THE PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee, [Formerly G.R. No.
144588]
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
- versus
- YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
DARIUS RODRIGO y FAJARDO
AZCUNA,
(acquitted), FELICIANO
FAJARDO, TINGA,
JR., and REY PLATA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
Appellants. GARCIA, and
VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
January 23, 2007
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
Tinga, J.:
Before us on automatic review is the Decision[1]
rendered by the Court of Appeals, affirming with modification the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 383-M-97, convicting Rey
Plata, alias “Jeffrey” (Plata), Darius Rodrigo, alias “Jun” (Rodrigo), and
Feliciano Fajardo, Jr., alias “Gerry” (Fajardo) of the crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom, penalized under Republic Act No. 7659[3]
with Death. Co-accused Rodrigo was acquitted on reasonable doubt.
On
The following day, Eleazar Caparas
(Eleazar), the father of Oliver, received a call from the kidnappers initially asking
for P10 million ransom in exchange for the release of Oliver.[6] In the meantime, the kidnappers proceeded to
Bonita’s Resort in Pangasinan.[7] Oliver was then brought to a room and his
blindfold removed. He stayed inside the
room for one (1) week. During his stay, a
woman, later identified as Lanie dela Cruz (dela Cruz), took care of him by
feeding him three (3) times a day.[8]
After three (3) days of negotiation,
the kidnappers agreed to lower the ransom to P1.7 million.[9] On
Later that night, Oliver was made to
board the same van and brought to the Petron Gas Station in P500.00 and was told
that he would be fetched by his uncle inside a canteen in the gas station.[11] At around
After
the kidnapping incident, an investigation was conducted by the Intelligence
Section of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Malolos, Bulacan, through
SPO2 Epafrodito Aliling and SPO2 Antonio Chungtuyco. It appears that one of the suspects was a member
of an NPA rebel returnee group headed by Armando Rodrigo, Jr.[13] Upon the killing of Bert Liwanag, his girlfriend, dela Cruz, who was a
suspected member of the group, was invited for questioning. On that occasion, she admitted her participation
in the kidnapping of Oliver Caparas and implicated appellants.[14]
An
Information was filed on
That
on or about the 10th day of September 1996, in the municipality of
Malolos, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with force, violence and intimidation,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and take away one Oliver Caparas y
Navarro, a 13-year old boy for the purpose of extorting ransom and detain and
deprive him of his liberty for a period of seven (7) days, more or less and
later released after ransom money in the sum of P1.7M was paid by the
victim’s father to the accused.
Contrary to law.[15]
Four of the accused were apprehended,
namely: Plata, Rodrigo, Fajardo and dela Cruz.
The rest remained at large. The
trial court, upon motion of the prosecution, discharged Dela Cruz to serve as
state witness.[16]
On
arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty.
Thereafter, trial proceeded. The
prosecution presented the following witnesses: the kidnap victim, Oliver
Caparas, his father Eleazar Caparas, his uncle Pedro Navarro, SPO2 Antonio
Chungtuyco, SPO2 Epafrodito Aliling, and accused turned witness dela Cruz. The defense presented their evidence, which
consists of the testimonies of appellants and other witnesses supporting their
alibi.
On
Appellants
Plata and Fajardo submitted their individual appeal briefs. Essentially, the main issue for resolution is
whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellants.
The guilt of the appellants was
established beyond reasonable doubt by the testimonies of the victim, the man
who paid the ransom, and a fellow participant to the crime, who had turned
state witness for the prosecution.
