Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
404,JUNE18,2003
275
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
*
G.R.Nos.131926&138991.June18,2003.
276
276
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
latter of his liberty (c) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal
and(d)inthecommissionoftheoffenseanyofthefollowingcircumstances
ispresent:(1)thekidnappingordetentionlastsformorethanthreedays(2)
it is committed by simulating public authority (3) any serious physical
injuriesareinflicteduponthepersonkidnappedordetainedorthreatstokill
himaremadeor(4)thepersonkidnappedordetainedisaminor,female,or
apublicofficer.
Same Same Detention Instances when Duration of Detention is
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
277
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
tinues,theremayoccurnewovertacts.Iftheconspiracyhasnotyetended,
then the hearsay acts and declarations of one conspirator will be admissible
against the other conspirators and one conspirator may be held liable for
substantivecrimescommittedbytheothers.
278
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
AUTOMATICREVIEWofadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
GeneralSantosCity,Br.35.
279
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
279
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.
CALLEJO,SR.,J.:
1
280
280
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
4
281
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
281
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
themselvestoGeorgeandMichaelaspoliceofficersonthelookout
for a certain George Lim and his son who had been kidnapped in
GeneralSantosCity.DagaasinquiredfromGeorgewhathisname
was, and George replied that he was Albert Lim. The driver
identified himself as Michael Pagalasan. George gave a false first
name because he was afraid Michael might shoot him. Dagaas
noticedthatGeorgesfingersweretrembling.Villanuevaknockedat
thedooronthedriversside,andtriedtoopenthesame,butitwas
locked. When Michael himself opened the door, Villanueva pulled
him out of the vehicle and brought him to the mobile car. Michael
was suddenly in the custody of the policemen. George then
identifiedhimselfasoneofthekidnappedvictims.Healsotoldthe
policemen that his son was still with the other kidnappers. The5
policementhereaftersearchedtheNissancarandfounda.38caliber
6
handgunwithsixlivebulletsinitschamber
andagrenadeunderthe
7
drivers seat. The policemen brought Michael and George to the
police station where Ferdinand was being interrogated by police
investigators.FerdinandtoldGeorgethathehadnothingtodowith
thekidnapping,butbeforehecouldexplainfurther,hewaswhisked
into the investigation room. After giving a sworn statement to the
police investigator, George was allowed to go home. Desiree gave
Georgethehandwrittenletterearliergiventoherbythekidnappers
before they left the house that evening. In the letter, the spouses
were warned not to coordinate with the military, nor to take any
actioninconnectionwiththekidnappingwithouttheirknowledgeor
consent. They were also informed that the malefactors would
communicate with the couple, whether by letter
or through the
8
telephone only through MUBARAK II or
2. Julita executed an
9
affidavitinconnectionwiththekidnapping.
Police Inspector Antonio Evangelista ordered SPO4 Recio
Aniversario to conduct a custodial investigation on Michael. Recio
asked Michael if he wanted to execute an affidavit, and Michael
replied that he was going to execute one. The police investigator
inquiredifheknewofanylawyer,towhichMichaelrepliedinthe
negative.ThepoliceinvestigatorthensuggestedAtty.TomasC.
_______________
5ExhibitsAandA1.
6ExhibitsFandF5.
7ExhibitB.
8Seenote3.
9ExhibitF.
282
282
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
Falgui,aprivatepractitioner,ashiscounsel.WhenMichaelagreed,
the police investigator phoned the lawyer, requesting the latter to
assistMichaelwhileundergoingcustodialinvestigation.Thelawyer
agreedandforthwithproceededtothepolicestation.Michaelgave
his confession
under custodial investigation with the assistance of
10
Atty.Falgui.
