which &oves it is another's.
Ehile a contract is &ade, it has, in
realit" and in law, onl" one part" to itL
and, there bein+ onl" one part", the
one usin+ the force or the inti&idation,
43
it is unenforceable for lack of a second
part".
9ro& these considerations it is clear
that ever" case of alle+ed inti&idation
&ust be e<a&ined to deter&ine within
which class it falls. 2f it is within the 6rst
class it is not duress in law, if it falls in
the second, it is.
.he circu&stances of this case reveal that the
co&plainant, despite her protestations, indeed
voluntaril", albeit reluctantl", consented to do all the
aforesaid acts.
*earin+ in &ind her involve&ent in the deposit and
encash&ent of the check, the co&plainant ad&itted to
bein+ nervous upon bein+ infor&ed that the check was
spurious ,.=/, /ove&ber :, 1#$4, p. 15L 'ecord, p.
1:%-
Ee 6nd that co&plainant's len+th" sta" at the bank
was not due to the petitioner's threat. 2t was rather due
to her desire to prove her innocence. Cer testi&on" on
this point is a revelation:
Att". 8i(on: ,counsel for
petitioner-
Fou are alwa"s talkin+
of si+nin+ the
withdrawal slip b"
force, is it not that
earlier "ou ad&itted
that no actual force
was e&plo"ed upon
"ou in connection with
the si+nin+ of this
docu&ent and the
force that "ou are
clai&in+ was the
alle+ed shoutin+
a+ainst "ou coupled
with the state&ent that
"ou could not leaveI
A Fes, sir.
H Ehen !r. Aee was
re;uirin+ "ou to si+n
the withdrawal slip did
it not occur to "ou to
leave the bankI
Att". 5an+ilinan:
.he ;uestion has
alread" been answered
she said she cannot
leave because she is
bein+ threatened.
Att". 8i(on:
.hat was durin+ the
ti&e when she 6rst &et
!r. Aee.
)ourt:
Eitness &a" answer.
A Ehen 2 was about to
si+n the withdrawal slip
2 in;uired fro& hi& 2f 2
si+ned it 2 can leave
alread" but he insisted
that 2 should not leave,
=ir.
H Ehen he told "ou
that did it not occur to
"ou to stand up and +o
out of the bankI
A /o, =ir.
H Eh"I
A 6e /as insistin0 that
2 return the amount 2
ha-e /ithdra/n
especially on June ?@
/hen 2 /ithdre/
+?@,LLL.LL, Sir.
)1>'.:
.he ;uestion is wh" did
"ou not leave and
disre+arded hi&I
A 9ecause 2 cannot just
lea-e him that /ay,
=our 6onor.
Att". 8i(on:
Eh"I Ehat was the
reason that "ou cannot
leave hi&I
A 9ecause he is
insistin0 that the
responsiility of one
person e my
responsiility and at
that time 2 /as feelin0
ner-ous and he did not
tell me to stand up and
lea-e, Sir. ,iid, pp. 1$-
:, 'ecords, pp. 1:#-
111-
44
2n her insistence to clear up her na&e, it is not
farfetched for >s to think that the co&plainant
voluntaril" but +rud+in+l" returned the &one" to show
+ood faith. .hus, it was she who infor&ed the
petitioner about the e<istence of the ')*) .i&e
8eposit )erti6cate ,D<h. KAK, pp. 4-5, 'ecords-. .he
alle+ation that she did so because of petitioner's
threats ca&e fro& the co&plainant herself. =he has not
been able to present an" other witness to buttress her
clai&.
9urther, Ee 6nd that contrar" to co&plainant's
alle+ations in her aBdavit ,iid, p. 5- it was not the
petitioner who su++ested the encash&ent of the ')*)
.i&e 8eposit )erti6cate but her sisterL and that a+ain,
it was not the petitioner who a+reed to the sister's
su++estion but )ru(, the 5'1 !ana+er, 9orei+n
8epart&ent of the bank ,.=/, 0anuar" $, 1#$5, pp. 4:-
41, 'ecords, pp. 131-13-.
