Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52980:gr-168446-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:23:11+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ERNESTO CRUZ, JR. y CONCEPCION and REYNALDO AGUSTIN y RAMOS, Appellants.
The present appeal is from a Decision1 dated April 8, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00264, affirming in toto the Joint Decision2 dated May 25, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan, finding appellants Ernesto Cruz, Jr. and Reynaldo Agustin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention (Article 267, Revised Penal Code [RPC] as amended by Republic Act [R.A.] No. 7659) and Robbery (Article 294, RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659).
2. US $20,000, telegraphic transfer to PNB-Makati Ave. payable upon credit to local account or by express delivery to me or representative.
That on or about 6:30 o'clock in the evening of August 23, 1998 at the intersection of Pasong Kalabaw and J. Bernardino Streets, Poblacion Pandi, Bulacan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap ATTY. DANILO SORIANO for the purpose of demanding ransom for the latter's release, and in fact, accused collected and received the ransom money in the amount of ONE MILLION (P1,000,000.00) PESOS, detaining and depriving Atty. Danilo Soriano of his personal liberty until his rescue by police officers on August 29, 1998.
CONTRARY TO LAW, particularly Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
To the damage and prejudice of ATTY. DANILO SORIANO in the aforesaid amount.
Upon arraignment19 on October 16, 1998, appellant Ernesto Cruz, appellant Reynaldo Agustin and Enrique AvendaÃ±o, assisted by counsel de parte, and Allen Francisco, assisted by counsel de officio, all pleaded Not Guilty of the crime/s charged.
After Pre-trial on November 12, 1998, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses, Atty. Soriano, SMART Telecommunications Supervisor, Daisy Sazon, Senior Police Inspector (SPO)1 Ricardo Valencia, SPO4 Willy Nuas and SPO4 Romano Desumala whose testimonies were earlier mentioned.
On the other hand, the defense presented the testimonies of accused Allen Francisco, appellant Agustin, appellant Cruz, Lilibeth Francisco, Danilo Agustin, Isabelita Agustin and Bonifacio Moramion.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby finds accused Ernesto Cruz, Jr. y Concepcion and Reynaldo Agustin y Ramos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, and hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay private complainant Atty. Danilo Soriano the amount of P50,000 as moral damages.
Accused Allen Francisco y Buensaleda is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge.
This Court likewise finds accused Ernesto Cruz, Jr. y Concepcion GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of Arresto Mayor Maximum, as minimum, to 8 years of Prision Mayor Medium, as maximum, and to pay herein private complainant the amount of P12,000 as actual damages. With costs.
The cases were appealed to this Court due to the imposition of the death penalty. However, on September, 14, 2004, in conformity with the decision promulgated on July 7, 2004 in G.R. NOS. 147678-87, entitled The People of the Philippines v. Efren Mateo y Garcia, modifying the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, more particularly Sections 3 and of Rule 125 and any other rule insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTCs to this Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as well as the resolution of this Court en banc, dated September 19, 1995, in "Internal Rules of the Supreme Court" in cases similarly involving the death penalty, pursuant to the Court's power to promulgate rules of procedure in all courts under Article VII, Section 5 of the Constitution, and allowing an intermediate review by the CA before such cases are elevated to this Court, this Court transferred the case to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, this Court renders judgment AFFIRMING the appealed decision in toto. However, instead of rendering judgment, We hereby certify and elevate the entire records of this case to the Supreme Court for its final review and disposition, consonant with the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo, supra and its Resolution in A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004.
Appellant Reynaldo Agustin filed his Supplemental Brief25 dated October 7, 2005, while appellant Ernesto Cruz, Jr. filed a Manifestation dated October 12, 2005 stating that he is adopting in toto his Appellant's Brief, as well as his Supplemental Brief required in the Resolution dated July 19, 1995 of this Court. In compliance with the Court's Resolution dated July 19, 2005, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also filed its Supplemental Brief dated January 5, 2006.
In his earlier Brief26 dated April 30, 2002, appellant Agustin argued that the trial court overlooked and seriously failed to weigh accurately all the material facts and circumstances of the case presented to it for reconsideration. According to him, the prosecution failed to substantiate his participation in the conspiracy to commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom. He added that, at most, he was implicated in the commission of the crime charged based solely on circumstantial evidence, however, the circumstances presented by the prosecution were clearly inadequate to demonstrate convincingly and persuasively that he had conspired with appellant Cruz to commit the crime charged. Finally, he claims that the trial court failed to consider his defense that he never participated in kidnapping and detaining Atty. Soriano, as he had no knowledge whatsoever in the commission of the said offense.
In refutation of the Brief of appellant Agustin, the OSG filed its Brief27 dated August 28, 2002 averring that appellant Agustin's guilt for the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom as a principal by indispensable cooperation has been sufficiently established.
