Republic
of the
SUPREME
COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- CHRISTOPHER
BRINGAS y GARCIA, BRYAN BRINGAS y GARCIA, JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y CRUZ,
ERICKSON PAJARILLO y BASER (deceased), and EDEN SY CHUNG, Accused-Appellants. |
|
G.R. No. 189093 Present: VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, PERALTA,
and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: April
23, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I
O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
In
the instant appeal,[1]
accused-appellants John Robert Navarro y Cruz, Christopher Bringas y Garcia,
Bryan Bringas y Garcia, and Eden Sy Chung seek their acquittal by a reversal of
the January 3, 2006 Decision[2]
and June 6, 2007 Resolution[3]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00911, which affirmed their
earlier conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258 in Parañaque
City for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 6539 (Carnapping) and for violation
of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Kidnapping for Ransom) in
Criminal Case Nos. 95-136 and 95-137, respectively.
The Facts
On April 28, 1995, accused-appellants
Christopher Bringas y Garcia alias “Jimboy,” John Robert Navarro y
Cruz alias “Jun,” Dennis Ticsay y Peña alias “Peng,” Aruel Ross y Picardo,
Bryan Bringas y Garcia alias “Bobby,” Roger Calaguas y Jimenez alias “Bronson,”
Ericson Pajarillo[4] y
Baser alias “Erick,” Edgardo Sulayao y Petilla alias “Eddie,” Eden Sy Chung
alias “Kim,” Glen Sangalang, and Ricky Castillo were indicted for Carnapping or violation of RA
6539. The Information[5] in
Criminal Case No. 95-136 reads:
That at about 1:30 in the afternoon of December 14,
1994 at Marina Subdivision, Municipality of Parañaque and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, while in the process of
executing their criminal design to kidnap for ransom a minor child named
PATRICK TENG, with intent to gain and with violence and intimidation, did then
and there, take a motor vehicle, Toyota Corolla, with Plate No. TNK-782, owned
by Erick Teng.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The same accused were likewise
indicted for Kidnapping for
Ransom
or violation of Art. 267
of the RPC. The Information[6]
in Criminal Case No. 95-137 reads:
That at about 1:30 in the afternoon of December 14,
1994 at Marina Subdivision, Municipality of Parañaque and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, did then and there take, carry away and kidnap a
minor, PATRICK TENG, against his will and detained him for the purpose of
extorting ransom for his release which was effected after payment by his
parents of the amount of TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P2.5 Million)
to the damage and prejudice of aforementioned victim and his parents.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
Jason Rosales, a member of the group,
was not included in both indictments as he was utilized as state witness and placed under the Witness Protection Program of the
Government.
Except for Glen
Sangalang and Ricky Castillo who remain at large, the rest of the accused were
apprehended. When arraigned on September 28, 1995, the
apprehended accused, assisted by their respective counsels, uniformly entered a
plea of “not guilty.”
To substantiate the accusations, the prosecution presented the
testimonies of: (1) Rosales (state witness); (2) Maricel Hipos, house-helper of
Eric Teng; (3) Police Chief Inspector Gilbert C. Cruz of the Philippine
Anti-Crime Commission (PACC); (4) Police Chief Inspector Michael Ray Aquino of
Task Force Habagat; (5) Police Chief Inspector Paul Tucay of Task Force
Habagat; (6) Eric, the father of the minor kidnap victim Patrick Teng; and (7)
Antonio Nebrida (Tony) of PTV 4.
Version of the Prosecution
Culled
from the records, the People’s version of the incident is synthesized as
follows:
That
sometime around 11:30 a.m. on December 14, 1994, Eric’s house helper Maricel
received a phone call purportedly from Eric’s brother-in-law, Johnson,
informing that a gift will be delivered for Patrick, and she was instructed to
wait for the driver who will be arriving soon.[7] At around 1:30 p.m., the doorbell rang and
Maricel went to check the gate.[8] When she asked who it was, the men outside
answered that they were delivering the gift for Patrick from Johnson.[9] Peering through the gate she saw two men,[10]
whom she came to know later on to be Rosales and Calaguas with the latter
holding a large gift in Christmas wrapper.[11] Since the gift could not fit the aperture in
the gate, Maricel opened the gate.[12]
Calaguas
then poked a gun at Maricel and pulled her towards Eric’s house.[13] She was made to knock at the front door which
was opened by Sweeney, the sister of Eric.[14] Maricel, Sweeney, and the other house helpers,
Dina and Melanie, were herded by Calaguas to the children’s room at the second
floor together with Eric’s children, Patrick and Mikee.[15] While on the stairway, Rosales asked for the
key to Eric’s car.[16] Maricel was then gagged with packing tape by
Pajarillo,[17] and the
three of them went down.[18] Maricel pointed to the car key in the
kitchen.[19] Thereafter, Maricel was brought upstairs to
the children’s room by Pajarillo.[20] Already inside the children’s room were
Sulayao and Calaguas.[21] Pajarillo then tied the hands and feet of
Maricel,[22] while
the others did the same to Sweeney, Dina and Melanie.[23] However, Dina’s feet were not tied.[24] One of the men said “kunin na ninyo ang
bata.”[25] Maricel identified Ross as among those who
took Patrick.[26] The kidnappers also took Eric’s red Toyota
Corolla (Model GLI 1994).[27]
After
the kidnappers left, Dina looked for a pair of scissors.[28] After the girls extricated themselves from
their bindings, they immediately called Kim Teng (Kimbol), the brother of Eric,
who rushed to Eric’s house.[29] Shortly thereafter, at around 2:30 p.m.,
Kimbol called Eric to tell him about the kidnapping of his son, Patrick.[30] Eric rushed home.[31] At around 3:10 p.m., Eric received the first
call from one of the kidnappers (negotiator) demanding a ransom of PhP 10 million
for his son and ordered him not to report the matter to the police else Patrick
will be harmed.[32] A friend of the grandparents of Patrick,
however, reported the kidnapping to the PACC Special Operations Task Force
Habagat.[33]
While
Eric was trying to pool resources from friends and relatives, he continued
receiving calls from the same negotiator urging him to cooperate.[34] At about 4:00 p.m., Eric received a call from
Gen. Panfilo Lacson, then head of the PACC Special Operations Task Force
Habagat.[35] Eric was only able to raise PhP 200,000 that
afternoon.[36]
Through
another call, the negotiator instructed Eric to produce six individuals for
them to interview and choose from to deliver the money, the qualifications
given was “kailangang matalik ninyong kaibigan na mapapagkatiwalan ng pera,
hindi ninyo kamag-anak, mukhang instik at marunung managalog.”[37] The negotiator gave his name as Eric.[38] They then called Racquel Chung, the wife of
Eden Sy Chung (Chung), asking if Chung could help.[39] Imelda, Eric’s wife, was able to talk to
Chung who was willing to help deliver the money if selected.[40] At around 10:00 p.m., Eric again received a
call from the negotiator which was followed by another call, this time by a
different person.[41]
The
next day, December 15, 1994, at 8:00 a.m., Chung arrived.[42] Chung encouraged Eric to pay the ransom as
soon as possible.[43] Thereafter, Eric received so many calls but
was able to identify the negotiator’s voice.
