People v. Pangilinan
People v. Pangilinan
People v. Pangilinan
SYNOPSIS
This is an automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City
convicting appellants of the crimes of kidnapping for ransom and illegal possession of
firearms and imposing upon each of them the death penalty and a prison term. Appellants
assailed the decision of the trial court finding all of them in conspiracy to commit the
crime. They further questioned the credibility of and competence of the prosecution's
witnesses.
In affirming the conviction of the three appellants for the crime of kidnapping for ransom,
the Court found that their identities were adequately established by the clear and
convincing testimonies of the victim Teofilo Garcia and his wife, Leonida Garcia. Teofilo
recounted his ordeal, replete with details that he could not have simply concocted. He
narrated the events that led to his abduction, his captivity, the ransom payment and his
eventual release and rescue. His wife, who was also present during the abduction,
corroborated Teofilo's testimony. Their testimonies constitute persuasive and
unassailable proof that all the appellants committed the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
ASIDTa
The Court further agreed that in perpetrating the crime of kidnapping for ransom,
conspiracy existed among the three appellants. Viewed in its totality, the individual
participation of each of them pointed to a joint purpose and criminal design.
However, the Court set aside appellants' conviction for the crime of illegal possession of
firearms holding that they cannot be held liable for such offense, since there was another
crime kidnapping for ransom which they were committing at the same time.
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. Undoubtedly, in perpetrating the kidnapping for ransom,
conspiracy existed among herein accused-appellants. Viewed in its totality, the individual
participation of each of them pointed to a joint purpose and criminal design. Notarte and
Yambot snatched the victim from his office in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. Pangilinan and
Yambot sandwiched him in the car and transported him, together with the others, to a
house where he was detained for ten days. Lopez negotiated with the victim's wife for the
ransom payment. Further, all three appellants set out to the designated place of ransom
payment. These acts were complementary to one another and were geared toward the
attainment of a common ultimate objective. That objective was to extort a ransom of P10
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
million (which was later reduced to P1.2 million through bargaining by the victim's wife) in
exchange for the victim's freedom.
DECISION
PER CURIAM : p
Before this Court for automatic review is the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig City, Branch 70, penned by Judge Pablito M. Rojas in Criminal Cases Nos. 105326,
106115 and 106116, finding Arthur Pangilinan, Arnold Lopez and Reynaldo Yambot guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of kidnapping for ransom and illegal possession
of firearms and imposing upon each of them the supreme penalty of death and a prison
term of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years. HIAEcT
Antonio Hamton, who was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to an "indeterminate
penalty of from four (4) years of prision correccional to eight (8) years of prision mayor" in
Criminal Case No. 105326, filed an appeal with this Court, but later withdrew the same. 1
The Solicitor General narrates the antecedent facts of the case as follows:
"Teofilo Garcia, and his wife, Leonida, were the sole distributors of the Singer
Sewing Machines under the business name 'Garmer Industrial Sewing Machines'.
On March 8, 1994, around eleven o'clock in the morning, two armed men, later
identified as Jun Notarte and Reynaldo Yambot, entered the Garcias' office and
showroom at 322 Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City and announced a hold-up.
After emptying Teofilo's drawer of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) in cash, they
took him with them outside to a waiting light gray Mitsubishi Lancer. Inside the
car were two other men, later identified as herein appellant Arnold Lopez and
Arthur Pangilinan. Teofilo was shoved into the backseat of the car and
blindfolded with black sunglasses covered with adhesive tapes. One of the men
told him, 'Pera lang ang kailangan namin sa iyo'. His abductors then divested him
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
of his gold ring worth Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), his gold
bracelet worth Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), his gold necklace worth Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), and his wallet containing, among others, Two
Thousand Three Hundred Pesos (P2,300.00) in cash.
"About the time Teofilo was being led out of the office, Leonida arrived. Seeing
her husband's plight, she immediately approached the Mitsubishi Lancer and
asked the men inside why they were taking her husband. In response, appellant
hit her on the nose with a gun and pushed her away. The Mitsubishi Lancer then
sped away.
"After traveling for about two hours, the Mitsubishi Lancer stopped. Teofilo's
abductors transferred him to a trimobile where, accompanied by appellant, he
traveled for thirty minutes more before finally stopping. Teofilo was brought to a
house where he was confined in a room with no windows. To prevent him from
escaping, his left wrist was chained to an iron grill. Three or four persons guarded
him.
"On March 10, 1994, around eleven o'clock in the morning, appellant, who
identified himself as 'Adan Manalo,' called up Leonida, telling her to prepare the
amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as ransom money for her
husband's release. When Leonida pleaded for the amount to be lowered since she
could not afford it, appellant put the phone down.
"On March 12, 1994, appellant called up Leonida to inquire if she had already
raised the ransom amount. Leonida replied that she had raised only Six Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00) and would be needing more time to raise the rest
of the amount.
"Appellant called again around twelve noon of March 14, 1994. Asked how much
money she had already raised, Leonida answered that she was still trying to raise
the needed amount. She also requested appellant to get for her the key to their
office vault from her husband, so that she could get the money inside and add it
to the money to be paid as ransom.
"Accordingly, appellant, on March 15, 1994, told Teofilo to give him the key to
their office vault and to write a note for his family so that they would know that
he was still alive. Teofilo did as he was instructed.