!oreover, while co&plainant clai&ed that her freedo&
of &ove&ent was restrained, she, however, was able
to &ove about freel" un+uarded fro& the oBce of the
petitioner situated at the +round Moor to the oBce of
)ru( at the &e((anine Moor where her sister found her
,iid, pp. 3#- 4:, 'ecords, pp. 13:-131-. >ndoubtedl",
durin+ that ti&e, there were &an" bank clients who
transacted business with the bank ,.=/, /ove&ber :,
1#$4, p. 1L 'ecords, p. 11-. .he bank securit" +uards
then were at their posts. )o&plainant herself ad&itted
that the" &anifested no overt acts to prevent her fro&
leavin+ despite the alle+ed loud threats of the
petitioner ,iid, pp. :- 1, 'ecords, pp. 111-11-
which could be heard considerin+ that the door to
petitioner's oBce was kept open ,.=/, 1ctober $,
1#$5, p. 1$4, 'ecords, p. 4%-. ?iven such at&osphere,
the co&plainant still did not leave the bank.
.he respondent court cited the prepared t"pewritten
withdrawal slip and the non-presentation of the
co&plainant's passbook as indicators of her involuntar"
acts.
Ee disa+ree. .he petitioner testi6ed that the +eneral
rule was that the bank re;uires the presentation of the
passbook whenever withdrawals are &ade. Cowever,
there was an e<ception to this rule, i.e. when the
depositor is a re+ular custo&er in depositin+ or
withdrawin+ &one" in the bank ,.=/, 1ctober $, 1#$5,
pp. 1$#-1#:, 'ecords, pp. $1-$-. .he prosecution
failed to sub&it evidence to rebut his contentions.
*esides, the trial court's conclusion that the withdrawal
slip was t"pewritten was without basis considerin+ that
the co&plainant &erel" averred that the withdrawal
slip was alread" prepared when she si+ned it ,D<h. KAK,
'ecords, p. 4-.
Ee also take e<ception to the followin+ rulin+ of the
appellate court:
2t &ust be noted that the position of a
bank &ana+er is one of presti+e and
di+nit" and when the said bank was
cheated or swindled it certainl" reMects
on the capabilit" and eBcienc" of the
&ana+er and one can @ust i&a+ine the
kind of &ental attitude and feelin+ of
an+er the latter would have towards
the alle+ed swindler. =houtin+, raisin+
of voice and da++er looks are co&&on
characteristics of an an+r" &an and
that was what accused Aee e<hibited to
a fra+ile weaker se< and pre+nant
ofended part". 2t would be natural to
+et an+r" with so&eone who had
victi&i(ed "ou. /aturalness, however is
not alwa"s ri+hteous. 2t is like takin+
the law into "our hands and that was
what the accused Aee did. ,)A
8ecision, pp. 11-1, 'ollo, pp. 5-53-
.his pronounce&ent creates an i&pression that the
petitioner had &ade a personal case out of the
situation. Cowever, the evidence does not support this
view. Ee 6nd that at the ti&e the check was deposited
and encashed, the petitioner was then on leave ,.=/,
0une 11, 1#$5, p. 15%L 'ecords, p. 4$-. >nder this
circu&stance, it is not fair to consider the bank's
&istake in acceptin+ and pa"in+ the check as the
petitioner's &istake which could &ilitate a+ainst his
eBcienc". .he petitioner attributed the &istake in the
pa"&ent of the for+ed check to the usual risks in
bankin+ business. Ce stated:
Att". 5an+ilinan, 5rivate
prosecutor ,authori(ed
b" the 9iscal to
prosecute the case in
the latter's stead-
H =o "ou no lon+er
consider hi& ,)arpio-
as entitled in ,sic- the
proceeds of the chek
,sic- and therefore at
that point of ,sic- ti&e
"ou will now concede
that the pa"&ent &ade
b" "ou to hi& was a bi+
&istakeI
A Ehen we were askin+
for the respondent and
we were locatin+
Conorio )arpio and we
cannot locate hi&, 2
consider that a
&istake, =ir.