Upon query on the six individuals, he informed the negotiator that they
could only come up with two: Chung and
John Tuang.[44] The negotiator interviewed both Chung and
John Tuang on the phone.[45] By lunchtime, the ransom was reduced to PhP 8
million,[46] which
was further reduced to PhP 5 million at 4:00 p.m.[47] But Eric still could not raise the
amount. After dinner, the negotiator
instructed Chung and John Tuang to go home.[48] Chung borrowed Eric’s car.[49] Thereafter, they received another call
threatening, “puputulin ko ang daliri ng anak mo, puputulin ko ang bayag ng
anak mo papatayin ko kayo.”[50]
After a
while, the negotiator called again demanding for Chung to come back, and Chung
came back to the Teng’s residence at around 8:00 p.m.[51] Eric was then instructed to have the ransom
money delivered, which at that time was significantly reduced to PhP 2.5 million
and which he was able to raise that day.[52] It was to be placed in a box and gift
wrapped.[53] Chung was instructed by the negotiator to
deliver the ransom money at the
On the
way, Chung called Eric telling him that he was intercepted by two cars which he
had to follow.[56] The PACC operatives tailing Chung who were on
radio contact with the PACC, however, belied Chung’s allegation of
interception.[57] The PACC then suspected Chung to be in
cahoots with the kidnappers.[58] Gen. Lacson thereafter instructed Eric to
delay Chung upon his return.[59] Eventually, Chung, bringing Patrick, arrived
at Eric’s place past midnight.[60] Chung reported to Eric that “hinarang ako
inipit ako sa dalawang kotse at nakita ko si Johnson sa isa sa mga sasakyan.”[61] Five minutes after Chung’s arrival, Gen.
Lacson and his men arrived and arrested Chung.[62]
A few
hours thereafter, at around 4:00 a.m. of December 16, 1994, Eric received a
call from Gen. Lacson informing him that the ransom money was recovered except
for PhP 100,000 which was given by Chung to Navarro.[63] At around noon of December 16, 1994, Eric
again received a call from the PACC informing him that Chung wanted to talk to
him.[64] Chung apologized to Eric saying, “Sorry, ginawa
ko sa inyo ito, napipilitan lang ako” and “[T]utulong naman ako
sa PACC ibinigay ko na yung dalawang pangalan.”[65] Chung named Navarro and Jimboy Bringas.[66] At 4:00 p.m. of December 16, 1994, Eric again
received a call from the PACC confirming the arrest of both Navarro and Jimboy
Bringas.[67] And, later, at 9:00 p.m., the PACC further
informed Eric that they have arrested the other kidnappers who were pointed out
by Jimboy Bringas.[68] Moreover, Eric’s red Toyota Corolla was
likewise recovered.[69]
During the December 17, 1994 press
conference at the PACC Headquarters in
Tony of
PTV 4 testified[73] that he
was the newscaster of PTV 4 of the December 17, 1994 evening news edition that
what was taped by Eric Teng.
Police Chief Inspector Aquino was the Operations Chief of the PACC
Task Force Habagat who coordinated the operation, monitoring and response to
the kidnapping of Patrick Teng; he assigned Police Senior Inspector Rolando
Mendoza to secure the house of Eric Teng and monitor the communications with
the negotiator of the kidnappers.[74] Police Chief Inspector
Cruz was the one who led a team in arresting Navarro and Jimboy Bringas at
around half past 1:00 p.m. on December 16, 1994 in the vicinity of Malate.[75] And Police Chief Inspector
Tucay was the team leader who led the team which tailed Chung in the evening of
December 15, 1994 to the house of Chung’s mother, the Bowling Inn and
Philippine Westin Plaza; and also led the team in the afternoon and evening of
December 16, 1994 in arresting Calaguas, Sulayao, Ross, Pajarillo, Bobby
Bringas and Dennis Ticsay in Pampanga and in recovering Eric Teng’s red Toyota
Corolla.[76]
Version
of the Defense
The fractious defense offered in evidence the testimonies of: (1) John Robert Navarro; (2) Sr. Police Inspector Michael Ray Aquino; (3) Eden Sy Chung (Chung);
(4) Christopher Bringas (Jimboy
Bringas); (5) Roger Calaguas (Calaguas); (6) Lourdes
Bringas, mother of Christopher and Bryan; (7) Bryan Bringas (Bobby Bringas);
(8) Edgardo Sulayao (Sulayao), also known as Kosa; (9) Ericson Pajarillo
(Pajarillo); and (10) Aruel Ross (Ross).