In his confession, Michael admitted that upon orders of Ronnie
Cabalo, he and three other men, Aladin (Ronnies brother), a
MuslimknownasFerdinand,andBong(aresidentofPurokIslam),
had kidnapped George and his son Christopher. Ronnie Cabalo
instructed Michael to use Georges vehicle to transport father and
son to the banana plantation where Aladin, Ferdinand and Boy
wouldalightwithChristopher,andtothereafterreturnGeorgetohis
house. Aladin had given him a handgun for his use. Ferdinand
Cortez was in cahoots with them. He was at first reluctant to obey
Ronnie,butrelentedwhenhewastoldnottobeafraidandtousethe
grenade in case of trouble. George told him that he had already
given money to Aladin, and that Michaels companions had taken
some pieces of jewelry from him and his wife before they left the
Limresidence.
InthelightofMichaelsconfession,farmerHadjiAladinMalang
Cabalo, Ronie Puntuan and Fernando Quizon were arrested and
detainedatCampFerminLiraBarracks,GeneralSantosCity.Inthe
meantime, on September 6, 1994, George received another
handwritten letter, ordering the release of Michael and Ronie
Puntuanbecausetheywereinnocent,anddemandingP3,000,000for
11
Christophersrelease.
On September 9, 1994, George received another handwritten
letterdatedSeptember9,1994,thistimefromMUBARAKIIor2
informing him and his wife that the kidnappers did not want the
military to be involved nor innocent people to be prejudiced. The
spouseswerealsowarnedthattheirsonwouldnotbereleasedalive
12
unlessRoniePuntuanwasfreedinthreedays. Onthesamedayat
3:25p.m.,RoniePuntuan,throughcounsel,filedamotion
_______________
10ExhibitsGtoG2C.
11ExhibitD.(Thesignatureisillegible.)
12ExhibitE.
283
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
283
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
withtheMTCprayingthathebetransferredfromtheCampFermin
13
LiraBarrackstotheGeneralSantosCityJail.
In the morning of the following day, September 10, 1994,
Christopher was rescued by policemen without any ransom being
paid. On September 13, 1994, George executed a sworn statement
relating to the incidents
that happened from September 4, 1994 to
14
September10,1994.
Michael was charged with kidnapping for ransom and violation
of PD 186615 before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of General
SantosCity.
During the initial stage of the preliminary investigation by the
MTC on September 6, 1994, Atty. Falgui appeared as Michaels
counselandtestifiedonwhattranspiredimmediatelybefore,during
andafterthecustodialinvestigation,includingMichaelsexecution
16
of his extrajudicial confession. Michael was also placed on the
witness stand and, with the assistance of counsel, testified on his
extrajudicialconfession.Heaffirmedtheveracityofthecontentsof
17
the said confession. Subsequently, Michael, through his mother,
securedtheservicesofAtty.EmmanuelV.Fontanilla.OnSeptember
12,1994,MichaelexecutedanaffidavitwithdrawinghisSeptember
5,1994extrajudicialconfession,inwhichhestatedthat:(a)hewas
not assisted by counsel of his own choice when he executed the
extrajudicial confession and (b) Ronie18Puntuan, who was arrested
and detained, was not Ronnie Cabalo. Michael also executed a
counteraffidavit where he denied the accusations against him, and
clarified that he was forced and intimidated into making his
September 5, 1994 confession, and he was not provided with
counsel of his own choice during custodial investigation. His
constitutionalrightsundercustodialinvestigationwereallegedlynot
19
sufficientlyexplainedtohim. He filed the said affidavits with the
MTCduringthepreliminaryinvestigation.
_______________
13Records,pp.2122.
14Id.,atpp.56.
15Id.,atp.11.
16Id.,atpp.110112.
17Id.,atpp.113125.
18ExhibitK.
19Exhibit4.
284
284
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
285
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
285
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
286
286
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
287
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
287
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
Michaeltoldthelawyerthathehadbeenmaltreatedbyaninmateat
thedetentioncell.Healsonarratedthatheknewnothingaboutthe
kidnappingandthathewasonlyhiredbysomebodytodriveacar.