H 2t was a bi+ &istake
as a &atter of factI
A Mhen it comes to the
fallin0 of the usiness
considerin0 the i0
amount 2 /ould say i0
45
mistake ut only a
mistake, it /as a usual
risk in ankin0
usiness, Sir.
H *ut of course !r. Aee,
bein+ a &istake that
&istake will har& and
tense "our personalit"
as a *ank !ana+erI
A 2t is up to our
%ana0er to decide ut
/hen it comes to other
transactions 2 am
handlin0 Three %illion
plus and considerin0
that check 2 don3t think
/ith all modesty it /ill
afect me, Sir.
H *ut "ou are called
upon to tr" to recover
an" &one" which was
in "our @ud+&ent was
unlawfull" taken fro&
"ou b" an"bod"
A Ehen it co&es to
procedure 2 don't think
it was unlawfull" taken,
as a &atter of fact it
was our bank who
credited this account,
=ir.
H =o it is "our bounded
,sic- dut" to recover
&one" which was paid
to so&eonelse ,sic-
which pa"&ent is not
due to hi&, a& 2
correctI
A 2t is the dut" of our
law"er to recover it, =ir.
H 2s it not a fact that
"our law"er is onl" "our
a+entI
Att". 8i(on:
2 think we are +oin+ too
far, it has nothin+ to do
with the particular
incident sub@ect &atter
of the cri&inal ofense.
)ourt:
2 see the point of the
defense but the witness
is ver" intelli+ent, 2 can
see the point of
counsel, because in
order not to efect his
inte+rit" he resorted to
this, for e<a&ple in
case of a bank
e&plo"ee who stole
55::.:: and the other
one is 5::.::, it could
have the sa&e &istake
which is supposed to
be ad&onished b"
re&oval. Fou answer.
A Fes that is the sa&e
case whether it is s&all
or bi+ but when it
co&es to the !ana+er
the Cead 1Bce is ver"
understandin+ when it
co&es to bo+us checks
and of course &" work
is a supervisor". =ir.
,iid, pp. 14:-141L
'ecords, pp. %3-%4-
.he &ost tellin+ proof of the absence of inti&idation
was the fact that the co&plainant refused to si+n the
pro&issor" note in spite of the alle+ed threats of the
petitioner ,.=/, 0anuar" $, 1#$5, p. 4$L 'ecords, p.
13#-. A&erican authorities have declared that K,t-he
force which is clai&ed to have co&pelled cri&inal
conduct a+ainst the will of the actor &ust
be immediate and continuous and threaten 0ra-e
dan0er to his person durin0 all of the time the act is
ein0 committed. That is, it must e a dan0erous force
threatened 3in praesenti.3 2t must e a force
threatenin0 0reat odily harm that remains constant in
controllin0 the /ill of the un/illin0 participant /hile the
act is ein0 performed and from /hich he cannot then
/ithdra/ in safety.K ,=tate v. Cood, 1%5 /D d, $, 31-
3, D&phasis ours-.
.he co&plainant proferred e<cuses for her action. 9or
one, she clai&ed that her sister's presence helped her
recover her co&posure ,.=/, /ove&ber :, 1#$4, p.
#, 'ecords, p. 1:-.
Ee are not persuaded. 2f indeed she had recovered her
co&posure because of her sister's presence, she could
have @ust left the pre&ises in a huf without encashin+
the ')*) .i&e 8eposit )erti6cate or if the"
,co&plainant and sister- were alread" at the ')*),
the" could have desisted fro& encashin+ the check
and then could have left for ho&e notwithstandin+ the
alle+ed presence of !r. Au&ba who was no lon+er in
his own bank but a&on+ the ')*) clients or she could
have refused to si+n the aBdavit which was handed to
her 6rst before the pro&issor" note. Fet, she did
neither of these lo+ical possibilities.