The
accused’s divergent defenses uniformly assailed the
credibility of Maricel Hipos and state witness Rosales, and in assiduously
declaring their innocence they pointed to each other as the perpetrator or
mastermind of the kidnapping for ransom.
From
their testimonies, Navarro[77]
and Chung[78]
similarly asserted being implicated by the other in the crime and pointed at
each other as the mastermind thereof.
Calaguas,[79]
Sulayao,[80]
Pajarillo[81] and
Ross[82]
uniformly point to Chung and Navarro as the brains behind the kidnapping who
were assisted by Rosales and Jimboy Bringas, and that they were merely
implicated for they were merely hired as factory workers (Calaguas and Sulayao),
for a driving job (Ross) or was only doing a favor for Rosales (Pajarillo). They admitted the taking of Patrick Teng but
denied doing any violence and the use of handguns. Calaguas and Sulayao repudiated their joint
August 21, 1995 Pinagsanib na Salaysay ng Pagpapabulaan[83]
sworn to before the state prosecutor for allegedly not being true as their
former counsel, Atty. Gasmen, did not put therein what they actually narrated
to him.
Jimboy
Bringas maintained that he was only implicated by Chung and Navarro for he was
neither involved with the crime nor participated in its commission as he was
only tasked to look for factory workers by Chung and for tourist guides by
Navarro.[84]
It must
be noted that, while all the accused pinpointed and identified Navarro as one
of the masterminds, only Pajarillo testified otherwise that John Robert Navarro
is not the same person as John or Jun Navarro who was with him and Rosales in
the evening of December 13, 1994 in Tradewinds Hotel, and on December 14, 1994
when they delivered gifts and the kidnapping of Patrick was committed.
Bobby
Bringas strongly protested his innocence as he was in Pampanga on the days
material and was never involved in the crime but was merely implicated by
Rosales. His testimony[85]
and that of his mother, Lourdes Bringas,[86]
were dispensed with upon the prosecution’s stipulation that he was in Pampanga
from December 14, 1994 until his arrest by PACC operatives on December 16,
1994.
Acquittal of Dennis Ticsay
On July
30, 1997, accused Dennis Ticsay (Ticsay) filed a Motion for Leave of Court to
File Demurrer to Evidence[87]
which was unopposed and granted by the trial court.[88] Accordingly, on August 22, 1997, Ticsay filed
his Demurrer to Evidence.[89] On December 3, 1997, the trial court granted
the demurrer and acquitted Ticsay.[90]
Subsequently,
on June 10, 1998, the motions to grant bail filed by the other accused were
denied by the trial court.[91]
The Ruling of the RTC and CA
The RTC, finding the testimonies of prosecution witnesses more
credible, rendered, on March 26, 1999, its Joint Decision[92] finding
accused-appellants and the other accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes charged. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, viewed in the
light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
In Criminal Case No. 95-136
for CARNAPPING, defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 6539, finding
accused CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS y Garcia; JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y Cruz; ARUEL ROSS y
Picardo; ROGER CALAGUAS y Jimenez; ERICKSON PAHARILLO y Baser; EDGARDO SULAYAO
y Petilla and EDEN SY CHUNG GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, they are hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of nineteen (19)
years as minimum to twenty-seven (27) years, as maximum.
For failure of the
prosecution to prove the guilt of BRYAN BRINGAS y GARCIA, he is hereby
ACQUITTED.
In Criminal Case No. 95-137,
for KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM, defined and penalized under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act no. 7659, finding accused
CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS y Garcia; JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y Cruz; ARUEL ROSS y Picardo;
BRYAN BRINGAS y Garcia; ROGER CALAGUAS y Jimenez; ERICKSON PAHARILLO y Baser;
EDGARDO SULAYAO y Petilla; and EDEN SY CHUNG guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
they are hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.
Likewise, accused JOHN ROBERT
NAVARRO y Cruz is hereby directed to pay Eric Teng the sum of PhP100,000.00 as
actual damages with interest thereon at the legal rate from December 15, 1994 until
fully paid and all the accused are directed to pay Eric Teng jointly and
severally the amount of PhP5,000,000.00 as moral damages; PhP2,000,000.00 as
exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
Let Alias Warrants of Arrest
issued against GLEN SANGALANG and RICKY CASTILLO for their immediate
apprehension which need not be returned until after they have been arrested.
SO ORDERED.[93]
Thru
its Order of Commitment (Mittimus),[94]
the RTC sent the accused to the Bureau of Corrections in
In
accordance, however, with People v. Mateo,[96] the Court, per its September 7, 2004 Resolution,[97] transferred the case
to the CA for intermediate review, docketed thereat
as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00911.
Eventually, the CA rendered the assailed Decision dated January 3,
2006, affirming the trial court. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the March 26, 1999 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court or
Navarro,
Pajarillo and Chung filed their respective motions for reconsideration[98] of
the assailed decision. As stated at the threshold hereof, the
CA, in the herein equally assailed Resolution dated June 6, 2007, denied
the motions, but, noting the passage of RA 9346[99]
lifting the death penalty, accordingly reduced the penalty to reclusion
perpetua. In the same assailed
Resolution, however, the CA further noted that the accused failed to file their
motions for reconsideration or notices of appeal as regards Criminal Case No.