"Around eight o'clock in the morning of March 16, 1994, appellant called up
Leonida to inform her that the key to their office vault as well as a note from her
husband was ready for her pick-up at Andok's Litson located at EDSA corner
Estrella Street. By ten o'clock of the same morning, Leonida was in possession of
the key and the note. She was able to confirm that the note was in her husband's
handwriting. When appellant called her again later that day, Leonida informed
him that she had gotten the key and the note, and that she had raised One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00) already. Unimpressed, appellant told her that this was not
enough and that he would call her again the next day.
"True to his word, appellant called around noontime the following day. Informed
by Leonida that she now had One Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,200,000.00), appellant seemed finally satisfied. He then gave Leonida
instructions for the pay-off. At a little before four o'clock that afternoon, she
should be at the Magallanes flyover and open the hood of her car to make it
appear that it developed engine trouble. Appellant would then drive by and stop
his car beside hers. After he identifies himself as 'Adan,' Leonida should
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
immediately hand over the ransom money to him.
"All this time, Leonida had been coordinating with the Task Force Habagat of the
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC). Alerted of these latest developments,
Col. Michael Ray Aquino, Chief of Special Operations, PACC, planned for the
delivery of the ransom money and Teofilo's rescue. Eight teams were formed to
monitor the pay-off and conduct rescue operations. The ransom money was
placed in a light blue Dunlop bag (Exhibit G) and Leonida was instructed to wear
a green dress for easy identification at the pay-off site.
"About 3:45 in the afternoon of the same day, Leonida, accompanied by her driver,
arrived at the pay-off site on board her Pajero. Pursuant to appellant's
instructions, Leonida's driver opened the hood of the Pajero. A red Toyota Corolla
with Plate No. PFW 688 then approached and stopped just beside the Pajero.
Leonida saw her husband seated between two men at the back of the red car.
Meanwhile, appellant, who was seated in front at the passenger side, got down
from the car. After identifying himself as 'Adan,' Leonida gave the Dunlop bag
containing the ransom money to him. The Toyota Corolla then sped away.
"Inside the Toyota Corolla, appellant gave Teofilo Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00)
for taxi, assuring him that they would drop him off a short distance away. Before
they could do so, however, they noticed a speeding white Nissan Sentra behind
them. Appellant warned his companions, 'Puwesto kayo, delikado tayo mga
kasama, alert kayo, puwesto kayo'. Without stopping to release Teofilo anymore,
the Toyota Corolla raced along EDSA towards Cubao, with the Nissan Sentra in
hot pursuit. The chase continued until the Toyota Corolla stopped near the
intersection of Guadix Drive and ADB Avenue. Using an armalite, Jun Notarte, the
driver of the Toyota Corolla, opened fire at the Nissan Sentra, shattering its
windshield. Col. Raymundo Padua and his team members, the occupants of the
Nissan Sentra, returned fire. During the exchange of gunfire, Jun Notarte
managed to escape. However, his companions, namely appellant, Arthur
Pangilinan, and Reynaldo Yambot, were not as lucky. After about ten minutes of
intermittent firing, they were finally subdued and taken into custody. Teofilo was
successfully rescued, shaken but unharmed.
"Among the items recovered from Teofilo's kidnappers were the following: the
Dunlop bag containing the ransom money in the amount of One Million Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,200,000.00); additional cash in the amount of
Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Seven Pesos (P32,647.00); an M-16
armalite rifle with Serial No. 164881 (Exhibit CC); and a .45-caliber pistol with
Serial No. 1163568 (Exhibit A). Subsequent verification revealed that the M-16
armalite rifle and the .45-caliber pistol were not registered with the Firearms and
Explosives Office, Camp Crame, Quezon City, and that no license to possess these
firearms had ever been issued in the names of any of Teofilo's kidnappers.