As a reply to the brief filed by the OSG, appellant Agustin filed his Appellant's Reply Brief28 dated November 27, 2002 insisting that his guilt as principal by indispensable cooperation in the crime charged has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellant Cruz, on the other hand, filed his Brief29 dated December 8, 2002 and argued that the trial court erred in not giving any credence or weight to his evidence that the kidnapping of Atty. Soriano was the idea of the latter and in not considering said circumstance that had removed or cast doubt on the element of illegal restraint upon the supposed victim, even only as a mitigating circumstance. He further stated that the trial court erred in finding that the crime allegedly committed by him is Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention, punishable by death, whereas, there was actually no forcible taking of the person of Atty. Soriano, who appeared to have voluntarily cooperated with appellant Agustin and his companions to make Atty. Soriano's plan appear to be real. The brief does not mention about any contention as to his being found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery.
To refute the contentions of appellant Cruz in his brief, the OSG, in its Brief30 dated April 3, 2003 stated that the former's guilt for Kidnapping for Ransom and Robbery with Intimidation has been sufficiently established.
In his Reply Brief31 dated February 19, 2004, appellant Ernesto Cruz, Jr. contended that he was only able to disclose the defense that Atty. Soriano planned the kidnapping during the trial because it was his first time to testify and that he told the said fact to his lawyers long before the said trial.
For the accused to be convicted of kidnapping, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime, namely: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (2) it is committed by simulating public authority; (3) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (4) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.33 If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is immaterial.
reasonable doubt, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to controvert the evidence of the prosecution.
A careful perusal of the records and the transcript of stenographic notes clearly shows that the prosecution was able to adduce the requisite circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of appellant Agustin beyond reasonable doubt.
A: My caretaker Reynaldo Agustin was insistent that he personally drive the motorcycle, although his son was presenting himself which was the usual practice. His wife also asked if it was possible to allow his son to drive the motorcycle because there was a drinking spree in some corner and his wife did not want him to drive the motorcycle but he insisted.
A: We were still some distance away from the waiting shed. There was a parked private owner-type jeepney along the road. Without being told, Reynaldo Agustin stopped in front of that jeepney.
A: He gave some kind of signal to the four (4) men who were wearing black jacket. Three were boarded inside the jeepney and one was on the road. He gave the signal, Ano ba? Si Attorney! So I wondered what it was all about. Then he told me to board the jeepney and I asked why.
The above testimony, coupled with the fact that appellant Agustin was arrested in the late afternoon of August 29, 1998 while he acted as a guard outside the hut where Atty. Soriano was kept, are consistent with each other, thereby warranting the conclusion that the former indeed had an indispensable part in the crime charged. His defense that his presence outside the hut where Atty. Soriano during the rescue operation, which eventually led to his arrest, does not make him criminally liable, deserves scant consideration. It was merely a statement which is not corroborated by any other evidence; thus, it is not enough to debunk the earlier mentioned circumstantial evidence.
The act must be the ordinary and probable effect of the wrongful acts specifically agreed on, so that the connection between them may be reasonably apparent, and not a fresh and independent project of the mind of one of the confederates, outside of or foreign to the common design, and growing out of the individual malice of the perpetrator.
I could sense they were taking turns. There were times when both of them were not there and I could only see Allen Francisco going around.
A: Not only 2, sometimes 3.
A: Especially when fed by Allen Francisco because he was the one delivering the food.
A: Not exactly preparing. He was the one bringing food.
A: It was possible he is. It was possible somebody else because I knew he has a wife in the first kubo.
A: Early morning, Monday, August 24 when she transferred to the second kubo from the first kubo.
Accused Ernesto Cruz's defense - that the kidnapping was concocted by Atty. Soriano himself to secure money from his relatives and that he was merely inveigled into it - is self-serving and unworthy of belief, as it is neither logical nor satisfactory, much less consistent with human experience and knowledge. Soriano, a lawyer gainfully employed with Del Monte Philippines, with a caring family, cannot be believed to have concocted such a scheme. In People v. Enriquez, 132 SCRA 553, the High Tribunal dismissed therein appellant's theory that the kidnapping was a mere scheme concocted by the victim himself, ruling that "No normal human being could be so base and ungrateful as to conceive such scheme for the purpose of securing money from his own (parents)."
Cruz's defense does not hold water; his version is either unsupported by or inconsistent with the evidence. First, Cruz alleged that he knew Soriano prior to the incident as his farm in Bagong Barrio, Pandi, Bulacan abutted that of Soriano's and that the latter often visited him. But Soriano's farm is situated in another barangay, in Brgy. Masuso, Pandi, Bulacan. Agustin's testimony that he introduced Cruz to complainant as his compadre before asking the latter to board Cruz's jeep, also belied Cruz's claim. Hence, we accord credence to private complainant's assertion that, except for appellant Agustin, he knew none of the accused prior to his abduction.
It bears noting that despite Cruz's claim that Soriano confided in him and asked him to participate in the kidnapping scheme, he denied any reference to friendship, stating that he and Soriano merely developed a mutual liking for each other. Assuming this latter statement to be true, We cannot believe that complainant would propose such a delicate scheme to a mere acquaintance.
Second, appellant Cruz's testimony that Attorney Soriano was "Free to move about", "treated like a guest", "like taking a vacation" during his stay at Cruz's hut was belied by his helpers, former co-accused Allen Francisco and Francisco's wife, Lilibeth Mitra, who testified that they never saw complainant leave the hut (because) complainant was closely guarded by Buluran, who was armed with an armalite rifle. Moreover the presence of guns and other weapons in the alleged "kidnap me" charade, eventually resulting in the shooting to death of Narciso Buluran, strongly militates against its credence.