Michaelassuredthelawyerthathewasnotawareofthepurposeof
theculpritsinkidnappingGeorgeandChristopher.OnSeptember9,
1994, Atty. Fontanilla executed an30 affidavit reiterating the
information Michael conveyed to him. On September 16, 1994,
Michael filed31an urgent motion for medical checkup, which the
courtgranted.
Dra. Virginia Ramirez, OfficerInCharge of the City Integrated
Health Services, examined Michael on September 22, 1994 and
found him suffering from myalgia residual or muscle pains due to
mauling,whichshesurmisedtookplaceaboutoneweektotendays
beforetheexamination.Sheissuedamedicalcertificateofthesaid
32
examination.
On September 24, 1997, the trial court rendered judgment
acquitting Ferdinand Cortez and convicting Michael of kidnapping
forransom,thedecretalportionofwhichreads:
JUDGMENT
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused is hereby sentenced as
follows:
In Criminal Case No. 11062 for failure of the prosecution to prove the
accusation against the accused Michael Pagalasan beyond reasonable doubt,
heisherebyACQUITTEDofthecrimecharged.
In Criminal Case No. 11098, the accused Michael Pagalasan is hereby
foundguiltyofthecrimeofkidnappingforransomasdefinedandpenalized
underArticle267asamendedbySection8ofRepublicAct7659,andthere
being no modifying circumstance to consider, he is sentenced to suffer the
EXTREME PENALTY OF DEATH insofar as the case of George Lim is
concerned.
The same penalty of death shall also be imposed against Michael
Pagalasan in the case of Christopher Neal Lim who was kidnapped on the
sameoccasionandwasreleasedonlyonthesixthdayafterhiscaptivity.
The case of Ferdinand Cortez, for lack of sufficient evidence to convict
him,heisherebyACQUITTEDofthecrimecharged.
_______________
30ExhibitsKandJ.
31ExhibitI.
32ExhibitI.
288
288
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
33
SOORDERED.
The trial court ruled in Criminal Case No. 11098 that with or
without the confession of Michael, the prosecution adduced proof
beyond reasonable doubt that he, in conspiracy with three others,
kidnappedGeorgeandChristopher.ItfoundthetestimonyofGeorge
straightforward and positive, credible and entitled to full probative
weight. The trial court sentenced Michael to double death on its
finding that he and his cohorts kidnapped George and Christopher
for the purpose of extorting ransom. It disbelieved Michaels
confessionimplicatingFerdinandCortez,andacquittedthelatterfor
failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The trial court likewise acquitted Michael in Criminal Case
No.11062.
Michael,nowtheappellant,assertsthat:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED
APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM OF
CHRISTOPHER NEAL LIM DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED
APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM OF
ONEGEORGELIMWITHOUTANYBASISINFACTANDINLAW.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE
DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT AND IN
GIVING CREDENCE
TO THE INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF
34
GEORGELIM.
_______________
33Records,p.289.
34Rollo,atpp.7980.Theappellantalsoassailsinhisbrieftheadmissibilityofhis
confessionallegingthatAtty.TomasFalguiwasnotthecompetentandindependent
counselenvisagedinSection12,paragraph1ofthe1987Constitution.Heaversthat
thesaidcounselwasnotofhisownchoiceandwasmerelyfoistedonhimbypolice
investigator SPO4 Recy Aniversario. He was forced by policemen to execute his
confession. The trial court erred in using his extrajudicial confession as species of
proofinconvictinghimofkidnappingforransom.TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,
for its part, contends that there is no need for the Court to resolve the issue, as the
appellantsextrajudicialconfessionismerelycorroborativeof
289
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
289
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
Theappellantisguiltyof
kidnappingChristopher
underArticle267ofthe
RevisedPenalCode.
