4/17/2017 G.R. No.

207949

TodayisMonday,April17,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.207949July23,2014

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,
vs.
ARMANDODIONALDOyEBRON,RENATODIONALDOyEBRON,MARIANOGARIGUEZ,JR.yRAMOS,and
RODOLFOLARIDOyEBRON,AccusedAppellants.

RESOLUTION

PERLASBERNABE,J.:

BeforetheCourtisanappealassailingtheDecision1datedFebruary15,2013oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCA
G.R. CRH.C. No. 02888 finding accusedappellants Armando Dionaldo y Ebron (Armando), Renato Dionaldo y
Ebron (Renato), Mariano Gariguez, Jr. y Ramos (Mariano), and Rodolfo Larido y Ebron (Rodolfo) guilty beyond
reasonabledoubtofthecrimeofKidnappingandSeriousIllegalDetention.

TheFacts

At around 8 o'clock in the morning of May 16, 2003, Roderick Navarro (Roderick) dropped his brother Edwin
Navarro(Edwin)offattheHealthIsWealthGyminCaloocanCity.Thirtyminuteslater,hereceivedatextmessage
from another brother who told him that Edwin had been kidnapped.2 Records show that three (3) men, later
identifiedasArmando,Renato,andMariano,forciblydraggedabloodiedEdwindownthestairwayofthegymand
pushed him inside a dark green Toyota car with plate number UKF 194.3 Upon receiving the message, Roderick
immediatelyreportedtheincidenttothepolice.Ataround10oclockinthemorningofthesameday,hereceiveda
phonecallfromEdwinskidnapperswhothreatenedtokillEdwinifheshouldreportthemattertothepolice.4

The following day, Roderick received another call from the kidnappers, who demanded the payment of ransom
moneyintheamountofP15,000,000.00.Rodericktoldthemhehadnosuchmoney,asheonlyhadP50,000.00.On
May19,2003,afternegotiationsoverthetelephone,thekidnappersagreedtoreleaseEdwininexchangeforthe
amountofP110,000.00.RoderickwastheninstructedtobringthemoneytoBatangasandwaitfortheirnextcall.5

At around 7:30 in the evening of the same day, as Roderick was on his way to Batangas to deliver the ransom
money,thekidnapperscalledandinstructedhimtoopenallthewindowsofthecarhewasdrivingandtoturnonthe
hazard light when he reaches the designated place. After a while, Roderick received another call directing him to
exitinBicutaninsteadandproceedtoC5untilhearrivesattheCentennialVillage.Hewastoldtoparkbesidethe
LibinganngmgaBayani.Afterseveralhours,anorangeMitsubishicarwithplatenumberDEH498pulledupinfront
ofhisvehiclewherefour(4)menalighted.Rodericksawoneofthementakeamobilephoneanduponutteringthe
word"alat,"themenreturnedtotheircaranddroveaway.6

Meanwhile,ateamhadbeenorganizedtoinvestigatethekidnappingofEdwin,headedbySPO3RomeoCaballero
(SPO3Caballero)andPO3NestorAcebuche(PO3Acebuche)oftheCampCramePoliceAntiCrimeEmergency
Response (PACER). During the course of the investigation, Rodolfo, an employee at the Health Is Wealth Gym,
confessedtoPO3AcebuchethathewaspartoftheplantokidnapEdwin,asinfacthewastheonewhotippedoff
Mariano,Renato,ArmandoandacertainVirgilio7Varona8(Virgilio)ontheconditionthathewillbegivenasharein
theransommoney.Rodolfogaveinformationonthewhereaboutsofhiscohorts,leadingtotheirarrestonJune12,
2003.IntheearlymorningofthefollowingdayoronJune13,2003,thePACERteamfoundthedeadbodyofEdwin
atSitioPugpuganLaurel,Batangas,whichRoderickidentified.9

Thus,accusedappellantsaswellasVirgiliowerechargedinanInformation10whichreads:

That on or about the 16th day of May, 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, being then
privatepersons,didthenandtherebyforceandintimidationwillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslywiththeuseofmotor

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_207949_2014.html 1/6
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 207949
vehicleandsuperiorstrengthtake,carryanddepriveEDWINNAVARROYONA,ofhislibertyagainsthiswill,forthe
purposeofextortingransomasinfactademandofP15,000,000.00wasmadeasaconditionofthevictimsrelease
andontheoccasionthereof,thedeathofthevictimresulted.