Fajardo questions dela Cruz’s discharge
as a state witness on the ground that she was a co-conspirator. He contends that the testimony of Pedro,
Oliver and Eleazar Caparas would already suffice as direct evidence available
for the proper prosecution of the offense committed.[17]
Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of
Court provides:
When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of
any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court
may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so
that they may be witnesses for the state when, after requiring the prosecution
to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a
hearing in support of the discharge, the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity
for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in
its material points;
(d) Said accused does not
appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any
time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
The power to prosecute includes the
initial discretion to determine who should be utilized by the government as a
state witness. The prosecution has
gathered the evidence against the accused and is in a better position to decide
the testimonial evidence needed by the State to press its prosecution to a
successful conclusion. Under our Rules,
however, it is the courts that will finally determine whether the requirements
have been satisfied to justify the discharge of an accused to become a witness
for the government.[18]
We affirm the finding of the trial
court that the testimony of dela Cruz was an absolute necessity. The trial court observed:
x
x x x Without the testimony of dela Cruz, the prosecution is bound to falter in
bringing all the culprits before the bars of justice, the ominous prospect of
leaving many of them not fully identified and their respective role in the
crime unraveled loom large for the prosecution to ignore. True, the prosecution has direct evidence in
the person of Pedro Navarro and Oliver Caparas, but, apparently, in view of the
complex situation the two have found themselves in their testimonies have taken
a limited thrust, hence, it becomes the bounden duty of the prosecution to fill
in the void with all the resources under its command. From the prosecution’s standpoint, therefore,
insofar, as the other accused are concerned, no direct evidence is at its
disposal at this stage to establish their complicity in the abduction of
Caparas. Only dela Cruz, according to
them, could supply the much needed information to pin down the whole bunch that
took Caparas forcibly for ransom.
Following their line of reasoning, without dela Cruz’s testimony, the
whole truth would never be known. Along
these considerations, the reality of de la Cruz’ testimony being an absolute
necessity in the trial of this case stands indisputable, and given the absence
of any evidence against some of the accused, as pointed out above, de la Cruz’
testimony shall, in legal contemplation, constitute the only direct evidence as
against them..[19]
Neither does dela Cruz appear to be
the most guilty of the accused. The
trial court held that dela Cruz was not privy to the kidnap plan and was merely
taken in later by the group because they suspected that she already knew too
much.
Did the lower courts properly
consider the testimony of dela Cruz? It
is a jurisprudential rule that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or
co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating his co-accused cannot, by
itself and without corroboration, be regarded as proof with a moral certainty that
the latter committed or participated in the commission of the crime. The testimony must be substantially
corroborated in its material points by unimpeachable testimony and strong
circumstances and must be to such an extent that its trustworthiness becomes
manifest.[20] The testimony of dela Cruz was substantially
corroborated by no less than the victim himself, Oliver, as well as Pedro.
The trial court’s decision rested
mainly on the harmony in the testimonies of Oliver and dela Cruz. During the direct examination, Oliver gave an
account of how he was seized by four (4) armed men:
Fiscal:
Q- Mr. Witness, on
A- I was at the corner
waiting for a ride, ma’am.
Q- What corner?
A- Corner near our house
in Matimbo, Malolos, Bulacan, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- While you were there on
[that] particular date and time, do you remember of any unusual incident that
took place?
A- I was taken by four
(4) men, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- How about these four
(4) men whom, according to you, took you or snatched you, what were they doing?
A- I was boarded on a car, ma’am.
x x x x
A- Two of the men held my
hand and boarded me at the back seat where there’s a man seating and that man
held my head, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- After your head was
held by that man who was seating at the back, what happened?
A- I was pulled and they
blindfolded me, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- What happened after
that?
A- The car left, ma’am.
Q- And do you know as to
where the car proceeded?
A- I was transferred to
another vehicle, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- That vehicle that you
were transferred to, do you know what type of vehicle was it?
A- It was a van, ma’am.
Q- How did you know it was
a van?
A- Because the door was a sliding, ma’am.[21]
x x x x
A- I saw then brought down Oliver from the car blindfolded, ma’am.
Q- Who brought him down
from the car?
A- I cannot remember,
ma’am.
Q- From the car where was
Oliver brought or transferred?
A- Into the van, ma’am.
Q- Are you referring to
the van that you are riding on?
A- Yes, ma’am.[22]
On
direct examination, state witness dela Cruz corroborated Oliver’s
statement. She recounted that she was
riding in the van, together with the other suspects. Their other cohorts were in a car, which
trailed the van. She witnessed how appellants
Plata and Fajardo, Armando Rodrigo and Darius Rodrigo alighted from the said
car and grabbed Oliver from the street corner at around
The
testimonies of Oliver Caparas and dela Cruz likewise jibed on a couple of material
points, the place and the duration of the victim’s detention. In his testimony, Oliver surmised that he was
brought to Pangasinan and detained for a week, thus:
Q- After you were
transferred to the van, what happened?
A- We slept inside the
van, ma’am.
Q- You said you slept, can
you calculate for how long have you slept?
A- No, because I was
blindfolded, ma’am.