Third, the tearful reaction of complainant's family to his kidnapping was clearly sincere and unorchestrated, belying knowledge of any scheme.
From the above disquisitions, it is apparent that appellants Cruz and Agustin conspired to commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom which was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated April 8, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00264, affirming in toto the Joint Decision dated May 25, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants Ernesto Cruz, Jr. and Reynaldo Agustin are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention (Article 267, RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the penalty of which, is reclusion perpetua in view of the passage of R.A. No. 9346.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Portia AliÃ±o Hormachuelos (Chairperson, Seventh Division), with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-34.
2 Penned by Judge Gregorio S. Sampaga; CA rollo, pp. 30-50.
3 TSN, November 24, 1998, p. 2.
8 Id. at 11-12, 17-19.
9 Exhibits "A" and "H," records, vol. II, pp. 268 and 282, respectively.
10 Exhibit "B," records, vol. II, pp. 271, 272.
11 TSN, November 19, 1998, pp. 14-16, Exhibit "B," supra.
13 Id. at 19; record, vol. III, p. 745.
14 TSN, January 14, 1999, pp. 9-19, 40.
15 Id. at 12-13; TSN, January 11, 1999, pp. 1-7; Affidavit of Arrest, Exhibit "M," records, vol. II, p. 286; PAOCTF Report, Exhibit "S," records, vol. II, p. 293.
16 Exhibits "E" to "E-9," records, vol. II, pp. 298-495; Exhibit "F," p. 280.
17 CA rollo, pp. 8-10.
19 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 110-113.
20 TSN, September 2, 1999, pp. 2-3, 22.
21 TSN, October 14, 1999, p. 7.
22 TSN, September 30, 2000, p. 11.
24 TSN, December 2, 1999, pp. 3-21.
32 People v. Pagalasan, 452 Phil. 341, 361-362 (2003).
33 People v. Salimbago, G.R. No. 121365, September 14, 1999, 314 SCRA 282.
34 People. v. Borromeo, G.R. No. 130843, January 27, 2000, 323 SCRA 547.
35 People. v. Soberano, G.R. No. 116234, November 6, 1997, 281 SCRA 438.
36 People. v. Yambot, et al., G.R. No. 120350, October 13, 2000, 343 SCRA 20, citing People v. Quijada, 259 SCRA 191, 212-213; citing: People v. De Guzman, 188 SCRA 407 (1990); People v. De Leon, 245 SCRA 538 (1995); People v. Delovino, 247 SCRA 637 (1995).
37 People v. Delim, 444 Phil. 430, 451-452 (2003).
38 Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, Part II, Vol. VII, 1991 ed.
40 People v. Elizaga, G.R. No. L-23202, April 30, 1968, 23 SCRA 449.
41 People v. Casingal, G.R. No. 87163, March 29, 1995, 243 SCRA 37.
42 TSN, November 19, 1998, pp. 5-6.
43 Supra note 32, at 363-365.
44 Harrison v. United States, 7 F.2d. 259 (1925).
45 Revised Penal Code, Art. 8.
46 People v. Quilaton, G.R. No. 131835, February 3, 2000, 324 SCRA 670.
47 172 Eng. Rep. 502 (1837).
48 People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999, 305 SCRA 740.
49 People v. Elijorde, G.R. No. 126531, April 21, 1999, 306 SCRA 188.
50 People v. Del Rosario, supra note 48.
51 87 L.ed. 23 (1942).
52 22A Corpus Juris Secundum, Conspiracy, p. 1150; U.S. v. Eng, 241 F.2d. 157 (1957).
53 Revised Rules of Evidence, Rule 130, Sec. 30.
54 15A Corpus Juris Secundum, Conspiracy, p. 828.
56 Ingram v. United States, 259 F.2d. 886 (1958).
57 Pring v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41605, August 19, 1985, 138 SCRA 185.
58 100 F.2d. 401 (1938).
59 236 SW 942 (1922).
60 123 F.2d. 271 (1941).
61 Martin v. State, 8 So. 23 (1890).
62 People v. Pangilinan, 443 Phil. 198, 239 (2003), citing People v. Boller, 429 Phil. 754 (2002); People v. Bacungan, 428 Phil. 798 (2002); People v. Manlansing, 428 Phil. 743 (2002).
63 TSN, November 24, 1998, pp. 16-17.
64 People v. Ubongen, G.R. No. 126024, April 20, 2001, 357 SCRA 142.
66 People v. De la Cruz, 342 Phil. 854 (1997); People v. Sinoc, 341 Phil. 355 (1997).
67 G.R. No. 117833, December 22, 1997, 283 SCRA 443.
68 People v. Deduyo, G.R. No. 138456, October 23, 2003, 414 SCRA 160, citing FLORENZ D. REGALADO, CRIMINAL LAW CONSPECTUS 488 .
70 People v. Domingo Reyes y Paje, et al., G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.