Contrarytolaw.

Duringarraignment,accusedappellantspleadednotguilty11andinterposedthedefensesofdenialandalibi.Except
for Rodolfo, they individually claimed that on said date and time, they were in their respective houses when they
weretakenbymeninpoliceuniforms,thensubsequentlybroughttoCampCrame,andthereallegedlytorturedand
detained.Ontheotherhand,Rodolfo,forhimself,averredthatataround8oclockintheeveningofJune12,2003,
whilewalkingonhiswayhome,henoticedthatavanhadbeenfollowinghim.Suddenly,four(4)personsalighted
fromthevehicle,boardedhiminside,blindfoldedhim,andeventuallytorturedhim.Helikewiseclaimedthathewas
madetosignanextrajudicialconfession,purportingtoothatwhileacertainAtty.Nepomucenohadbeensummoned
toassisthim,thelatterfailedtodoso.12

Duringtrial,thedeathofthevictim,Edwin,wasestablishedthroughaCertificateofDeath13withRegistryNo.2003
050(subjectcertificateofdeath)showingthathediedonMay19,2003fromagunshotwoundonthehead.

TheRTCRuling

InaDecision14datedJune13,2007,theRegionalTrialCourtofCaloocanCity,Branch129(RTC),inCrim.Case
No. C68329, convicted accusedappellants of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, sentencing
eachofthemtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.

It gave credence to the positive and straightforward testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which clearly
establishedthatitwastheaccusedappellantswhoforciblydraggedabloodiedEdwinintoacarand,consequently,
deprivedhimofhisliberty.15Inlightthereof,itrejectedaccusedappellantsrespectivealibisandclaimsoftorture,
which were not substantiated. It also held that the crime of Kidnapping had been committed for the purpose of
extortingransom,whichispunishablebydeath.However,inviewofthesuspendedimpositionofthedeathpenalty
pursuanttoRepublicActNo.(RA)9346,16onlythepenaltyofreclusionperpetuawasimposed.17Further,theRTC
foundthatconspiracyattendedthecommissionofthecrime,astheaccusedappellantsindividualparticipationwas
gearedtowardajointpurposeandcriminaldesign.18

Notably, while the RTC found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses prove that the victim Edwin was
abducted,deprivedofliberty,andeventuallykilled,19afactwhichissupportedbythesubjectcertificateofdeath,it
didnotconsidersaiddeathinitsjudgment.TheCARuling

InaDecision20datedFebruary15,2013,theCAaffirmedintototheRTCsconvictionofaccusedappellants,finding
that the prosecution was able to clearly establish all the elements of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention, namely: (a) the offender is a private individual (b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner
deprivesthelatterofhisliberty(c)theactofdetentionorkidnappingmustbeillegaland(d)inthecommissionof
theoffense,anyofthefollowingcircumstancesispresent:(1)thekidnappingordetentionlastsformorethanthree
days(2)itiscommittedsimulatingpublicauthority(3)anyseriousphysicalinjuriesareinflictedupontheperson
kidnappedordetainedorthreatstokillhimaremadeor(4)thepersonkidnappedordetainedisaminor,except
when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.21 It likewise sustained the finding that the
kidnappingwascommittedforthepurposeofextortingransom,assufficientlyprovenbythetestimonyofthebrother
of the victim.22 Moreover, the CA affirmed that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime, as the acts of
accusedappellantsemanatedfromthesamepurposeorcommondesign,andtheywereunitedinitsexecution.23

Separately, the CA found that accusedappellants claims of torture were never supported, and that Rodolfo
voluntarily signed the extrajudicial confession and was afforded competent and independent counsel in its
execution.24

Aggrievedbytheirconviction,accusedappellantsfiledtheinstantappeal.