On the first assignment of error, the appellant avers that the
prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond cavil of doubt for the
crime of kidnapping
Christopher. Georges testimony that the gun
35
andhandgrenade werefoundinthecar,undertheseatbesidethe
driver is inconsistent with his own statement before the police
investigator that the said gun and grenade were found in the
appellantspossessionhence,thetestimonyofGeorgeisincredible
and barren of probative weight. The case for the prosecution was
enfeebled by its failure to present Christopher to testify on his
kidnapping and to corroborate the testimony of his father. The
failureoftheprosecutiontopresentChristopherasawitnessraised
the presumption that if he had been so presented, he would have
testified on matters adverse to the prosecution. For its part, the
Office of the Solicitor General contends that the testimony of
George,itsprincipalwitness,aswellasthoseofitsotherwitnesses,
is sufficient to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant
conspired with three others in kidnapping Christopher for ransom.
There was no need for the prosecution to present Christopher to
testify on his kidnapping, as his testimony would be merely
corroborativeofhisfathersaccountofevents.
Thecontentionoftheappellantisbarrenofmerit.
_______________
Georges testimony, the absence of which cannot in any way affect the
prosecutionscase.Thetrialcourt,infact,statedinitsdecisionthatevenwithoutthe
extrajudicial confession of the appellant, the other evidence of the prosecution by
themselvesconstitutedproofbeyondreasonabledoubtoftheguiltoftheappellantof
thecrimecharged.
The Court agrees with the Office of the Solicitor General that in convicting the
appellant of kidnapping for ransom of George and Christopher, it relied on the
collectivetestimoniesofGeorgeandtheotherwitnessesoftheprosecutionandonthe
statementofJulitaSarno,thetruthofthecontentsofwhichwasstipulatedonbythe
prosecutionandtheappellant.Theotherissuesraisedbytheappellantinhisbriefmay
beresolvedbytheCourtindependentlyofappellantsconfession.Hence,thereisno
needfortheCourttostilldelveintoandresolvetheissueoftheadmissibilityofthe
appellantsconfession.
35ExhibitsAandB.
290
290
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
Article267oftheRevisedPenalCodeasamendedbyRepublicAct
No.7659reads:
ART. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.Any private
individualwhoshallkidnapordetainanother,orinanyothermannerdeprive
himofhisliberty,shallsufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeath:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three
days.
2. Ifitshallhavebeencommittedsimulatingpublicauthority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the
person kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him shall have
beenmade.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when
theaccusedisanyoftheparents,female,orapublicofficer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was
committedforthepurposeofextortingransomfromthevictimoranyother
person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in
thecommissionoftheoffense.
Whenthevictimiskilledordiesasaconsequenceofthedetentionoris
raped,orissubjectedtotortureordehumanizingacts,themaximumpenalty
shallbeimposed.(AsamendedbyRANo.7659).
_______________
36Peoplev.Salimbago,314SCRA282(1999).
291
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
291
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
Theessentialelementsforthiscrimeisthedeprivationoflibertyof
thevictimunderanyoftheabovementionedcircumstancescoupled37
withindubitableproofofintentoftheaccusedtoeffectthesame.
There must be a purposeful or knowing action
by the accused to
38
forciblyrestrainthevictimcoupledwithintent.
Judge Learned Hand once called
conspiracy the darling of the
39
modern prosecutors nursery. There is conspiracy when two or
40
more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracyasamodeofincurringcriminalliabilitymustbeproven
separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the crime
itself.Conspiracyneednotbeprovenbydirectevidence.Afterall,
secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful
conspiracy.Conspiraciesareclandestineinnature.Itmaybeinferred
from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, showing
that they had acted with a
41
common purpose and design. Paraphrasing
the decision of the
42
EnglishCourtinReginav.Murphy, conspiracymaybeimpliedifit
isprovedthattwoormorepersonsaimedbytheiractstowardsthe
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so
that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each
other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating 43a
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
Toholdanaccusedguiltyasacoprincipalbyreasonofconspiracy,
he must be shown to have performed
an overt act in pursuance or
44
furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional
participationinthetransactionwithaviewtothefurtheranceofthe
45
commondesignandpurpose.