"Separately apprehended in connection with his kidnapping incident was Antonio
Hamton. Having somehow learned about Teofilo's abduction, Antonio, at the
same time that appellant was negotiating with [Leonida] for the ransom money,
was also calling up Leonida, pretending to be her husband's kidnapper. Antonio's
ruse was eventually discovered, but not before he was already able to extort Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) from Leonida." 2
An Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 106114, was filed on April 14, 1994. It
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
charged appellants in this manner:
"That [on] or about March 8, 1994 at about 11:00 o'clock in the morning at Shaw
Boulevard, corner Aquino Lane in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
being all private persons conspiring, confederating and mutually helping/aiding
each other and by means of force, threats or intimidation and with the use of
arms and vehicles, for the purpose of demanding money or ransom, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully. and feloniously abduct and kidnap TEOFILO M. GARCIA
while at his office; and that once in their physical custody and control detain and
deprive him of his liberty against his will, and demand TEN (P10,000,000) Million
from his wife Leonida Garcia, in exchange for her husband's life, safety and
freedom, but which amount through sheer patient appeals/negotiation was later
reduced to P1.2 Million, which accused finally agreed and accepted which said
Mrs. Leonida Garcia, did in fact give, pay and deliver the said amount or ransom
money to accused to her loss, damage and prejudice." 3
A second Information, docketed. as Criminal Case No. 106116, was filed against
appellants thus:
"That, on or about March 8 & 17, 1994 in the City of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their
possession, custody and control, a Caliber 45 Pistol, bearing Serial No. SN-
1163568, and one (1) M-16 Rifle with Serial No. RP 164881, without first having
secured the necessary license and/or permit, from the corresponding
office/agency of government." 4
During their arraignment on May 2, 1994, appellants, assisted by their respective counsels,
pleaded not guilty to the twin charges of kidnapping for ransom and illegal possession of
firearms. 5 After a joint trial, they were found guilty via the automatically appealed Decision,
which reads in part:
"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds accused Arthur Pangilinan y de Guzman,
a.k.a. 'Toring'; Arnold Lopez y Serrano, a.k.a. 'Adan Manalo'; and Reynaldo
Yambot y Masagaya, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses of
Kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code as charged in Criminal Case No. 106115 and of the offense
of Illegal Possession of Firearms as charged in Criminal Case No. 106116. For the
offense of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention, said accused are
hereby meted out the death penalty. For the offense of Illegal Possession of
Firearms, said accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six years
and one day to eight years and to pay a fine of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP
30,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
"Accused Pangilinan, Lopez and Yambot are further ordered to return to the
private complainant, Teofilo Garcia, the sum of FOUR THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED PESOS (PHP 4,300.00) representing the total amount of cash taken
from the latter's office and his person during the abduction, as well as to return or
restore to said private complainant the gold bracelet and the gold necklace or if
the same is no longer possible, to pay the value of the same which is PHP
50,000.00 each. In addition, said accused are hereby ordered to indemnify, in
solidum, the private complainant, Teofilo Garcia, the amount of TWO MILLION
PESOS (PHP 2,000,000.00) and to the wife of the complainant, Leonida Garcia,
the amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (PHP 1,000,000.00), by way of moral
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
damages." 6
Appellants submitted individual appeal briefs assailing the RTC Decision. They aver that
the trial court failed to establish clearly that they had all committed conspiracy to commit
kidnapping for ransom. The lower court should have imposed individual penalties upon
them depending on their degree of participation in the crime.
Appellants also question their conviction for illegal possession of firearms, arguing that
the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence showing their physical or
constructive possession of the subject firearms. Further, they contend that their conviction
for the said offense cannot be made on the basis of the testimony of a prosecution
witness of questionable credibility and competence. EaICAD
This assignment of errors has been adopted by appellant Arnold Lopez with the following
addition:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED ARNOLD LOPEZ GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT
THAT HE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY REPRESENTED DURING THE PRESENTATION
OF CO-ACCUSED ARTHUR PANGILINAN AS HOSTILE WITNESS." 8
On the other hand, appellant Arthur Pangilinan ascribes the following errors to the trial
court:
"3.1 THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT
AS A CONSPIRATOR IN THE OFFENSE OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM AND
SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION.
"3.2 THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE APPELLANT
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS IN PHYSICAL OR
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE SUBJECT FIREARMS AND THAT
HE HAD ANIMUS POSSIDENDI AS REGARDS THESE FIREARMS." 9
After a careful review of the records and the arguments of both the prosecution and the
defense, this Court agrees with the trial court that all three appellants are guilty of
kidnapping for ransom, but not of illegal possession of firearm.
Appellants all rely on the defense of denial and alibi. They point to Jun Notarte, who is still
at large, as the mastermind of the kidnapping. They maintain that they merely accepted his
offer of jobs with higher pay, and that they were not privy to his plans to kidnap Garcia.
Plainly, they want this Court to believe that they were simply in the wrong place at the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
wrong time with the wrong companion and for the wrong reason.
Appellant Arnold Lopez claims that Notarte offered him a job to train as a soldier, with
better pay. 1 0 He says that because of his meager earnings as a construction worker, he
was easily enticed by Notarte's promise. 1 1 He alleges, however, that he was not present
during the abduction of the victim, because he was working in Paraaque, installing doors
and windows from March 8 to 15, 1994. 1 2 It was only because of the job offer that he was
present during the pay-off. He argues further that his participation in the kidnapping
incident was very minimal, if any, so he could not have been a co-conspirator in the crime.
13
On the other hand, Reynaldo Yambot alleges that Notarte promised to help him apply as a
driver of the latter's superior officer. 1 4 Yambot maintains that, because he was driving his
jeepney in Caloocan from March 8 to 16, 1994, 1 5 he was not present during the abduction
of the victim. The only reason he was present during the pay-off was that Notarte had
actually engaged him as a driver, but without his knowing anything about the abduction
that had already taken place. 1 6
Finally, Arthur Pangilinan claims that he was offered a job to watch Notarte's car at five
hundred pesos a day. 1 7 He maintains that there were no overt acts that would link him to
the kidnapping other than his "being merely an ill-fated passenger of the car used by his
co-accused in two occasions, i.e., in kidnapping Mr. Garcia and in receiving the ransom
from the victim's wife." 1 8 Further, his wife was presented in court to corroborate his claim
that he had not taken part in the plan to commit the kidnapping.
At the outset, we emphasize that the identities of all the accused were adequately
established by the clear and convincing testimonies of the victim and his wife. Particularly
persuasive was the narration by Garcia of the events that led to his abduction, his captivity,
the ransom payment and his eventual release and rescue. He never wavered in his story,
even when he was subjected to an exhausting cross-examination by the defense counsels.