Q- At the time that you
slept, was the van still traveling or was it parked at the time you slept?
A- It was parked, ma’am.
Q- After you slept, what
happened?
A- We left, ma’am.
Q- And do you know where
did [sic] you proceed?
A- We went to a house,
ma’am.
Q- At the time that you
went to a house, how was your blindfolded [sic]?
A- When I was taken
inside the room, they already removed my blindfold, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- For how long did you
stay on that room?
A- For one (1) week,
ma’am.
Q- How were you able to
count the days?
A- Because of the lapse
of time, I counted the days, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- How many times in a day
were you given something to eat?
A- Three times, ma’am.
Q- And did you come to
know as to what place was that where that house was, wherein you were taken?
A- I came to conclude
that it was in Pangasinan because of the bread wrapper, ma’am.[24]
Dela
Cruz confirmed this fact in her testimony, as follows:
Q- After Oliver Caparas
was transferred to the van where you were riding at, what happened next?
A- The van left going to
x x x x
Q- You said that the van
left from
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- Do you know what place
in
A- They went to an
apartment but it was already occupied so we proceeded to a [p]arking lot,
ma’am.
Q- What did you do with
the [sic] parking lot?
A- We stayed and slept
there inside the van, ma’am.
Q- Up to what time did you
stay in the van in the [p]arking lot?
A- Overnight, ma’am.
Q- What happened after
that?
A- The following day we
went to Pangasinan, ma’am.
Q- Where in Pangasinan did
you go?
A- I do not know the
place but we stopped at Bonita’s Resort, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- You said that you were
ordered to take care of the child Oliver, did you take care of him?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- What care did you do?
A- I serve him his meal,
ma’am.
Q- For how many times did
you serve him in a [sic] meals all in all at Bonita Resort?
A- One (1) week, ma’am.
Q- By the way what date
was that when Oliver was brought to Bonita Resort?
A-
Q- Up to?
A- Up to September 18,
ma’am.[25]
Further, Plata was positively
identified by Oliver as the one who served as a guard, when the latter was
detained in a house in Pangasinan:
Q- In that place wherein [sic]
you were taken. I am referring to that
house where your blindfold was already removed. Aside from that man who was
giving the food, were there other persons there that you have seen?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- Who were or who was
that person?
A- Rey Plata, ma’am.
Q- What was Rey Plata
doing there?
A- He was guarding me,
ma’am.
x x x x
Q- How did you know that
this Rey Plata was guarding you which
according to you he was just on the adjacent room?
A- Because everytime I
made a walk, I saw him inside that other room, ma’am.
Fiscal:
Q- This Rey Plata whom
you’ve seen there, is he inside this courtroom?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- Point to us this Rey
Plata.
Interpreter:
Witness is
pointing to a man wearing an orange t-shirt and when asked his name, answered:
Reynaldo Plata.[26]
Before the Court, Plata seeks to
discredit the credibility of Oliver as a witness. He alleges that the positive
identification made by Oliver should not be given weight and credence. He argues that the delay in reporting the
crime to the police authorities could be construed as an afterthought to implicate
Plata in the crime. Furthermore, he
claims that the police authorities literally induced the victim to point to him
as one of the kidnappers.[27]
The failure to immediately report the
kidnapping incident does not diminish the credibility of the witness. People react differently in particular
situations and respond to stimuli in varying ways and degrees. Witnesses of
startling occurrences do not react similarly, depending on the situation and
their state of mind.[28] The victim and his relatives might have been
cowed by fear of reprisal from the kidnappers.
The accusation that the police authorities prodded Oliver Caparas to
implicate Plata does not appear plausible.
The burden of proving this allegation rests on the defense. However, these allegations were left
unsubstantiated. There is no showing of any
improper motive on the part of the police officers to pin down Plata.