The46 United States Supreme Court in Braverman v. United
States, held that the precise nature and extent of the conspiracy
mustbedeterminedbyreferencetotheagreementwhichembraces
_______________
37Peoplev.Borromeo,323SCRA547(2000).
38Peoplev.Soverano,281SCRA438(1997).
39Harrisonv.UnitedStates,7F.2d.259(1925).
40Article8,RevisedPenalCode.
41Peoplev.Quilaton,324SCRA670(2000).
42172Eng.Rep.502(1837).
43Peoplev.DelRosario,305SCRA740(1999).
44Peoplev.Elijorde,306SCRA188(1999).
45Peoplev.DelRosario,supra.
4687L.ed.23(1942).
292
292
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
anddefinesitsobjects.Foronething,thetemporaldimensionofthe
conspiracyisofparticularimportance.Settledasaruleoflawisthat
the conspiracy continues until the object is attained, unless in the
meantime the conspirator abandons the conspiracy or is arrested.
There is authority to the effect that the conspiracy ends at the
moment of any conspirators arrest, on the presumption, albeit
rebuttable,thatatthemomenttheconspiracyhasbeenthwarted,no
other overt act contributing to the conspiracy can possibly47 take
place, at least as far as the arrested conspirator is concerned. The
longer a conspiracy is deemed to continue, the greater the chances
thatadditionalpersonswillbefoundtohavejoinedit.Thereisalso
thepossibilitythatastheconspiracycontinues,theremayoccurnew
overtacts.Iftheconspiracyhasnotyetended,thenthehearsayacts
and declarations of one conspirator will be admissible against the
other conspirators and one conspirator may
be held liable for
48
substantivecrimescommittedbytheothers.
Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his
confederates which follows incidentally in the execution of a
common design as one of its probable and natural consequences49
even though it was not intended as part of the original design.
Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the
accomplishmentofaparticularpurposeofconspiracybutextendsto
collateral acts and
offenses incident to and growing out of the
50
purpose intended. Conspirators are held to have intended the
consequencesoftheiractsandbypurposelyengaginginconspiracy
whichnecessarilyanddirectlyproducesaprohibitedresultthatthey
51
are in contemplation of law, charged with intending the result.
Conspiratorsarenecessarilyliablefortheactsofanotherconspirator
even though such act differs radically
and substantively from that
52
whichtheyintendedtocommit. TheCourtagreeswiththerulingof
the Circuit Court of Appeals (Second District) per Judge Learned
Hand
_______________
4722ACorpusJurisSecundum,Conspiracy,p.1150USv.Eng,241F.2d.157(1957).
48Section30,Rule130,RevisedRulesofEvidence.
4915ACorpusJurisSecundum,Conspiracy,p.828.
50Id.
51Ingramv.UnitedStates,259F.2d.886(1958).
52Pringv.CourtofAppeals,138SCRA185(1985).
293
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
293
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
53
53100F.2d.401(1938).
54236SW942(1922).
55123F.2d.271(1941).
56Martinv.State,8So.23(1890).
294
294
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
Thecollective,concertedandsynchronizedactsoftheappellantand
his cohorts before, during and after the kidnapping constitute
indubitable proof that the appellant and his three companions
conspired with each other to attain a common objective: to kidnap
GeorgeandChristopheranddetainthemillegally.Theappellantwas
a principal by direct participation in the kidnapping of the two
victims.
The trial court found the testimony of George straightforward
57
and positive, and entitled to credit and full probative weight. The
legal aphorism is that the findings of facts of the trial court, its
calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and of their probative
weight, its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded high
respectbytheappellatecourt,ifnotconclusiveeffect,becauseofthe
unique advantage of the trial court of observing at close range the
demeanor, conduct and deportment
of witnesses as they regale the
58
trialcourtwiththeirtestimonies. Itistruethattheappellatecourtis
not bound by the findings and conclusions of the trial court if the
latter ignored, misunderstood, misapplied or misinterpreted cogent
facts and circumstances,
which, if considered, would change the
59
outcome of the case. This ruling, however, is inapplicable in the
caseatbar,sincetheappellantfailedtoestablishthatthetrialcourt
erredinthiswise.