95-136 for Carnapping, the lesser offense, and, citing Sec. 13(b) of Rule 124
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, it pronounced finality of the
affirmed RTC decision as regards Criminal Case No. 95-136.
Subsequently,
on July 16, 2007, the CA issued a Resolution[100]
for the issuance of a Partial Entry of Judgment[101]
in Criminal Case No. 95-136 as to Ross, Jimboy Bringas, Calaguas and
Sulayao. Undaunted, accused-appellants
Navarro, Jimboy Bringas, Bobby Bringas and Chung filed their respective notices
of appeal pursuant to Sec. 13 (b), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
In the
meantime, on April 8, 2006, Pajarillo died from aspiration pneumonia secondary
to PTB,[102] while
Sulayao died on March 10, 2007.[103]
On June
23, 2009, the CA issued a Resolution[104]
giving due course to the notices of appeal filed by accused-appellants and
ordered the issuance of a (Partial) Entry of Judgment[105]
against Ross who opted not to take any further appeal to this Court, and
dismissed the instant criminal case as to Sulayao on account of his death on
March 10, 2007 without prejudice to his civil liability.
We take
notice, however, that the CA failed to note the May 4, 2009 letter[106]
from the Bureau of Corrections in
Thus,
the instant appeals before us from accused-appellants Navarro, Jimboy Bringas,
Bobby Bringas and Chung who prayed for their respective acquittal from the
crime of kidnapping for ransom.
The
Issues/Assignment of Errors
The
People of the
In his appellant’s brief,[108]
Chung raises the following assignment of errors:
I
THE
A.
There is no clear and sufficient evidence to
establish that Appellant Chung participated in the planning of the crime;
B.
The evidence of conspiracy against Appellant
fails to establish his participation in the planning of the offense beyond
reasonable doubt;
C.
There are no overt acts attributable to
Appellant Chung which would establish that he intended to, or did actually
carry out the alleged conspiracy;
D.
There is no evidence which would establish
Appellant Chung’s presence at the scene of the crime, or his alleged
participation in aiding his co-appellants in the commission thereof.
II
THE
III
THE
IV
THE
V
THE
Navarro,
on the other hand, raises in his Appellant’s Brief[110]
the sole assignment of error that: The
Court a quo committed serious error when it convicted him on the basis of what
may at best be considered circumstantial evidence despite clear and direct
testimonies of law enforcers and the other accused that proved his absence of
involvement in the crimes charged.[111]
In
their Accused-Appellants’ Brief,[112]
Jimboy and Bobby Bringas raise the following assignment of errors:
I
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY AS
PRINCIPALS OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.[113]
Moreover,
in their supplemental brief,[114]
Jimboy and Bobby Bringas additionally raise the assignment of errors that: (a) The Court of Appeals gravely erred in
finding them guilty despite the prosecution’s failure to prove it beyond
reasonable doubt; and, (b) that they conspired with the other perpetrators.[115]
The
foregoing issues or assignment of errors can actually be reduced and summarized
as follows: first, on the
credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in general and, in
particular, of Maricel Hipos and of the state witness Rosales; and, second,
on the finding of conspiracy.
The
Court’s Ruling
The
appeal is bereft of merit.
First Core Issue: Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses
Accused-appellants strongly assert
that Maricel Hipos and state witness Rosales only made up their respective
testimonies relative to how the kidnapping transpired.
There is no dispute that Patrick Teng
was kidnapped. It is admitted by the
accused that Patrick Teng was brought to Pampanga on the day he was abducted
and was released shortly before
Both courts a quo found all
accused guilty beyond reasonable for the crime of carnapping and
kidnapping. With the instant appeal,
what remains to be resolved is the respective criminal liability or lack
thereof of accused-appellants Navarro, Chung, Jimboy and Bobby Bringas. An assiduous review of the records at hand,
particularly the testimonies of both prosecution and defense witnesses,
however, constrains this Court to affirm the appellate court’s decision and
resolution affirming their conviction except that of Bobby Bringas.
Prosecution Witnesses More Credible
First.
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Maricel Hipos and Eric Teng
were straightforward, cohesive, positive and credible. More so when they are corroborated on
material points by the testimonies of both prosecution and defense witnesses. Besides, there is no showing that Maricel
Hipos and Eric Teng had any motive to falsely testify against the accused. As a rule, absent any evidence showing any
reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion
is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimonies are thus worthy
of full faith and credit.[116]
The testimony of Maricel was
initially assailed by accused-appellant Sulayao who testified that when the
kidnapping was carried out they did not use any weapon or handgun, that they
were let into the house voluntarily by Maricel and that it was Rosales who took
Patrick Teng without a struggle. This
assertion was uniformly shared by Pajarillo, Calaguas and Ross. However, aside from their mere assertion,
they did not present any evidence supporting such contention.
The testimony of Maricel on what
occurred is corroborated by the testimony of the accused that the gift Calaguas
was holding did not fit the aperture in the gate. Maricel never intended them to enter the
Teng’s premises but was merely constrained to open the gate due to the ruse
adopted by the accused.