4%
=econdl", she averred that she refused to si+n the
pro&issor" note because she was able to read its
contents unlike the aBdavit and she reali(ed that she
would have a +reat responsibilit" to return the a&ount
taken b" )arpio ,iid, pp. 4-$, 'ecords, pp. 11$-11#-.
=uch an e<cuse is Mi&s" and weak. 2t is stran+e that
co&plainant's sister, who was with her, failed to
corroborate her state&ent that she was denied the
opportunit" to read the aBdavit. Cer bare assertion
si&pl" con6r&s the voluntariness of her actions. All her
disputed acts were +eared towards provin+ her +ood
faith. )o&plainant was willin+ to return the su& of
54$,:::.:: she took since it was onl" up to this
a&ount where her involve&ent lies. Cowever, as soon
as she reali(ed that she would have the enor&ous task
of rei&bursin+ the bank the balance of the proceeds of
the for+ed check alle+edl" taken b" )arpio, she refused
to cooperate an" further. /otwithstandin+ the alle+ed
threats of petitioner, she did not bud+e. .hus, Ee 6nd
it as a lo+ical conse;uence that she &erel" asked for
the receipt of the 51$,:::.:: she deposited rather than
the cancellation of her earlier withdrawal. 1n this point,
co&plainant clai&ed that after her refusal to si+n the
docu&ent, she no lon+er insisted on the return of the
&one" because she felt that it was the onl" wa" she
could leave the bank pre&ises ,.=/, /ove&ber :,
1#$4, p. 31, 'ecords, p. 1:-. .his pretense, however,
was belied b" her subse;uent actuations. Ee 6nd that
she and her sister left the bank unescorted to eat their
snackL that the" were re;uired b" the petitioner to
co&e backL and that the" decided not to eat but
instead went ho&e ,.=/, /ove&ber :, 1#$4, pp. 31-
3, 'ecords, pp. 1-13 and 0anuar" $, 1#%5, pp. 4#-
5:, 'ecords, pp. 14:-141-. Eith such behavior, Ee are
at a loss to understand how coercion could attach in
this case. 1bviousl", the co&plainant has not been
cowed into sub&ission.
A+ainst this backdrop, Ee hold that coercion did not
e<ist in this case. )onse;uentl", the petitioner should
be ac;uitted.
A))1'82/?AF, the decision appealed fro& is hereb"
'D7D'=D8 and a new one hereb" entered A)H>2..2/?
the accused of the cri&e of +rave coercion.
=1 1'8D'D8.
/ove&ber 3, 1#34
?.'. /o. A-4:4
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANS, plaintif-
appellee,
vs.
PIO RE)ES, defendant-appellant.
+. J. Se-illa for appellant.
<'ce of the Solicitor General 6ilado for appellee.
.#1?er$, J.7
.he defendant was char+ed in the )ourt of 9irst
2nstance of !anila with the cri&e of ho&icide,
co&&itted b" willfull" and unlawfull" stabbin+ 0ose
)astro with a fan-knife on !a" 3, 1#34, which caused
his death a few hours later.
At the trial the defendant ad&itted havin+ stabbed 0ose
)astro, but &aintained that he had acted in self-
defense. >pon the ter&ination of the trial, the lower
court found the defendant +uilt" as char+ed in the
infor&ation and sentenced hi& to sufer an
indeter&inate sentence of not less than si< "ears and
one da" nor &ore than twelve "ears and one da" of
i&prison&ent, with the correspondin+ accessor"
penalties, to pa" the costs, and to inde&nif" the heirs
of 0ose )astro in the su& of 51,:::.
AppellantYs attorne" alle+es that the lower court erred
in not sustainin+ the defense interposed b" the
accused, and in not ac;uittin+ hi&.