George
testified that when the policemen found the gun and
60
grenade61 inside his car, the appellant was already at the
police
62
station. However, in his September 13, 1994 Affidavit, George
stated that the policemen found the gun when the appellant was
frisked, while the grenade was spotted under the passengers seat,
beside the driver. This seeming inconsistency between the two
statementsdoesnotdiscredithistestimonynorhiscredibilityforthe
following reasons (a) it is of judicial knowledge that affidavits
being taken ex parte are almost always incomplete and often
inaccurateandaregenerallyinferiortothetestimonyofawitnessin
_______________
57Records,p.287.
58Peoplev.Ramos,G.R.No.142577,December27,2002,394SCRA452.
59Peoplev.Realin,301SCRA495(1999).
60ExhibitsAandB.
61TSN,7February1996,p.37(GeorgeLim).
62Records,p.5.
295
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
295
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
63
65Peoplev.Khor,307SCRA295(1999).
66Peoplev.Ebrada,296SCRA353(1998).
67Peoplev.Barellano,319SCRA567(1999).
68Peoplev.Barellano,supra.
296
296
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
297
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
69
71Peoplev.Akiran,18SCRA239(1966).
72UnitedStatesv.Cleveland,56F.Supp.890(1944).
298
298
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
Palatandaannagalingsaaminghakbangayito
MR.MUBARAKIIor2
Sulatmanotelephone73
TheletterreceivedbyGeorgeonSeptember6,1994,secondletter
forbrevity,reads:
RoniePuntuan
MichaelPagalasan
Mr. G. Lim palayain ninyo ang suspek ninyo. Wala silang
kasalananbagonatintapusinangusapantatlongmilyongpiso
(3,000,000) katumbas ng kalayaan ng mahal ninyong anak.
Paalisin ang mga sundalo. Kailangan ang Black Out News.
Huwag kang magkakamali Mr. Lim. Kunting sipyot mo patay
anganakmo.Isangarawlamangangtagalnaminsainyo.
74
(Sgd.)
The handwritten letter received by George on September 9, 1994,
thirdletterforbrevity,reads:
ParasayoMr.&Mrs.Lim,
Mr. Lim, gusto ko lang ipaabot sayo ang maikli kong kataga.
Unanguna, ayaw namin na mga asong militar na makialam.
Pangalawa,ayawnaminsagruponaidamayangtaonawalang
alam.Alalahaninmomabutilahatngmgakataganainiwanko
sayo,Mr.Lim.Angtaongdinampotngmilitarsapurokislam
nasiRonie,angtaongyanwalangconection(sic)sagrupo.sa
madalingusapan.Mr.Lim.alalahaninmoanganakmosaoras
natatlongarawnataongyanhindimakalabas.Angisipinmo
anganakmohindirinmakalabashanggatsamabuloksalupa
(maliwanag).
(Sign)
Palatandaan
75
MUBARAKII2
Asgleanedfromthethreeletters,therewasnodemandforransom
in exchange for George and Christophers liberty. While there is a
demandforransomofP3,000,000inthesecondletter,andademand
forthereleaseofRoniePuntuanwithinthreedaysinthe
_______________
73ExhibitC,p.199(italicssupplied).
74Id.,atp.200.
75ExhibitE,p.202(italicssupplied).
299
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
299
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
ThesecondletterreceivedbyGeorgewassignedbyanunidentified
person.ItwasnotstatedthatthelettercamefromMUBARAKII
2. That the second letter could not have come from the appellant
andhiscohortsisbuttressedbythefactthatthethird letter, which
camefromMUBARAKII2,doesnotevenmentionanydemand
forransomintheamountofP3,000,000forChristophersrelease.