Very telling are the testimonies of
Pajarillo, Sulayao and Ross asserting that they did not see Maricel. This is incredulous for Maricel positively
identified them as among the companions of Rosales during the extra-judicial
line-up conducted by the PACC in
Moreover, the mere denials of
Calaguas, Pajarillo, Sulayao and Ross cannot prevail over the positive
assertion of Maricel that she was with Sweeney, the sister of Eric Teng, and
two other helpers, Dina and Melanie, who were the “yayas” of Patrick and
Mikee. Pajarillo, Sulayao, Calaguas and
Ross want the Court to believe that it was only Maricel who was in the house of
Eric Teng or that aside from her there was nobody in the first floor of Eric
Teng’s house when Rosales supposedly brought down Patrick Teng.
Further, the testimony of Maricel is
not only credible but cohesive as well considering the events that transpired
from the phone call received at around 11:30 a.m. to the arrival of the
kidnappers at 1:30 p.m., the time Dina was able to find scissors to cut their
bindings and being freed therefrom and calling Kimbol, who rushed to Eric’s
place; then Kimbol calling Eric at around 2:30 p.m. with the latter rushing
home. The testimony of Eric would show
how he received the call from his brother, his rushing home and receiving the
first call from the negotiator [kidnappers] at around
As to the use of violence and
intimidation, it is abundantly clear from Maricel’s testimony that the accused
indeed used guns to threaten and intimidate them. At the very least, Maricel positively
identified Calaguas as the one holding the gift and poking her with a gun when
she opened the gate, and her being herded together with Sweeney and the other
house helpers to the children’s room at the second floor. The use of guns to threaten and intimidate is
not only plausible but well nigh credible considering the crime involved. Besides, it must be noted that during the
press conference on
It must be noted that there is no
showing that Maricel simply made up the details of her testimony or that she
was coached. Both courts a quo
found her testimony credible, cohesive and straightforward. We find no cogent reason to substitute the
findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. Besides, the trial court is in the best
position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because
of their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand, and to note
their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination—significant
factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing
the truth.[117]
Furthermore, the testimony of Eric
supplies what transpired after he received the call from his brother Kimbol on
December 14, 1994 until the morning of December 17, 1994 when the PACC held a
press conference presenting the alleged kidnappers and his being able to tape
segments of the evening news showing footages of the press conference. His testimony is likewise straightforward,
cohesive and credible, which was not at all rebutted by the defense.
Second.
The testimony of state witness Rosales was likewise
straightforward, cohesive and credible.
And it was likewise corroborated on some material points by the officers
of the PACC Task Force Habagat.
Rosales was among the six arrested on
December 16, 1994 in Pampanga. Jimboy
Bringas pinpointed them to PACC operatives led by Police Chief Inspector
Tucay. He was not included in the two
Informations since he was utilized as a state witness and placed under the
witness protection program of the government.
It must be noted that prosecutorial powers include the discretion of
granting immunity to an accused in exchange for testimony against another.[118] And the fact that an individual had not been
previously charged or included in an Information does not prevent the
prosecution from utilizing said person as a witness.[119]
In People v. Bohol, the Court
held that the fact that an accused has been “discharged as a state witness and
was no longer prosecuted for the crime charged does not render his testimony
incredible or lessen its probative weight.”[120]
The testimony of Rosales was not
rebutted by the accused. His narration
of the events transpiring from December 7 to 13, 1994 leading up to the actual
kidnapping on December 14, 1994 cohesively showed the specific roles of the
other accused relative to the instant crime.
Although the Court believes that he had a greater role than what he
testified to as being merely coerced. Be
that as it may, it would not change the fact that in his participation of the
crime, he knew and clearly pointed out the specific roles of the accused in the
conspiracy and actual execution of the kidnapping and the carnapping.
The testimonies of police officers
from the PACC corroborated the transfer of the Patrick to Chung at around or
shortly before midnight of December 15, 1994 in the parking lot of Philippine
Westin Plaza.
It bears stressing that prosecution
witnesses Maricel Hipos, Eric Teng and state witness Jason Rosales never
wavered in their testimonies under rigorous cross-examination by the various
counsels representing the accused during trial.
The same holds true with the testimonies of the PACC police officers.
In fine, when the credibility of
witnesses is in issue, the trial court’s assessment is accorded great weight
unless it is shown that it has overlooked a certain fact or circumstance of
weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of
the case.[121] In the instant case, we find no fact or
circumstance of substance overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated by the
courts a quo, except as to that of Bobby Bringas.
Third.
The prosecution witnesses PACC police officers gave clear, credible and
straightforward testimonies on what transpired on their end regarding the
kidnapping: their monitoring of the
negotiation, the surveillance of Chung and the arrest of the accused. Their testimonies were not at all
rebutted. In fact, as aptly narrated by
Police Chief Inspector Tucay, accused-appellants Chung and Navarro could not
deny seeing each other in the evening of December 15, 1994 in the vicinity of
their houses in Paco, their subsequent meeting at the Bowling Inn and at the
Philippine Westin Plaza. After his
arrest in the house of Eric Teng, Chung supplied to the PACC the names and
identities of Jimboy Bringas and Navarro which led to their arrest at past 1
p.m. on December 16, 1994 in Malate.
And, after his arrest, Jimboy Bringas in turn pinpointed to the PACC
operatives led by Police Chief Inspector Tucay the other accused who were
arrested in Pampanga late in the afternoon and early evening of December 16,
1994.
Fourth.
From the defense testimonies of Jimboy Bringas, Ross, Pajarillo, Sulayao
and Calaguas—upon the backdrop of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses—they
collectively point to Chung and Navarro as the brains of the kidnapping. Pajarillo, however, asserted that his
co-accused Navarro is not the same person as the mastermind Navarro. This assertion, however, fails vis-à-vis the
testimony of Rosales and other accused who testified that Navarro worked
closely with Chung.