Plata underscores the inconsistencies
of dela Cruz’s statements made in court, such as (1) the presence and
participation of Plata during the planning and commission of the crime; (2) the
type of vehicle used in returning the kidnap victim; and (3) the incredulous
story regarding the participation of all other accused in the alleged crime.[29]
Well-entrenched is the legal precept
that findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of
the testimonies of witnesses, its assessment of the credibility of the said
witnesses and its evidence based on the said findings are
given high respect if not conclusive effect by the appellate court, unless the
trial court overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted facts and
circumstances of substance which if considered will alter the outcome of the
case.[30] The
trial court lent credence to the positive identification made by dela Cruz, to
wit:
x x x Lanie, in fact, has positively identified
the three (3) accused on trial not only by their faces but also by their
aliases pointing to Rey Plata as “Jeffrey,” Feliciano Fajardo, Jr. as “Gerry”
and Darius as “Darius.” Thus, the
identification made by her as to who actually seized Oliver and took him by car
to Tarlac, Tarlac, and the men she rode with in a van from Sta. Maria, Bulacan
to Tarlac, Tarlac up to Baguio City and finally to Bonita Resort in Pangasinan
is credible and trustworthy. True, Lanie incurred some inconsistencies in the
process, but this, to this Court, are brought about by lapses in memory due to
the time interval between the abduction and her testimony in court which in no
way detracts from the credibility of the witness. Lanie finds corroboration from the victim
himself, Oliver Caparas. As established,
Lanie took care of Oliver during all the time, from September 11 to
Sustaining the testimony
of dela Cruz, the appellate court held:
In evaluating Lanie’s testimony, we note that she indeed made
inconsistent statements about the roles of the various particeps criminis. Whether
these are memory lapses or intentional misdeclarations are not easy to tell
with absolute certainty. While we have to consider her whole
testimony, our evaluation[,] however[,] necessarily has to focus on the aspects
relating to the accused-appellants.
Thus, other inconsistencies (such as those relating to the role of the
deceased Bert) do not need to unduly concern us. The more important test too in determining
whether to generally accept or reject her testimony lies in its degree of
corroboration with the testimonies of witnesses whose credibility we have
accepted, namely, those of Oliver and Pedro.
We find in this examination that Oliver’s story dovetails with those
of Lanie on the details of the actual kidnapping, the travel to
As noted by the trial court, there
may have been inconsistencies in the narration of dela Cruz. These, however, were minor details and simply
could be attributed to the frailty of human memory. It cannot be expected that her testimony
would be entirely flawless. Inconsistencies
as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the
witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to
strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies
have been rehearsed.[33] Moreover, the testimony of dela Cruz
coincides with that of Oliver and Pedro relating to the principal occurrence
and the positive identification of appellants.
Plata insists that dela Cruz harbored
a grudge against him because he was apparently a member of the Armando Rodrigo
group, the lone suspect in the murder of Bert Liwanag, dela Cruz’s
boyfriend.
Plata’s effort to impute ill-motive
on the part of de la Cruz to falsely testify against him does not hold water. Even granting that De la Cruz may have an axe
to grind is of no moment. Plata was
positively identified by Oliver. His
statement was corroborated by dela Cruz.
Motive becomes essential only when the identity of the culprit is in
doubt[34]
and not when he is positively identified by a credible witness.
The guilt
of Fajardo was further established by the testimony of Pedro, who paid the
ransom. Fajardo questions the manner by
which he was identified by Pedro. He
avers that he was arrested on the basis of the sworn statement of Lanie dela
Cruz and brought before Mayor Domingo where Pedro Navarro identified him.[35]
Yet, in his testimony, Pedro
categorically identified Fajardo as the person who received the ransom money, viz:
Q- When you were already
at the highway by the camachile tree, what happened?
A- After two minutes, two
persons riding in a motorcycle approached, one of them alighted, sir.
Q- And when that man got
off from the motorcycle, how far is he from you?
A- One lengt[h], sir.
x x x x
Q- At that distance[,]
what did the person you described tell [sic] you if any?
A- He uttered the word
Pedro.
Q- What did you do when
you heard Pedro?
A- I asked him “Ano[?]”
Q- And when he uttered the
man Pedro, what did you do?
A- I handed to him the
money and [sic] I am carrying, sir.
Q- And it was placed in
what?
A- It was wrapped in an
El Shaddai handkerchief and placed inside the guess plastic bag, sir.
Q- At that time when you
handed the money, how far was he in relation to you?
A- ½ arm lengt[h] more or
less, sir.
Q- At that distance[,]
could you describe that said [sic] uttered Pedro and who received the money
from you?
A- Mestiso looking wearing shades, sir.
COURT:
Q- How
tall was he?
A- 5’6 or 5’5 tall, Your
Honor. Wearing maong pants and white t-shirt.
Q- How about the built?
A- Medium, sir.
Q- How about the age?
