People v Michael Nunez

(Accused, Michael Nunez and Accused-appellant, Rodolfo Cayetano)

The kidnapping in the case at bar happened before RA 7659 categorized KIDNAP
FOR RANSOM as a heinous crime.
THE KIDNAPPING
1/21/93, 1:15pm, Inside the the compound of Immaculate Concepcion Parochial
School accused, MICHAEL NUNEZ persuaded the 14 yr old victim, JOSEPH
RIVERA to go with him, as he was turning over proceeds of the sale of a gun to the
latters father. Another victim, deceased, NEIL PATRICK QUILLOSA was also
brought along to accompany his friend JOSEPH.
CHANGE LOCATION
They were brought to a nipa hut in the middle of a fishpond in Dampalit, Malabon
to wait for ISMAEL SANTOS aka Ka Tony. When they tried to leave, they were
told to wait for Ka Tony and were asked how they would prefer to die (with a knife
or a gun). NEIL answered that he would prefer a gun to his head.
They were blindfolded as per request of Ka Tony and promised by NUNEZ that
they would not be harmed.
RANSOM DEMAND
Both victims were tied up at their hands and feet, which NUNEZ secured. NUNEZ
then played a tape demanding 3M in 500 and 1000 peso bills from JOSEPHs
parents. JOSEPH was also made to record his pleadings to his parents to pay the
ransom. NUNEZ had a gun and fired at a window, hitting the tape recorder.
QUILLOSAS DEATH
JOSEPH and NEIL were brought to a river by NUNEZ and accused-appelant,
RODOLFO CAYETANO. NUNEZ dragged NEIL by the neck to the middle of the
river and left him to drown while RODOLFO stood guard over JOSEPH. NEIL cried
for help while JOSEPH pleaded with their captors to save the former.
They made JOSEPH record another message to his parents informing them that his
captors had killed his friend.
JOSEPH was untied on the promise that he would not escape.
The following morning, NUNEZ delivered the tape to JOSEPHs parents.
JOSEPH ESCAPES
While NUNEZ was busy cutting grass near the river, NUNEZ was able to escape
and call his grandmother from the formers house.
He was fetched by his grandmother and father and they proceeded to the police
station in Malabon to report the kidnapping.
The police found the tape recorder from the nipa hut but both NUNEZ and
RODOLFO were gone.
QUILLOSAS BODY
NEILs body was recovered on 1/23/93 at Chungkang River, Malabon, his hands
and feet still tied with a gag in his mouth.

The cause of death according to Dr. Juanito Sacdalan was ASPHYXIA DUE TO
STRANGULATION and that the wire tied around the limbs of the victim were the
same as the one around his neck.
CAYETANOS VERSION/DEFENSE
CAYETANO denied accusations and claimed NUNEZ threatened him with a gun on
the day he arrived at the nipa hut. He knew NUNEZ as he usually sees him when
he buys kakanin from his family.
He claimed that he saw 2 children who tied up and that he witnessed the
recordings on the cassette by NUNEZ and JOSEPH. He did not hear the recordings
however, because NUNEZ told him to keep his distance.
He averred that when NUNEZ brought the 2 children to the river, he was just
watching and following them; from atop a paddy, he saw NUNEZ release NEIL in
the middle of the river.
The following morning, NUNEZ ordered him to guard JOSEPH as he was leaving.
However, CAYETANO opted to cut grass by the fishpond.
When they found out that JOSEPH had escaped, he was told to flee as the police
would come. He went to his grandmothers place, after which, he was surrendered
by his uncle to then VP Erap.
He claims that he does not know how to read and write and that he can only write
his name and count up to 50.
RTC convicted both:
KIDNAPPING for RANSOM and sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA
COMPLEX CRIME of KIDNAPPING with MURDER and sentenced to
RECLUSION PERPETUA
INDEMNIFY heirs of victims 50K
ACTUAL DAMAGES 41,700
MORAL DAMAGES 50K and costs of the suit
ISSUES (CAYETANOS APPEAL):
RTC erred
1. Not finding that his low level of intelligence/state of imbecility exempts him
from any criminal liability
a. He has a mental age of 6-10 yrs old as revealed in his direct testimony
and upon cross-examination
b. He cites his act of cutting grass when he should be guarding the
victim
c. Even if he is liable, court should have proceeded against him pursuant
to the Child and Youth Welfare Code
2. Not acquitting him because of an exempting circumstance of uncontrollable
fear of an unequal or greater injury.
a. NUNEZ poked a gun and threatened him
b. He had no alternative but to follow orders, especially considering his
mental capacity
3. Not finding records of the case insufficient to hold a finding of conspiracy
against him
a. He would rather cut grass than guard his victim indicating low mental
age