Second Core Issue: Presence of Conspiracy
Kidnapping for ransom proven beyond reasonable doubt
The crime of Kidnapping and
serious illegal detention, under Art. 267[122]
of the RPC, has the
following elements:
(1) the
offender is a private individual; not either of the parents of the victim or a
public officer who has a duty under the law to detain a person;
(2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
(3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be
illegal; and
(4) in the
commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
(a) the
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days;
(b) it is
committed by simulating public authority;
(c) any
serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained
or threats to kill him are made or
(d) the
person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public official.[123]
It must be noted that when the victim
is a minor and the accused is any of the parents, the crime is Inducing a minor to abandon his home
defined and penalized under the second paragraph of Art. 271 of the RPC. While if it is a public officer who has a
duty under the law to detain a person but detains said person without any legal
ground is liable for Arbitrary detention defined and penalized under
Art. 124 of the RPC.
The essence of the crime of
kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with
indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect the same.[124] Moreover, if the victim is a minor, or the
victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom,
the duration of his detention becomes inconsequential.[125] Ransom means money, price or consideration
paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that will release him
from captivity.[126]
In the instant case, all the elements
of the crime of kidnapping for ransom has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. The accused are all private
individuals. The kidnapping of Patrick
Teng, then three years old, a minor is undisputed. That ransom was demanded and paid is
established. The only issue to be
resolved is whether the accused are equally guilty of kidnapping for ransom
having conspired with each other.
Duly-Proven Conspiracy
Accused-appellants uniformly assail
the court a quo’s findings of conspiracy in the commission of the
kidnapping for ransom of Patrick Teng.
Our assiduous review of the records of the case shows the presence of
conspiracy. However, we fail to appreciate
the direct participation of Bobby Bringas in the conspiracy. Thus, accused-appellants Jimboy Bringas,
Chung and Navarro together with the other accused Pajarillo, Sulayao, Ross and
Calaguas are equally guilty and liable for the crime charged for having
conspired to commit and did commit kidnapping for ransom of Patrick.
Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to
commit it. It may be proved by direct or
circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words or conduct of the alleged
conspirators before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a
common design or purpose.[127]
Proof of the agreement need not rest
on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties
indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of
the offense. Corollarily, it is not
necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an
explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details
by which an illegal objective is to be carried out.[128]
To be held guilty as a co-principal
by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt
act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity—mere presence when the
transaction was made does not necessarily lead to an inference of concurrence
with the criminal design to commit the crime.[129] Moreover, the same degree of proof necessary
to prove the crime is required to support a finding of criminal conspiracy.[130]
The testimony of state witness
Rosales is the lynchpin by which the conspiracy is proven. Jimboy Bringas brought together Rosales,
Calaguas and Sulayao from Pampanga, while Rosales brought in Ross and Pajarillo
from Laguna. They thus formed the team,
although Jimboy Bringas did not join the team but was in on the sharing of the
ransom. Together with Chung, Navarro and
two others (Glenn Sangalang and Ricky Castillo), they proceeded to Eric’s house
on December 14, 1994 and kidnapped Patrick.
Verily, a conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of a fellow
criminal than by any other method.[131]
Together with Ricky Castillo and
Rosales, accused Ross, Pajarillo, Sulayao
and Calaguas actively
participated in the kidnapping.
Ross drove
one of the cars. Pajarillo, Sulayao and Calaguas entered the
house with Rosales. Calaguas poked a gun
at Maricel. Pajarillo gagged and bound
Maricel. The others herded the house
helpers, the kids and Sweeney to the second floor. They took Patrick after binding everyone
except Mikee Teng. Then they brought
Patrick to Pampanga. In all, they
carried out a concerted plan of kidnapping and detaining Patrick until they
were given word to bring back the child to
Then they went back to Pampanga,
apparently to await their share of the ransom money. Clearly, Ross’ testimony that he is employed
as a driver who can earn so much as PhP5,000 in a day and can ill afford to be
absent is belied by his accompanying the others to Pampanga after they
delivered Patrick Teng to Chung on December 15, 1994 shortly before
midnight. And he continued to stay in
Pampanga with the others until his arrest on December 16, 1994 while on a
drinking spree. In all, he was absent
from work from the 14th until the 16th of December 1994.
Jimboy Bringas evidently participated
in the planning and the subsequent execution of the conspiracy by bringing in
Calaguas and Sulayao from Pampanga.
Together with them, he met with Chung and Navarro. And together with Rosales he went to Laguna
to fetch Pajarillo and Ross. In effect,
he recruited or brought in the team that would carry out the kidnapping. He knows the other accused and was the one who
went with the PACC team led by Police Chief Inspector Tucay to Pampanga in the
late afternoon of December 16, 1994 and identified them to be arrested.
Rosales’ actuations, first in ringing
the doorbell at the gate and urging Maricel to open it and in asking for the
car key and taking the Toyota Corolla of Eric do not tend to show that he was
merely coerced. This is, however,
academic considering his turning state witness.
Accused-appellant Navarro’s assertion
that he was only implicated fails to persuade.
His direct involvement in the conspiracy is clearly shown in that: (1) the testimony of Rosales shows Navarro’s
involvement with Chung; (2) the unanimous testimonies of Calaguas, Pajarillo,
Sulayao and Ross to the effect that Navarro was together with Chung in their
meetings before the kidnapping and Navarro was with them when they went to Eric
Teng’s place on December 14, 1994; (3) Navarro’s admission caught on camera
during the December 17, 1994 press conference that he made calls to negotiate
the ransom which bolsters Eric’s testimony that he recognized the voice of
Navarro as the negotiator calling his residence; (4) Navarro received
PhP100,000 from Chung in the evening of December 15, 1994 at the Bowling Inn;
(5) Navarro was with Chung when Patrick Teng was delivered by the other accused
in the parking lot of Philippine Westin Plaza.