A- Around 25 to 30, sir.
Q- How about the hair cut?
A- He is wearing a cap,
sir.
Q- If that man will be
shown to you again[,] would you identify him.
A- Yes, sir.
Q- Will you look around in
this Court?
A- Not here, sir.
Q- Do you know where he is
now?
A- Confined at the mental
hospital, sir.
Q- Why did you know that
the person was confined in the mental hospital?
A- Because when was[sic]
were summoned by Mayor Domingo to get our statement[,] I pointed to him as the
man to whom I handed over the money, sir.
COURT:
Q- How did you know that he
was confined in the mental hospital.
A- I heard it inside this
Courtroom that Gerry Fajardo is presently confined in Mental Hospital, sir.
Q- When you pointed that
man in front of Mayor Domingo were you able to know his name?
A- Yes, sir.
Q- Who told you his name?
A- Mayor himself, sir.
Q- And after you were just
to identify that man, what happened next?
A- No more, sir.[36]
In
his sworn affidavit taken before the Office of the Mayor of Malolos, Pedro
Navarro also made the following declaration:
T. Sinabi mo na ikaw ang
nag-abot ng ransom money na P1,700,000.00 sa mga kidnapper nuong ika-17
Setyember 1996 at ang oras ay ika-10:30 ng umaga sa Super Highway pagitan ng
Meycauayan at Marilao, Bulacan, itong umabot [sic] ng pera sa iyo, makikilala
mo ba ito, kung iyong makikita?
S- Opo.
T- Ipinaaalam naming sa iyo mayroon kaming nahuling suspek sa kidnapping na kasalukuyang nakakulong ditto sa Malolos, Bulacan, ipapakita namin it sa iyo. (Ipinakita ng imbestigador ang suspek na si Gerry Fajardo na kasalukuyang nakakulong sa kulungan ng Malolos, Bulacan).
S- Opo, iyan po. (Itinuro ni Pedro Navarro ang suspek na si Gerry Fajardo at kinilala niya na siyang umabot at kumuha ng pera sa kanywa, nuong ika-17 ng Setyembre 1996.)[37]
During
his cross-examination, Pedro Navarro insisted on the certainty of his
identification as to Fajardo. He
explained:
Q- Right after going [sic]
the ransom money, have you bothered by reason of your own initiative to note
down the description of the person to whom you gave the money in order to guide
you in making the statements which are already contained in this Exhibit A?
A- After I handled [sic] the
ransom money I committed to my memory the physical features of the kidnappers
and from here.
COURT:
Witness
pointing to the portion of his face from the nose up to ears.
Witness:
And every night
even his movement[,] I memorize his movement[,] and at night I am always recall
[sic] the feature that I have seen on
his person, sir.
x x x x
A- I observe how he walks
when I handed him the money, I saw his hands and his forearm and I even
observed the way he uttered the word “Pedro,” I saw his lips move, sir.
x x x x
A- From the time that
they arrived on board the motorcycle and from where he came from I already
observed his movements up to the time that he called me “Pedro” and then I
asked him again to mention the name “Pedro” just to make sure that he is the
man to whom I will give the ransom money as directed by the leader of the
kidnap gang, sir.
Q- Now, and that Pedro was
uttered by this man while he was facing you and standing, correct?[38]
Pedro
Navarro’s identification of Fajardo was positive and unequivocal. The record is
devoid of any showing that Pedro was impelled by ill motive to impute the
commission of a grave crime to Fajardo.
Even dela Cruz confirmed the presence
of Fajardo in the kidnapping incident:
A- I saw Amang, Gerry, Roger and Jeffrey pulled Oliver
into the car, ma’am.[39]
x x x x
Q- What transpired while
you were at Bonita Resort?
A- They were able to get
a room and they alighted Oliver from the van, ma’am.
Q- What happened after
that?
A- Oliver was brought
upstairs to a room, ma’am.
Q- What happened next?
A- When they were able to
bring Oliver inside the room only Roger and Jeffrey was left at the resort,
ma’am.
x x x x
Q- Why were Roger, Jeffrey
and you left behind?
A- I was ordered to care
of [sic] the child and while Roger and Jeffrey were took to stand guard outside
the room, ma’am.
Q- Do you know where Roger and Jeffrey stayed as you said they guarded?
A- Outside the room,
ma’am.