He testified thus:
"JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q On March 8, 1994 at about 11:00 in the morning do you remember where
were you?
A Yes, sir. I was in my office at about 11:00 in the morning at Shaw Blvd.
Q Were you alone in your office?
A I was with my three employees, sir.
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q On that occa[s]ion, do you recall having received a visitor in your office?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
A Yes, sir. Two men arrived.
Q What questions, if any, did they ask you upon entering your showroom?
ATTY. LEONARDO:
No basis, Your Honor.
COURT:
A Because he was the one who asked me about the price of the sewing
machine, sir.
COURT:
How can it be leading? Objection overruled. Witness may answer.
WITNESS:
A Yes, there was, sir.
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q What is it?
A The one who pretended as a customer pulled out the gun and pointed it at
me and said, 'hold-up', sir.
COURT:
All right. You said that, there were two male visitors who entered your
showroom that day, what was the other one doing?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please look around the courtroom and point to the man who
pointed a gun at your three employees?
COURT:
Why don't you ask him the guy who poked the gun at him.
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
He was the one who got away, Your Honor. There were four kidnappers, one
of them escape. He is at large.
COURT:
Q You stated that the man [who] pretended to be a customer poked a gun at
you, what did he want?
COURT:
A After he said, 'hold-up', he opened the drawer of my table and g[o]t some
P2,000.00 cash, sir.
Q Having taken the money, what did he do afterwards?
A Then he told me, you go with us, sir. After taking the money he said, 'sama
ka sa amin.'
Q What was your reaction?
Q At the time he made those statements, what was he doing to the gun?
A He tucked it in his waist, sir.
Q Why?
A 'Baka patayin po ako kaya sumama ako.' Perhaps they would kill me so I
went along with him, sir.
Q Where did he take you?
A They b[r]ought me outside the door and outside was a car waiting, sir.
[A] I am showing you pictures of a car . . . (discontinued)
COURT:
Excuse me. Why don't you ask him first to describe the car.
Q Anong itsura ng kotse?
A It was a lancer with a color which looks like a silver green with tinted
windows and partially tinted front glass, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q How did you enter the vehicle that was waiting for you?
A The car was opened by accused Jun Notarte and I was pushed inside, sir.
FISCAL VILLA-IGNACIO:
Your Honor please, actually the witness said tinuhod meaning a person used
his knee to shove him inside the vehicle. It's more of a kick, Your Honor.
WITNESS:
A The car was opened by accused Ju[n] Notarte and he used his knee to
shove me inside, sir.
ATTY. DE LEON:
We adopt the tagalog translation also, Your Honor.
WITNESS:
Q Once you were inside the vehicle, will you tell the Court what happened?
A I was sand[w]iched by two men, sir.
COURT:
Q Who was the one to your right?
JUSTICE. CONCEPCION:
Q Is the man whom you mentioned, Arthur Pangilinan, can you identify him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is he in the courtroom?
A Yes, sir.
COURT:
Bumaba ka at ituro nyo po.
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to a man inside the courtroom whom when asked identify
himself as Arthur Pangilinan.
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q After you were seated sandwiched between two men, do you recall if there
were any persons seated on the front of the vehicle?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q Please point to him.
FISCAL VILLA-IGNACIO:
For the record, Your Honor, witness is stepping down from the witness stand
and appearing to [point] to a man whom when asked answered by the
name of Arnold Lopez.
For the record, Your Honor, Arnold Lopez is [the] man who is walking with
c[r]utches.
COURT:
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q After you were seated in the car, will you please state what transpired, if
any?
Q Did you not ask these men what they wanted from you?
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q And what is the answer, if any?
A 'Pera lang ang kailangan namin sa iyo', that was what they told me, sir.
Q After you were already in the car, what did you try to do in the car?
Thereafter, Garcia further recounted his ordeal, replete with details that he could not have
simply concocted. He narrated how he had been brought to a house where he was chained
to an iron grill 2 0 and detained for ten days. 2 1 His testimony included details of how he had
been fed, how he had relieved himself during his detention, and how he had been asked by
appellant Lopez to write a letter to his family to assure them that he was still alive. 2 2 The
testimony of the victim regarding the ransom payment was likewise credible and
convincing. He detailed the events leading to the pay-off, from the time he was awakened
to the time of the actual shoot-out that eventually led to the arrest of appellants. 2 3
His wife, who was also present during the abduction; corroborated his testimony as
follows:
"FISCAL DAOSOS:
Q Will you tell this Honorable Court, Mrs. Garcia, if on March 8, 1994 you
reported for work in your office?
Q Were you able to reach your office that morning of March 8, 1994?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall of any unusual incident that took place that morning?
A I saw my husband being led by the arm by a man and another man was
just behind my husband and closely following.
COURT:
Q What else happened when you saw that your husband was being led inside
the car?
A He is not around.
Q What about the other one who closely followed your husband?
A He is here.
Q Will you kindly go down and identify him by lightly tapping his shoulder?
INTERPRETER:
The witness pointed to a man inside the courtroom who when asked
identified himself as Reynaldo Yambot.
[FISCAL DAOSOS:]
Q After your husband was shoved inside that grey car, what else happened, if
you know?
A I alighted from my car and opened the front door of the blue grey vehicle. I
saw my husband with a blindfold and a gun pointed to him.