TheIssueBeforetheCourt

ThesoleissuetoberesolvedbytheCourtiswhetherornotaccusedappellantsareguiltyofthecrimeofKidnapping
andSeriousIllegalDetention.

TheCourtsRuling

Theappealisdevoidofmerit.

Wellsettled is the rule that the question of credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trial court to determine. Its
assessmentofthecredibilityofawitnessisentitledtogreatweight,anditisconclusiveandbindingunlessshownto
betaintedwitharbitrarinessorunless,throughoversight,somefactorcircumstanceofweightandinfluencehasnot
beenconsidered.Absentanyshowingthatthetrialjudgeoverlooked,misunderstood,ormisappliedsomefactsor
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_207949_2014.html 2/6
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 207949
circumstancesofweightwhichwouldaffecttheresultofthecase,orthatthejudgeactedarbitrarily,hisassessment
ofthecredibilityofwitnessesdeserveshighrespectbytheappellatecourt.25

In this case, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, gave weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, which they found to be straightforward and consistent. Through these testimonies, it was clearly
establishedthataccusedappellants,whowereallprivateindividuals,tookthevictimEdwinanddeprivedhimofhis
liberty, which acts were illegal, and for the purpose of extorting ransom.26 Thus, seeing no semblance of
arbitrarinessormisapprehensiononthepartofthecourtaquo,theCourtfindsnocompellingreasontodisturbits
factualfindingsonthisscore. 1wphi1

Anentthefindingthatconspiracyattendedthecommissionofthecrime,theCourtlikewisefindstheconclusionof
theRTCinthisregard,asaffirmedbytheCA,tobewelltaken.Conspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscome
to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and when conspiracy is
established, the responsibility of the conspirators is collective, not individual, rendering all of them equally liable
regardlessoftheextentoftheirrespectiveparticipations.27Inthisrelation,directproofisnotessentialtoestablish
conspiracy,asitcanbepresumedfromandprovenbytheactsoftheaccusedpointingtoajointpurpose,design,
concertedaction,andcommunityofinterests.28Hence,asthefactualcircumstancesinthiscaseclearlyshowthat
accusedappellantsactedinconcertatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimeandthattheiractsemanatedfrom
the same purpose or common design, showing unity in its execution,29 the CA, affirming the trial court, correctly
ruledthattherewasconspiracyamongthem.

Theforegoingnotwithstanding,theCourtis,however,constrainedtomodifytherulingoftheRTCandtheCA,as
the crime the accusedappellants have committed does not, as the records obviously bear, merely constitute
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, but that of the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with
Homicide.Thisisinviewofthevictims(i.e.,Edwins)death,whichwas(a)specificallychargedintheInformation,30
and(b)clearlyestablishedduringthetrialofthiscase.Notably,whilethismatterwasnotamongtheissuesraised
beforetheCourt,thesameshouldnonethelessbeconsideredinaccordancewiththesettledrulethatinacriminal
case, an appeal, as in this case, throws open the entire case wide open for review, and the appellate court can
correcterrors,thoughunassigned,thatmaybefoundintheappealedjudgment.31

AftertheamendmentoftheRevisedPenalCodeonDecember31,1993byRA7659,Article267ofthesameCode
nowprovides:

Art.267.Kidnappingandseriousillegaldetention.Anyprivateindividualwhoshallkidnapordetainanother,orin
anyothermannerdeprivehimofhisliberty,shallsufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeath:

1.Ifthekidnappingordetentionshallhavelastedmorethanthreedays.

2.Ifitshallhavebeencommittedsimulatingpublicauthority.

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or if
threatstokillhimshallhavebeenmade.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents,
femaleorapublicofficer

Thepenaltyshallbedeathwherethekidnappingordetentionwascommittedforthepurposeofextortingransom
from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the
commissionoftheoffense.