TheCourtcanonlysurmise,butitispossiblethatthesignatory
andsenderofthesecondlettercouldhavebeenactingindependently
of the appellant and his coconspirators in order to profit from the
kidnapping.ItbearsstressingthatthekidnappingofChristopherand
George was already known when the appellant was arrested on
September4,1994,andthecrimehadalreadybeenreportedtothe
police authorities. Persons other than the coconspirators of the
appellantcouldhavewrittentheletter.
Since there is no evidence that the signatory and sender of the
second letter is a coconspirator of the appellant, the latter is not
boundbythesaidletter,conformablytoSection28,Rule130ofthe
RevisedRulesofEvidencewhichreads:
Sec. 28. Admission by third party.The rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafterprovided.
_______________
76Seenote66.
300
300
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
Evenifitisassumedforthenoncethatthesecondlettercamefrom
a coconspirator, the same is not binding on the appellant, absent
evidence aliunde that he knew of and concurred with the said
ransom demand. It bears stressing that when George received the
secondletteronSeptember6,1994,theappellanthadalreadybeen
arrested and detained. The conspiracy forged by the appellant and
his cohorts on or before September 4, 1994 had already ceased,
whenonthesaiddate,theappellantwasarrestedbythepolicemen
77
anddetained.
Neither is the third letter admissible in evidence against the
appellant to prove that he conspired with others to demand the
releaseofRoniePuntuaninconsiderationforChristophersfreedom.
The appellant and his cohorts could not have planned to demand
ransom for the release of Ronie Puntuan as early as September 4,
1994,thedateofthekidnapping:Roniehadnotyetbeenarrestedon
thisdate.Theappellantwasarrestedfirst,andRoniesdetentionwas
only tofollow.Furthermore, thethirdletter was sent to George on
September 9, 1994. At that point, the appellant had already been
arrested by the policemen, and was already in jail. There is no
evidence that while in jail, the appellant had knowledge of and
concurred with the said ransom demand. It may be reasonably
inferred that the appellants coconspirators could have decided to
demandRoniePuntuansreleaseasaconsiderationforChristophers
liberty,whiletheappellantwasalreadylanguishinginjail.Thesaid
demand for ransom was a new and independent project of the
appellants coconspirators, growing out of their own malice,
withoutanyapriori knowledge on the part of the appellant or his
postfacto concurrence therewith. Indeed, the records show that on
September 9, 1994, the very day the coconspirators sent the third
lettertoGeorge,RoniePuntuanthroughcounselAtty.JoseJerryL.
Fulgar, also the counsel for the appellant, filed a motion with the
MTC,prayingthathebedetainedattheGeneralSantosCityJail:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that an
order be please issued directing that accused Ronie Puntuan be please
detainedatGeneralSantosCityJailwiththeinstructionthatthe
_______________
7722AC.J.S.1150USv.Eng,241F.2d157(1957).
301
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
301
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
said accused
be separated from his coaccused as desired by the police
78
Officers.
78Records,p.22.
302
302
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
Thesamepenaltyshallbeincurredbyanyonewhoshallfurnishtheplacefor
theperpetrationofthecrime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or
detainedwithinthreedaysfromthecommencementofthedetention,without
having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal
proceedingsagainsthim,thepenaltyshallbeprisionmayorinitsminimum
and medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos. (As
amendedbyRepublicActNo.18.)
Whiletheepigraphortitleofthearticlementionsonlyslightillegal
detention, kidnapping committed in connection with the 79lower
offenseofslightillegaldetentionisalsocoveredbythearticle.
Thefelonyhasthefollowingessentialelements:
1. Thattheoffenderisaprivateindividual.
2. Thathekidnapsordetainsanother,orinanyothermanner
depriveshimofhisliberty.
3. Thattheactofkidnappingordetentionisillegal.
4. Thatthecrimeiscommittedwithouttheattendanceofany
80
ofthecircumstancesenumeratedinArt.267.