Q You said when you opened the car, you saw your husband already wearing
a black blindfold sunglass. If you are shown that sunglass or black
blindfold would you be able to recognize it?
A Yes, sir.
Q I'm showing to you a plastic sunglass which was previously marked, Your
Honor, as exh. 'C'. Will you kindly go over and tell this Honorable Court
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
what is the relation of that black sunglass to the blindfold you were
referring to [a] while ago?
A I would not know who was the person who pointed a gun to my husband.
Q What kind of gun was pointed, was it a long firearm or a short firearm?
ATTY. LEONARDO:
FISCAL DAOSOS:
If she knows.
COURT:
Q If you are shown a gun of that description, as you said 'short' [,w]ould you
be able to recall whether the gun that we are going to show you will be
similar to that pointed to your husband's neck?
COURT:
Excuse me. Before you show that particular gun to the witness, [d]o you
know what sort of hand gun was pointed to your husband?
A No, Your Honor. Basta baril. Para pong pagalingan lang yung baril na yan,
eh. Ngunit kung pakikitaan ako puwede k[o]ng ituro pero hind ko alam
kung anong klaseng baril yon.
FISCAL DAOSOS:
Q I'm showing to you a [hand]gun. Will you be able to tell this Honorable
Court if the gun pointed to the neck of your husband would be similar to
this?
A Para pong kamukha.
FISCAL DAOSOS:
A I did not see clearly which of the two men was pointing a gun at my
husband.
Q You said, Mrs. Garcia, that your husband was seated between two persons
at the rear seat of the car, [is] that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you be able to recognize any of the two that sandwiched your
husband?
ATTY. LEONARDO:
Your Honor, the witness is incompetent to answer that.
COURT:
Let her answer if she knows.
COURT:
You would not know or you would not recall the face of the man who was
seated to your husband's right?
Q You said that you opened the front seat of the car. Which side of the door
of the car that you opened?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you do, if any, when you opened the car?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
A I asked them why they are taking my husband. What wrong has he done.
COURT:
Q Bakit wala kang narinig na sagot. Ano ang sinabi mo sa kanila?
A Ang sinabi ko po, 'ano ang kasalanan ng mister ko, bakit ninyo siya kinuha.'
I did not hear any answer but instead I was whipped with a gun.
Q Were you hit by this gun? Where were you hit?
A The gun hit my nose and my nose even bled on that day.
Q Will you tell this Honorable Court briefly what kind of gun was used to whip
you?
ATTY. LEONARDO:
The witness already answered she does not know what kind of a gun was
that.
[FISCAL DAOSOS:]
Q All right. The next question is, is it a long gun or a short gun?
A It was also a short gun.
Q Would you be able to say if the gun looks similar to the one that was
pointed to the neck of your husband?
ATTY. LEONARDO:
We interpose objection to that question, Your Honor. For the reason that it is
not only leading but the witness is incompetent to testify on what kind of
gun was she able to see.
FISCAL ASDALA:
The testimony refers to the husband not to the gun used in whipping her.
FISCAL DAOSOS:
Q Would it be similar?
ATTY. LEONARDO:
COURT:
Witness referring to a caliber 45 marked as exhibit 'A'.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
FISCAL DAOSOS:
Q You said you asked them, 'why are you taking my husband, what wrong
has he done'. Now, did you notice if there were people in the front seat of
the car?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would [you] be able to recognize the person who whipped you with the
gun?
A Nakilala ko po.
Q If he is in this courtroom would [you] be able to identify him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please step down and identify this person by lightly tapping his
shoulder?
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to a man inside the courtroom who identified himself as
Arnold Lopez.
[FISCAL DAOSOS:]
Q Where was this Arnold Lopez seated?
COURT:
Q Where was he at the time when he whipped you with the gun?
A Meron po.
Q Would you tell this Honorable Court if that man occupying the driver's seat
is inside this courtroom?
A He is not present.
Q Now, after you were whipped and you received no reply, what happened, if
any?
These testimonies constitute persuasive and unassailable proof that all the appellants
committed the crime of kidnapping. Certainly, the positive identification of them by the
victim and his wife, who had ample opportunity to see and remember their faces, more
than satisfies the judicial mind and conscience. It is natural for victims of crimes to strive
to remember the faces of their assailants and the manner in which they committed the
crime. 2 5 Hence, there is usually no reason for us to doubt their testimonies or to suspect
their motives. The present witnesses had close contact with the kidnappers when the
victim was abducted and his wife was hit with a gun. Further, the victim was held for ten
(10) days, which was more than ample time for him to be familiar with them. His wife, on
the other hand, was in constant communication with one of the appellants during the
ransom payment negotiations. She again saw them during the actual ransom payment. SIDEaA
Moreover, the appellants did not even deny their presence during the abduction or the
ransom payment. This fact bolsters the credibility of the spouses and confirms that they
did not simply make up their narration of the kidnapping.
As to the demand for and the actual payment of the ransom money, the victim's wife
testified thus:
"JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q On March 17, 1994 you recall having received a telephone call?
A Opo.
Q At about what time did you receive the call?
A Banda pong mag-aalas dose ng umaga po.
Q And who was the one who called you?
A Si Adan po.
Q Was there any conversation?
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
.Q And what did Adan say?
A . . . sabi niya 'ito na dahil ang sabi mo gusto mong makausap ang mister
mo, ito na ang mister mo, kausapin mo na siya.'