Q- The room occupied by
whom?
A- Oliver Caparas was
inside the room while Roger and Jeffrey were staying outside because there is
an ante room, ma’am.[40]
x x x x
Q- You are mentioning
John-John, Amang, Jeffrey, Darius, and Gerry,
are there any of those persons here inside the court room?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- Will you please point
to them?
x x x x
Interpreter:
Witness pointing to a man wearing an inmate uniform and when asked his name answered Feliciano Fajardo, Jr.[41]
Plata
insisted he was not a member of the kidnap for ransom gang. Instead, he interposed the defense of
alibi. He alleged that he was driving
his tricycle and servicing school children between Tibig to
Plata’s
alibi is patently weak, considering that the alibi is corroborated by his wife,
and a wife is generally perceived to be partial to her husband. Likewise, the testimony of Esther Guevarra is
unavailing. To establish alibi, the accused
must not only show that he was in a place other than the situs of the crime at the time it was committed, such that it was
physically impossible for him to have committed the same.[44] Granting
that Plata had religiously fetched the children of Ester at
Under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of kidnapping is committed
with the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (1) that the offender
is a private individual; (2) that he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) that the act of detention or
kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) that in the commission of the offense, any
of the following circumstances is present: (a) that the kidnapping or detention
lasts for more than five (5) days; or (b) that it is committed simulating
public authority; or (c) that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon
the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) that
the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.[47] It is evident from the testimonies of the
witnesses that the essential elements of kidnapping were present. First, appellants are private
individuals. Second, Oliver was abducted
by four (4) armed men. Third, he was
detained in a house in Pangasinan against his will. Fourth, the detention lasted for seven (7)
days. Fifth, Oliver Caparas was a minor
at the time of the kidnapping incident.
Under
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7659, the imposition of the death penalty is warranted
if the motive of the accused is to exact ransom for the release of the kidnap
victim. We find that the prosecution has
sufficiently established this qualifying circumstance. As testified to by
Eleazar, the kidnappers asked for P1.7 million in exchange for Oliver’s
freedom. In fact, the said amount was
handed by Pedro to Fajardo. However, the
death penalty cannot be imposed in view of the passage of R.A. No. 9346,
entitled “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
We
affirm the award of actual damages amounting to P1,700,000.00
representing the amount of ransom money, as well as that of moral damages of P100,000.00,
conformably with jurisprudence.[49]
WHEREFORE,
the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The penalties
on appellants Rey Plata and Feliciano
Fajardo, Jr. are
both reduced to reclusion
perpetua, to which
they are accordingly sentenced, without eligibility for parole.
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate
Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]Rollo, pp. 3-35. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.
[3]Entitled
“An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending For
that Purpose the Revised Penal Code as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and
For Other Purposes” and approved on
[18]
[30]People v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 171731, 11
August 2006; People v. Candaza, G.R.
No. 170474, 16 June 2006, 491 SCRA 280, 297, citing People v. Gonzales, Jr., 424 Phil. 336, 352-353 (2002); Llave v. People, G.R. No. 166040,
[33]
[34]Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006, 483 SCRA 649, 667, citing People v. Diaz, 443 Phil. 67, 88 (2003); People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 504; People v. Ceniza, 458 Phil. 150 (2003).
[44]People v. Mangitngit, G.R. No. 171270,
20 September 2006; People v. Suyu,
G.R. No. 170191, 16 August 2006; People
v. Canuto, G.R. No. 169083, 7 August 2006, citing People v. Seguis, 402 Phil. 584, 603 (2001); People v. Malejana, G.R. No. 145002, 24 January 2006, 479 SCRA 610;
People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 158797,
29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 407, 417, citing People
v. Consejero, 352 SCRA 276 (2001).
[46]Tadeja v. People, G.R. No. 145336, 21
July 2006; People v. Sades, G.R. No.
171087, 12 July 2006, citing People v.
Loterono, 440 Phil. 268, 280 (2002); People
v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 168101, 13 February 2006, 482 SCRA 435, 449, citing People v. Intong, G.R. Nos. 145034-35,
05 February 2004, 422 SCRA 134, 139.
[47]People v. Ejandra, G.R. No. 134203, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 364; People v. Saldaña, G.R. No. 148518, 15 April 2004; People v. Larrañaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, 3 February 2004, 421 SCRA 530.
[48]SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.