b. The act of kidnapping had already been executed and perfected when
he arrived in the nipa hut, several hours later
c. Testimonies of the private complainants were consistent with the fact
that he was nowhere near NUNEZ when he was recording the alleged
ransom demand
HELD:
1. The defense attribution of imbecility is not supported by evidence.
Imbecility is defined as feeblemindedness or a mental condition approaching
that of one who is insane. Within the meaning of RPC12, it is one who must
be deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of
committing a crime. One who at an advanced age, has a mental development
comparable to that of children between 2-7 yrs of age.
CAYETANOs act of cutting grass instead of guarding his victim is not
indicative of imbecility, but maybe negligence. However, it is not
childishness or that which indicates deprivation of reason
or discernment or freedom of will. He admitted on cross-examination that he
tell right from wrong.
Even if he was an imbecile, PEOPLE v FORMIGONES laid down the
principle that feeblemindedness is not exempting because the offender could
distinguish right from wrong, while someone insane could not.
NCC800 provides that the law presumes that every person is of sound
mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. The law also presumes all
acts to be voluntary. The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly
proved. It is improper to presume that acts were executed unconsciously.
2. CAYETANOs claim that NUNEZ poked a gun at him and threatened him is
belied by testimonial evidence.
Ganting that CAYETANO was forced under to duress, testimonial evidence
shows that he had at least four times to escape. First, when NUNEZ brought
the children to the river. Second, when NUNEZ and JOSEPH were sleeping
in the nipa hut. Third, when NUNEZ asked him to look for the necklace of
NEIL by the river. Fourth, when NUNEZ left him and the victim to deliver
the demand recording.
By not availing of any of these opportunities to escape, his allegation of fear
or duress becomes incredible under the circumstances. A threat of future
injury is not enough.
3. The findings with regard to the first two issues bolsters the evidence that
CAYETANO conspired with NUNEZ to commit the crimes charged against
him as the records show the presence of conspiracy.
First, when CAYETANO arrived at the nipa hut, the first thing he did was
check if they victims were tied up properly. Second, CAYETANO carried
NEIL to the river. Third, CAYETANO kicked JOSEPH when the latter was
ordered to go to the river.
Evidence of criminal conspiracy need not be direct. It can be deduced that
actions of the accused-appellant that he conspired with NUNEZ.

Neither did he dissuade NUNEZ from killing NEIL or to escape in order to

report the crime. He did not perform an overt act to dissociate or detach
himself from the unlawful plan to commit the felony.
RULING:
RTC correct that KIDNAPPING for RANSOM was committed. Essential elements
were present (restriction or deprivation of liberty, ransom demand with the
intention to send it to JOSEPHs parents). JOSEPHs parents owned a gasoline
station having a net income of 24K/month and owning several properties.
The killing of NEIL however, was the intent, not to demand ransom for him. He
could not have possibly pay a ransom because he is a son of a jeepney driver.
RTC finding of GUILTY of KIDNAPPING for RANSOM of JOSEPH AFFIRMED.
COMPLEX CRIME of KIDNAPPING with MURDER MODIFIED with regard to
CAYETANO to HOMICIDE (sentence is 10y 1d to 12 y od prision mayor max as
minimum up to 18y 6m 1d of reclusion temporal max as maximum)