Q Were you able to talk to your husband?
A Opo, kinausap niya ako. Ang sabi niya po sa akin 'lumipat ka ng bahay.'
Q What else?
Just quote what he said. You quote what he actually said to you.
PROS. DAOSOS:
Ano ang sinabi?
A Opo. Ang sabi niya lumipat ako ng bahay.
COURT:
Hindi lumipat. 'Yong mismong sinabi niya. I-quote mo 'yong sinabi niya
mismo.
A Yon nga lumipat daw ako ng bahay.
COURT:
Hindi. Kung ano ang sinabi niya mismo.
A 'Lumipat ka ng bahay.''
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q To what house?
A 'Lumipat ka ng bahay. Pumunta ka doon kila nanay.'
COURT:
'Yon lang ba ang sinabi sa iyo sa telepono?
A Oho. Tapos ang sagot ko 'bakit?'
Q And what was the answer?
Q Ng hapon?
A Ng hapon po.
Q And what was your conversation with him?
A Pumayag na po siya sa 1.2 na ibibigay ko sa kanya kapalit ng mister ko.
Q When you said 1.2, what do you mean?
A Ransom money.
Q 1.2 what is that?
A Opo.
Q And what else did you talk about?
A Binigyan niya po ako ng instruction kung saan ko ibibigay 'yong 1.2 million.
Q Could you tell us what is the instruction?
A Ang sabi niya po sa akin magkikita kami ng bago mag-alas kuwatro ng
hapon sa fly-over.
Q Fly-over where?
A Opo.
Q What was your conversation with them?
A Sinabi ko po sa kanila magbabayaran na kami dito sa lugar na ito bago
mag-alas kuwatro magkikita kami sa ibabaw ng fly-over.
Q Did you tell them what fly-over?
A Wala na po. Basta ang sabi niya 'O sige pumunta ka na doon.' Hindi ko na
po alam kung ano ang gagawin nila.
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q Place in?
A Nakalagay po sa bag na Dunlop na kulay asul.
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Later on Your Honor because the money were xeroxed. We will ask her.
Nakarating na ba kayo sa Magallanes?
A Opo, nakarating po kami.
Q And what happened upon your arrival in Magallanes?
A Right.
Q Extreme right?
A Yes.
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q Was he alone in the back seat?
A Hindi ho. Nakita ko ho 'yong sa kaliwa niya.
Q Can you identify the man who was seated on his left?
A Opo. (Witness pointing to a man inside the court room, who, when asked,
answered by the name of Arthur Pangilinan.)
Q Do I understand from you that there were only two (2) persons seated at the
back seat of the toyota?
A Apat po sila. Pang lima ang mister ko. Kaya lang hindi ko nakita 'yong isa
doon sa bandang hulihan.
Q 'Yong upuan lang sa likod 'yong katabi ng asawa mo? Ilang tao ang nakita
mong naroroon? Isang tao lang o . . .?
A Dalawa lang sila. Kaya lang hindi ko mamukhaan 'yong isa pa dahil 'yong
bintana eh, hindi ko na siya makita.
Q What about in the front seat, was there anybody in the front seat?
A Meron po. 'Yon po si Adan.
Q Can you identify them?
A Opo, si Arnold Lopez.
COURT:
Q Saan nakaupo si Arnold Lopez?
A Doon po sa harapan na tabi ng driver.
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q Can you identify him?
A Opo. (Witness pointing to a man inside the court room, who, when asked,
identified himself as Arnold Lopez as the man seated beside the driver.)
Q Was there anyone seated at the driver's seat of the red toyota?
Q Have you seen your husband in the car? What transpired next? What
happened after you saw your husband?
A After ho? Nakipag-usap po siya sa akin.
Q What did he say?
A Ang sabi niya uuwi na daw po ako magtataksi na lang siya. Magtataksi na
lang po daw siya pauwi sa amin. Tapos po sinarado na po 'yong bintana.
COURT:
Will you please quote it.
A 'Umuwi ka na, uuwi na lang ako. Magtataksi na lang ako.'
JUSTICE CONCEPCION:
Q You said . . . You mentioned that you have with you on that day one million
two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000.00)?
A Opo.
Q Now, what did you do with that money?
A Bumaba po si Adan.
COURT:
Q Who is Adan?
ATTY. LEONARDO:
We object to the question of distinguished justice Your Honor.
COURT:
Why?
ATTY. LEONARDO.
Because he already stated that Adan went out.
COURT:
ATTY. LEONARDO:
Yes, [he] went out Your Honor. The question is where was he seated?
COURT:
Q I am showing you this kind of bag which bag has a word 'Dunlop' on it and
previously marked as Exhibit 'G', can you identify this bag?
A Opo, 'yan po ang pinaglagyan ko ng pera.
Q After you deliver the bag containing one million two hundred thousand
pesos (P1,200,000.00), what happened next?
A Umalis na po kami. Bumalik na po ako sa bahay namin.
Q When you say 'kami', to whom do you refer? 'Umalis na kami'.
A 'Yong driver ko.
Q 'Yong driver mo at ikaw?
A Opo.
Q And what about the car what happened to it?
A Umalis na rin po siya. Magkaiba kami ng daan. (They left and we went into
different directions).