Similarly, accused-appellant Chung’s
assertion that he was only implicated flies from logic given that not only
Rosales pinned him as the mastermind but that the other accused testified to
the effect that together with Navarro he orchestrated the kidnapping. The foregoing clearly shows his
involvement: (1) per Pajarillo’s
admission during the December 17, 1994 press conference, Chung provided the
guns; (2) Chung’s admission to Eric through a phone call he made at noon on
December 16, 1994 asking pardon and forgiveness; (3) Chung gave misleading
information to Eric about his being intercepted when he was supposed to deliver
the ransom money; (4) Chung proceeded to his parents’ place in Paco and gave
PhP50,000 from the ransom money to his mother; (5) Chung left the remaining
PhP2.35 million in his parents’ place without telling Eric about it; (6) Chung
took Patrick from the other accused at the parking lot of Philippine Westin
Plaza shortly before midnight of December 15, 1994 without paying the ransom;
(7) Chung brought Patrick back home without telling Eric upon their arrival
about the ransom money.
Where the acts of the accused
collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident,
and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.[132]
Bobby
Bringas’ participation either as accomplice or as co-conspirator not
established
As to Bobby Bringas, it is undisputed
that he did not participate in the actual kidnapping. He was in Pampanga from December 10, 1994
until he was arrested together with the others on December 16, 1994. It may be true that the other accused brought
Patrick to Bobby Bringas’ place but it was not shown that Bobby Bringas took
care of Patrick as the group moved to different places. It was neither clearly shown that Bobby
Bringas recruited the other accused to carry out the kidnapping. It was only Rosales’ testimony that Bobby
Bringas asked him to drive. Aside from
that, the fact alone that the other accused went to his place does not point to
his direct involvement in the conspiracy considering that he knows them. He worked as driver for the mother of Rosales
and Pajarillo is his kumpare.
There is therefore no clear and convincing evidence of Bobby Bringas’
direct involvement either in the kidnapping of Patrick or in the conspiracy to
its commission.
In the absence of evidence showing
the direct participation of the accused in the commission of the crime,
conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing evidence in order to
convict the accused.[133] Given our observation that the involvement of
Rosales was not merely of a person under coercion, there is reasonable doubt as
to Bobby Bringas’ involvement for it was Jimboy Bringas who brought or
recruited Sulayao and Calaguas from Pampanga.
There is therefore a palpable reasonable doubt of the existence of
conspiracy on the part of Bobby Bringas.
The presence of reasonable doubt as to the existence of conspiracy
suffices to negate not only the participation of the accused in the commission
of the offense as principal but also, in the absence of proof implicating the
accused as accessory or accomplice, the criminal liability of the accused.[134] Consequently, Bobby Bringas must be acquitted
from the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
The penalty for kidnapping for ransom
under Art. 267 of the RPC, as amended, would have been the supreme penalty of
death. However, the passage of RA 9346
or the Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty has banned the death
penalty and reduced all death sentences to reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole.[135]
Award of damages
modified
Anent the award of damages, we find
proper the award of actual damages against Navarro in the amount of PhP 100,000
with legal interest of 12% from December 15, 1994 until fully paid. We, however, find the award of PhP 5 million
as moral damages and PhP 2 million as exemplary damages to be exorbitant and
not in accord with jurisprudence.
In line with current jurisprudence,[136]
an award of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity is proper. An award of PhP 200,000 as moral damages is
likewise proper considering the minority of Patrick.[137] Moreover, when the crime of kidnapping is
attended by a demand for ransom, by way of example or correction, PhP 100,000
exemplary damages is also proper.[138]
With the affirmance of the conviction
of accused appellants Jimboy Bringas, Navarro and Chung, they are jointly and
severally liable together with Ross, Pajarillo, Sulayao and Calaguas for the
payment of the damages awarded.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appeals of accused-appellants
Christopher Bringas, John Robert Navarro and Eden Sy Chung are DENIED; while
the appeal of accused-appellant Bryan Bringas is GRANTED. Accordingly, the January
3, 2006 Decision and June 6, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 00911 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION insofar
as the amount of the damages awarded and the acquittal of Bryan Bringas. As modified, the dispositive portion of the March 26, 1999 Joint
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 258 in
In Criminal Case No. 95-137,
for KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM, defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act no. 7659, finding accused CHRISTOPHER
BRINGAS y Garcia; JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y Cruz; ARUEL ROSS y Picardo; ROGER
CALAGUAS y Jimenez; and EDEN SY CHUNG guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they are
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346.
The
instant criminal charge is DISMISSED as to accused ERICSON PAJARILLO y Baser
and EDGARDO SULAYAO y Petilla on account of their death pursuant to Article 89,
1 of the Revised Penal Code.
The
accused JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y Cruz is hereby directed to pay Eric Teng the sum
of PhP100,000.00 as actual damages with interest thereon at the legal rate of
12% from December 15, 1994 until fully paid.
The
accused CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS y Garcia; JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y Cruz; ARUEL ROSS y
Picardo; ROGER CALAGUAS y Jimenez; ERICSON PAJARILLO y Baser; EDGARDO SULAYAO y
Petilla and EDEN SY CHUNG are directed to pay Eric Teng jointly and severally
the amount of PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity, PhP200,000.00 as moral damages;
and PhP100,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
Accused BRYAN BRINGAS y
GARCIA is hereby ACQUITTED for reasonable doubt as to his involvement.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 83-84, Notice of Appeal [of John Robert Navarro], dated June 29, 2007; id. at 87-88, Notice of Appeal [of Christopher and Bryan Bringas], dated June 25, 2007; id. at 89-91, Notice of Appeal [of Eden Sy Chung], dated June 29, 2007.