The crime of slight illegal detention is consummated upon the
occurrenceofalltheelementsthereof.Aday,inthelastparagraph
ofArticle268oftheRevisedPenalCode,shouldbeunderstoodas
twentyfourhours,tobecountedfromthedeprivationoftheliberty
ofthevictimuntilthecessationthereof.AsCuelloCalonputit:El
plazodelostresdiasdeveintecuatrohorasydesdeelmomentode
81
la privacion de libertad si en que esta cesare. The rescue or
escape of the victim within three days from his kidnapping and
detention is not an exempting circumstance. The voluntary release
by the offender of the victim within three days from his detention,
without the offender having attained his purpose and before the
institution of criminal proceedings against him for slight illegal
detention, is not an exempting circumstance it merely serves to
reduce the penalty to prision mayor in its maximum and medium
periodsandafinenotexceedingP700.
_______________
79Regalado,CriminalLawConspectus,2000ed.,p.493(emphasissupplied).
80Reyes,RevisedPenalCode,Vol.II,2001ed.,p.643.
81CuelloCallon,DerechoPenal,BookII,1961ed.,p.649.
303
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
303
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
thereisvariancebetweentheoffensechargedinthecomplaintorinformationandthat
proved,andtheoffenseaschargedisincludedinornecessarilyincludestheoffense
proved,theaccusedshallbe
304
304
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
PENALTIESFORTHECRIMES
COMMITTEDBYAPPELLANT
The crimes
committed by the appellant were aggravated by
84
dwelling, thevictimshavingbeenkidnappedintheirhousebythe
85
use of motor vehicle, the victims having been transported by the
appellant from their house with the use of Georges car and by a
band, the crime86having been committed by the appellant and three
coconspirators. However, the Court cannot consider these
aggravating circumstances in determining the proper penalties for
the said crimes, because the same were not alleged in the
Information as mandated by Sections
8 and 9, Rule 110 of the
87
RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure. Althoughthesaidrulestook
effectafterthecommissionofthecrimesbytheappellant,thesame
88
isfavorabletotheappellanthence,shouldbeappliedretroactively.
The appellant is not entitled to the privileged mitigating
circumstanceunderthesecondparagraphofArticle268oftheRe
_______________
convictedoftheoffenseprovedwhichisincludedintheoffensecharged,orofthe
offensechargedwhichisincludedintheoffenseproved.
SEC.5.Whenanoffenseincludesorisincludedinanother.Anoffensecharged
necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or
ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the
latter.Andanoffensechargedisnecessarilyincludedintheoffenseproved,whenthe
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the
latter.(Rule120,Sections4and5,RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure.)
84Article14,paragraph3,RevisedPenalCode.
85Article14,paragraph20,RevisedPenalCode.
86Article14,paragraph6,RevisedPenalCode.
87Sec.8.Designationoftheoffense.Thecomplaintorinformationshallstatethe
designationoftheoffensegivenbythestatute,avertheactsoromissionsconstituting
the offense and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designationoftheoffense,referenceshallbemadetothesectionorsubsectionofthe
statutepunishingit.
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation.The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
statedinordinaryandconciselanguageandnotnecessarilyinthelanguageusedinthe
statutebutintermssufficienttoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknow
whatoffenseisbeingchargedaswellasitsqualifyingandaggravatingcircumstances
andforthecourttopronouncejudgment.
88Peoplev.Garcia,G.R.No.145505,March14,2003,399SCRA155.
305
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
305
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
89
withinthreedaysfromthecommencementofthedetention,withouthavingattained
thepurposeintended,andbeforetheinstitutionofcriminalproceedingsagainsthim,
thepenaltyshallbeprisionmayorinitsminimumandmediumperiodsandafinenot
exceeding700pesos.(AsamendedbyRep.Act.No.18,approvedSept.5,1946.)
306
306
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Pagalasan
Judgmentaffirmedwithmodifications.
_______________
90Peoplev.Catubig,363SCRA621(2001).
307
VOL.404,JUNE18,2003
307
Vittovs.CourtofAppeals
Note.Theprimaryelementofthecrimeofkidnappingisactual
confinement, detention and restraint of the victim. (People vs.
Ubongen,357SCRA142[2001])
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.