Q You said you went in different directions, the Pajero and the toyota car. To
what directions did you go?
A Going to Manila.
Q And what about the toyota car, where was it [heading]?
A Hindi ko na po sila alam kung saan sila lumiko." 2 6
Clearly, the appellants' denial cannot overcome the positive identification by the
complaining witness and his wife.
As a defense, denial is indeed insipid and weak, being easy to fabricate and difficult to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
disprove. 2 7 Mere denial of involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over the
positive testimony of the offended party. 2 8
Strangely, considering their proven participation in the crime, appellants Lopez and
Yambot also proffer the defense of alibi. For it to prosper, however, it is not enough for
them to prove that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed; they must
likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene
of the crime at the time. 2 9 This, appellants miserably failed to show.
Moreover, other than giving self-serving testimonies, they did not present any evidence to
corroborate their denial and alibi. It cannot be gainsaid that self-serving declarations are
inadmissible as evidence of the facts asserted. 3 0 As a general rule, the reason for the
exclusion of such evidence is not that it might never contribute to the ascertainment of the
truth. Rather, the reason is that, if received, it would most likely consist of falsehoods
fabricated for the occasion and mislead more than enlighten. 3 1
Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all
defenses, because they are easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. 3 2 Furthermore, they
cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of appellant by the offended
party. 3 3 Absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the
matter, a categorical, consistent and positive identification of the accused prevails over
denial and alibi. 3 4 Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, denial and alibi are
negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law. 3 5
In the instant case, there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of the victim or
his wife to testify falsely against the accused or to implicate them falsely in the
commission of so heinous a crime. The logical conclusion, then, is that no such improper
motive exists and that the testimonies are worthy of full faith and credence. 3 6
Likewise, the fact that the judge who penned the decision was not the same one who had
heard the testimonies of all the witnesses is not a compelling reason to jettison the
findings of the court a quo. This circumstance does not ipso facto render the judgment
erroneous, more so when it appears to be fully supported by the evidence on record. 3 7
While a judge in such a situation has no way to test the credibility of all the witnesses,
since he did not have the unique opportunity of observing their demeanor and behavior
under oath, the trial court's factual findings are nonetheless binding on this Court when
these are ably supported by the evidence on record. 3 8 Unless there is a clear showing of
grave abuse of discretion, the validity of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact
that its ponente only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial. 3 9
Appellants also question the RTC decision finding all of them in conspiracy to commit
kidnapping for ransom. They submit that conspiracy was not established with positive and
conclusive evidence. According to them, to be guilty of conspiracy, they must be shown to
have participated in the criminal design and, at the same time, to have committed overt
acts necessary or essential to the perpetration of the offense.
Such postulations are merely feeble attempts to escape liability. We do not subscribe to
the tale of appellants that they associated with Jun Notarte, the alleged mastermind,
simply because he had offered them high-paying jobs.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 4 0 The agreement need not be proven by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
direct evidence; 4 1 it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before, during and
after the commission of the offense, 4 2 pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted
action, and community of interests. 4 3 Indeed, jurisprudence consistently tells us that
conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated. 4 4
In the case at bar, as the trial court correctly held, conspiracy may be deduced from the
appellants' acts that show concerted action and community of interest. If it can be proven
that two (2) or more persons aimed their acts toward the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact
connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and concurrence
of sentiment then conspiracy may be inferred, even though no actual meeting among
them to concert means can be shown. 4 5 Consequently, the conspirators shall be held
equally liable for the crime, because in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. 4 6
Undoubtedly, in perpetrating the kidnapping for ransom, conspiracy existed among herein
accused-appellants. Viewed in its totality, the individual participation of each of them
pointed to a joint purpose and criminal design. Notarte and Yambot snatched the victim
from his office in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. Pangilinan and Yambot sandwiched him in
the car and transported him, together with the others, to a house where he was detained
for ten days. Lopez negotiated with the victim's wife for the ransom payment. Further, all
three appellants set out to the designated place of ransom payment. These acts were
complementary to one another and were geared toward the attainment of a common
ultimate objective. That objective was to extort a ransom of P10 million (which was later
reduced to P1.2 million through bargaining by the victim's wife) in exchange for the
victim's freedom.
Moreover, it is difficult to accept the excuse of appellants that they had nothing to do with
the kidnapping. We agree with the following observation of the trial court:
"Pangilinan's pretenses do not jibe well with reality. From his own version of the
incident, there was no need for Notarte to have hired him merely to watch the
former[']s car on the day of the abduction. For, it must be emphasized that when
Notarte and Yambot left the car and entered the building for the purpose of
abducting Garcia, one of Notarte's companions, Arnold Lopez, was left in the car.
Evidently, Lopez could very well have assumed the role of watching the car
without the need of having to hire an extra hand for the purpose.