[2]
[3] CA rollo, pp. 2246-2451.
[4] Also referred to as Erickson Paharillo in other parts of the records.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 10-12, dated April 24, 1998.
[6]
[7] Records, pp. 600-604, TSN December 13, 1995.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72] Id. at 4085-4095, TSN of the Press Conference held at Camp Crame, Quezon City on December 17, 1994, taken from VHS-Tape of the news coverage by PTV-4 and ABS-CBN.
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94] CA rollo, pp. 96-97, dated March 26, 1999.
[95] Rollo,
p. 118, per letter of confirmation dated November 6, 2009 from Julio A.
Arciaga, Assistant Director for Prisons and Security, Bureau of Corrections,
[96] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[97] CA rollo, p. 1025.
[98] Id. at 2216-2242, Motion for Reconsideration [of John Robert C. Navarro], dated January 18, 2006; Id. at 2242-2243, Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision Promulgated January 3, 2006) [of Ericson Pajarillo], dated January 11, 2006; Id. at 2259-2294, Motion for Reconsideration [of Eden Sy Chung], dated January 26, 2006.
[99] An Act Prohibiting The Imposition Of Death Penalty In The Philippines, promulgated on June 24, 2006 and took effect on June 30, 2006.
[100] CA rollo, pp. 2459-2460.
[101]
[102] Rollo, p. 103.
[103]
[104] CA rollo, pp. 2530-2531.
[105]
[106]
[107]
[108]
[109]
[110]
[111]
[112]
[113]
[114] Supplemental Brief for the Accused-Appellants, dated December 11, 2009.
[115]
[116] People v. Ballesta, G.R. No. 181632, September 25, 2008, 566 SCRA 400, 416, citing People v. Rendoque, G.R. No. 106282, January 20, 2000, 322 SCRA 622, 634.
[117] Id. at 415-416, citing People v. Benito, G.R. No. 128072, February 19, 1999, 303 SCRA 468, 476.
[118] Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 158613-14, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 83, 96.
[119] Id. at 100, citing People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 133267, August 8, 2002, 387 SCRA 45; Guingona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.125532, July 10, 1998, 292 SCRA 402; Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 652.
[120] G.R. No. 178198, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 557, 566, citing People v. Bocalan, G.R. No. 141527, September 4, 2003, 410 SCRA 373, 381.
[121] People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 170569, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 244, 254, citing People v. Madronio, G.R. Nos. 137587 and 138329, July 29, 2003, 407 SCRA 337, 347.
[122] ART. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. (As amended by R.A. No. 7659)
[123] People v. Mamantak, G.R. No. 174659, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 298, 306-307.
[124] People v. Muit, G.R. No. 181043, October 8, 2008, 568 SCRA 251, 264-265, citing People v. Borromeo, G.R. No. 130843, January 27, 2000, 323 SCRA 547.
[125] See: People v. Mamantak, supra note 126 at 307.
[126] Id. at 309, citing People v. Jatulan, G.R. No. 171653, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA 174.
[127] People v. Tan, G.R. No. 177566, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 489, 502, citing People v. Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003, 396 SCRA 31; People v. Pajaro, G.R. Nos. 167860-65, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 572, 586; Aquino v. Paiste, G.R. No. 147782, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 255, 271, citing People v. Quirol, G.R. No. 149259, October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 509, 517; People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 173308, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 329, 342, citing People v. Barcenal, G.R. No. 175925, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 706, 726; People v. Santos, G.R. No. 176735, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 578, 602; People v. Bohol, supra note 123 at 568, citing People v. Barcenal, supra.
[128] Buebos
v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 210, 224, citing People
v. Quinao, G.R. No. 108454, March 13, 1997, 269 SCRA 495 and People v.
Saul, G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001, 372 SCRA 636.
[129] Aquino v. Paiste, supra note 130 at 272.
[130] People v. Buduhan, G.R. No. 178196, August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 337, 364.
[131] Salvanera v. People, G.R. No. 143093, May 21, 2007, 523 SCRA 147, 153, citing U.S. v. Remigio, 37 Phil. 599, 612 (1918).
[132] David, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 136037, August 13, 2008, 562 SCRA 22, 35-36, citing People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 135682, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 528.
[133] People v. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008, 566 SCRA 76, 84, citing People v. Agda, G.R. No. L-36377, January 30, 1982, 111 SCRA 330 and People v. Taaca, G.R. No. 35652, September 29, 1982 178 SCRA 56.
[134] Eugenio v. People, G.R. No. 168163, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 433, 447-448, citing People v. Quinao, G.R. No. 109454, March 13, 1997, 269 SCRA 495.
[135] See: People v. Jatulan, G.R. No. 171653, 24 April 2007, 522 SCRA 174, 188, citing People v. Nabong, G.R. No. 172324, April 3, 2007, 520 SCRA 437.
[136] People v. Mamantak; supra note 126 at 310; People v. Solangon, G.R. No. 172693, November 21, 2007, 537 SCRA 746; People v. Yambot, G.R. No. 120350, October 13, 2000, 343 SCRA 20.
[137] People v. Mamantak; supra note 126 at 310; People v. Solangon, supra note 139 at 757; People v. Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003, 396 SCRA 31; People v. Garcia, G.R. Nos. 133489 and 143970, January 15, 2002, 373 SCRA 134.
[138]