2t appears fro& the evidence that between ei+ht and
nine oYclock on the ni+ht of !a" 3, 1#34, the defendant
&et 0ose )astro at the corner of .apuri and .ioko
streets in .ondo, !anila. 0ose )astro de&anded 6ft"
centavos, and when the defendant refused to +ive hi&
the &one" )astro struck the defendant in the face with
his 6st two or &ore ti&es. .he defendant stepped
back, and takin+ out his knife warned )astro that if he
atte&pted to strike hi& a+ain so&ethin+ would happen
to hi&. )astro did not heed the warnin+, but rushed
upon the defendant and atte&pted to +ain possession
of the knife. 2n the stru++le that followed, the accused
while held b" )astro stabbed the latter on the left side
of the chest and the abdo&en, and he fell to the
+round. Ce was taken to the 5hilippine ?eneral
Cospital, where he died a few hours later.
.he evidence shows that the deceased was a lar+e,
stron+ &an, and that he had a reputation of a bull",
while the defendant because of so&e aViction was
unable to use his left hand.
.he defendant i&&ediatel" surrendered hi&self to the
police, and he was taken to the 5hilippine ?eneral
44
Cospital. Cis face was badl" bruised, and he was
treated in the hospital b" 8r. Altavas.
.here see&s to us to be no reason to doubt the truth of
the defendantYs testi&on", and the =olicitor-?eneral is
of the sa&e opinion.
Apparentl" the lower court inferred fro& the testi&on"
of the witnesses for the prosecution that the defendant
followed 0ose )astro and stabbed hi& without warnin+.
=uch an inference would not be @usti6ed b" the
testi&on" of these witnesses, even if the testi&on" of
the defendant were disre+arded. )astro had assaulted
the defendant before he was stabbedL when he was
stabbed, he e<clai&ed: Z5io has stabbed &e,[ and fell
to the +round. .his was the 6rst thin+ that the
witnesses for the prosecution saw or heard.
.he state&ent in the decision of the trial @ud+e that the
defendant attacked )astro because the latter a few
da"s before had ofended a wo&an related to the
defendant is not sustained b" the record.
.he =olicitor-?eneral is of the opinion that this is not a
case of co&plete self-defense, because there was no
reasonable necessit" for the defendant to use his knife
to repel the a++ression, because his life was never in
dan+er. Accordin+ to the =olicitor-?eneral the
defendant is entitled to the bene6t of 6ve &iti+atin+
circu&stances: ,1- inco&plete self-defense, ,-
suBcient provocation on the part of the deceased, ,3-
the appellant had no intention to co&&it so +rave a
wron+ as that co&&itted, ,4- the appellant
surrendered hi&self to the authorities, and ,5- the
appellant was suferin+ fro& a ph"sical defect which
restricted his &eans of defense.
2n our opinion this is a case of le+iti&ate self-defense.
.he defendant, who has the use of onl" one hand, was
stopped at ni+ht on the street b" a bull" ,butaO+ero-,
who de&anded &one", and when the defendant
refused to hand over the &one" de&anded, the
deceased +ave the defendant blows in the face with his
6st. .he defendant then stepped back, drew out his
knife, and warned the deceased not to strike hi&
a+ain, but the deceased rushed upon the defendant,
held hi&, and tried to +et possession of the knife. .o
free hi&self the defendant stabbed the deceased. 2t
&a" be true that the accused could have avoided the
fatal conse;uences b" runnin+ awa", but he had a
perfect ri+ht to stand his +round. Cis knife was his onl"
&eans of defense, and under the circu&stances of the
case there was clearl" a reasonable necessit" for hi&
to &ake use of it. 2t cannot be said with an" certaint"
that his life was not in dan+er. Ehen a hi+hwa"&an
brutall" assaults one in the dark and tries to take awa"
oneYs onl" &eans of defense, it is reasonable to believe
that oneYs life is endan+ered. .he law does not re;uire
a person under such circu&stances to trust his life to
the &erc" of the hi+hwa"&an.
9or the fore+oin+ reasons, the decision of the lower
court is reversed, and the appellant is ac;uitted, with
the costs de o,cio.
=treet, Abad =antos, Cull and 8ia(, 00., concur.
4$