"Moreover, it is significant to note that as early as March 08, 1994 when Garcia
was forcibly taken from his office whom Pangilinan thought, as he was made to
understand, was a drug pusher, he already entertained some suspicion that it was
not so and that Notarte and his group were into something illegal when instead of
going to Camp Crame to detain the drug-pushing suspect, they bypassed Camp
Crame and proceeded to Baliuag, Bulacan. He was even prompted, by reason of
said unexpected turn of events, to tell his wife right after he was given PHP
500.00 as his compensation for the day and after he was sent home by Notarte
that what he saw was not an arrest of a suspect but a hold-up. Yet, when Notarte
again passed by his house on March 17, 1994, Pangilinan again went with
Notarte, although Pangilinan claims that he was only forced to do so because of
alleged threat by Notarte that something would happen to him and his family if
he refuses to go with him. Such threat, assuming it was made, pales into
significance in the light of the fact that Pangilinan accepted from Notarte an
additional amount of PHP 1,000.00 which, if anything, clearly demonstrates,
coupled with his earlier participation, his complicity or connivance with Notarte in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
the abduction of Teofilo Garcia."
xxx xxx xxx
"The accused Pangilinan, Lopez and Yambot uniformly declared that their
involvement with Notarte was only on account of the latter's offer to them of
better-paying jobs and not because of his plan to kidnap a person of which they
were not privy to. Only the naive would fall for such a ruse. If their testimonies are
to be believed, the jobs being offered to them were no better than their jobs at the
time the offers were made. Besides, all of them profess to barely know Notarte
when he approached them about the jobs and yet they appear to have readily
accepted the offers. On the part of Notarte, he could not have been stupid enough
to have recruited men of dubious loyalty and commitment to a risky and
dangerous undertaking." 4 7
The elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention are the following: (a)
the accused is a private individual; (b) the accused kidnaps or detains another, or in any
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal;
and (d) in the commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances mentioned above
is present. 5 1 Moreover, the imposition of the death penalty is mandatory if the kidnapping
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. 5 2 In the instant case, appellants
cannot escape the penalty of death, inasmuch as it was sufficiently alleged and indubitably
proven that the kidnapping had been committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.
As to the conviction of the appellants for illegal possession of firearms, we are
constrained to dismiss and set aside this portion of the judgment. They cannot be held
liable for such offense, since there was another crime kidnapping for ransom which
they were committing at the same time.
The law governing illegal possession of firearms provides:
"SECTION 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or
Possession of Firearms or Ammunition Instruments Used or Intended to be Used
in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. The penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand
pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such
as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of
firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used
in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime
was committed.
"The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand
pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered
firearm which includes those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9
millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but
considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and
other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two or three:
Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such
use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
"If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection
with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d' tat, such
violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection,
sedition, or attempted coup d' tat.
"The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director
or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or
entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found
guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or
knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms without any
legal authority to be carried outside of their residence in the course of their
employment.
"The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall carry
any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor." 5 3
(Italics supplied)
Interpreting this law, this Court has consistently ruled that if an unlicensed firearm is used
in the commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal
possession of firearms. 5 4 Explained the Court:
"Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. In this case,
the plain meaning of RA 8294's simple language is most favorable to herein
appellant. Verily, no other interpretation is justified, for the language of the new
law demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accused. Accordingly,
appellant cannot be convicted of two separate offenses of illegal possession of
firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide. Moreover, since the crime
committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of
firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance . . . The law is clear: the
accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that
"no other crime was committed by the person arrested." If the intention of the law
in the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it should have
expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, where the law does not
distinguish, neither should we." 5 5
In sum, we affirm the conviction of the appellants as principals in the crime of kidnapping
for ransom and serious illegal detention. However, we set aside the judgment convicting
them of illegal possession of firearms.
As regards the articles allegedly taken from the victim during the kidnapping, we find that
the prosecution failed to prove with certainty the amount of money or the value of the
jewelry taken from him. These cannot be presumed. Moreover, we reduce the award of
moral damages to three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to be paid by the
appellants solidarily. The fact that the victim suffered the trauma of mental, physical and
psychological ordeal constitutes sufficient basis for an award of moral damages. 5 6
Meanwhile, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the
offended party to exemplary damages within the meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.
5 7 There being a demand for ransom in this case, and by way of example or correction, the
offended party shall receive exemplary damages in the amount of one hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00). 5 8
WHEREFORE, the decision of the RTC of Pasig City (Branch 70) in Criminal Case No.
106115 sentencing appellants to death for kidnapping for ransom is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that they shall pay the victim in solidum the amount of three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) as moral damages and an additional amount of one
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages. Costs against appellants.
However, the Decision of the court a quo convicting them of illegal possession of firearms
in Criminal Case No. 106116 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Three Justices of the Court maintain their position that R.A. No. 7659 is unconstitutional
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the
majority that the law is constitutional, and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed
in the case at bar.
In accordance with Section 25 of R.A. No. 7659 amending Section 83 of the Revised Penal
Code, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded, upon finality of this decision, to
the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power. DHTECc
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-
Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr.,
and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Motion to Withdraw Appeal dated April 29, 1999; rollo, pp. 135-136. See also the June 22,
1999 Supreme Court Resolution granting the Motion to Withdraw Appeal filed by Antonio
Hamton; rollo, p. 137.
6. RTC Decision, pp. 1920; rollo, pp. 115116; records, vol. 2, pp. 712713.
7. Brief for the accused-appellant Reynaldo Yambot, p. 2; rollo, p. 282.
8. Brief for the accused-appellant Arnold Lopez, p. 2; rollo, p. 142.
35. People vs. Jose, 324 SCRA 196 (2000), citing People vs. Villablanca, 316 SCRA 13
(1999).