When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizingacts,themaximumpenaltyshallbeimposed.(Emphasessupplied)

TheCourtfurtherelucidatedinPeoplev.Mercado:32

In People v. Ramos, the accused was found guilty of two separate heinous crimes of kidnapping for ransom and
murdercommittedonJuly13,1994andsentencedtodeath.Onappeal,thisCourtmodifiedtherulingandfoundthe
accused guilty of the "special complex crime" of kidnapping for ransom with murder under the last paragraph of
Article267,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.7659.ThisCourtsaid:

xxxThisamendmentintroducedinourcriminalstatutestheconceptofspecialcomplexcrimeofkidnappingwith
murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases where the
killingofthekidnappedvictimwaspurposelysoughtbytheaccused,andthosewherethekillingofthevictimwas
not deliberately resorted to but was merely an afterthought. Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person
kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was
merelyanafterthought,thekidnappingandmurderorhomicidecannolongerbecomplexedunderArt.48,norbe

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_207949_2014.html 3/6
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 207949
treatedasseparatecrimes,butshallbepunishedasaspecialcomplexcrimeunderthelastparagraphofArt.267,
asamendedbyRANo.7659.33(Emphasessuppliedcitationsomitted)

Thus, further taking into account the fact that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom,
accusedappellants conviction must be modified from Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention to the special
complexcrimeofKidnappingforRansomwithHomicide,whichcarriesthepenaltyofdeath.Asearlierintimated,the
enactmentofRA9346hadsuspendedtheimpositionofthedeathpenalty.Thismeansthattheaccusedappellants
could,astheCAandtrialcourtproperlyruled,onlybesentencedtothepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.Tothis,the
Courtaddsthattheaccusedappellantsarenoteligibleforparole.34

Onafinalnote,theCourtobservesthattheRTCandtheCAfailedtoawardcivilindemnityaswellasdamagesto
thefamilyofthekidnapvictim.InPeoplev.Quiachon,35theCourtexplainedthatevenifthedeathpenaltywasnotto
be imposed on accusedappellants in view of the prohibition in RA 9346, the award of civil indemnity was
nonethelessproper,notbeingdependentontheactualimpositionofthedeathpenaltybutonthefactthatqualifying
circumstanceswarrantingtheimpositionofthedeathpenaltyattendedthecommissionofthecrime.36Inthepresent
case,consideringthatboththequalifyingcircumstancesofransomandthedeathofthevictimduringcaptivitywere
dulyallegedintheinformationandprovenduringtrial,civilindemnityintheamountofP100,000.00musttherefore
beawardedtothefamilyofthevictim,toconformwithprevailingjurisprudence.37

Similarly,theCourtfindsthattheawardofmoraldamagesiswarrantedinthiscase.UnderArticle2217oftheCivil
Code, moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral
shock and similar injury, while Article 2219 of the same Code provides that moral damages may be recovered in
casesofillegaldetention.Itcannotbedenied,inthiscase,thatthekidnapvictimsfamilysufferedmentalanguish,
fright,andseriousanxietyoverthedetentionandeventually,thedeathofEdwin.Assuch,andinaccordancewith
prevailingjurisprudence,38moraldamagesintheamountofP100,000.00mustperforcebeawardedtothefamilyof
thevictim.

Finally, exemplary damages must be awarded in this case, in view of the confluence of the aforesaid qualifying
circumstancesandinordertodeterothersfromcommittingthesameatrociousacts.Inaccordancewithprevailing
jurisprudence,39therefore,theCourtawardsexemplarydamagesintheamountofP100,000.00tothefamilyofthe
kidnapvictim.

Inaddition,interestattherateofsixpercent(6%)perannumshallbeimposedonalldamagesawardedfromthe
dateoffinalityofjudgmentuntilfullypaid,pursuanttoprevailingjurisprudence.40

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated February 15, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA
G.R.CRH.C.No.02888isherebyAFFIRMEDwiththeMODIFICATIONthatalltheaccusedappellantshereinare
equallyfoundGUILTYofthespecialcomplexcrimeofKidnappingforRansomwithHomicide,andaresentencedto
eachsufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua,withouteligibilityforparole,andtopay,jointlyandseverally,thefamily
ofthekidnapvictimEdwinNavarrothefollowingamounts:(1)P100,000.00 as civil indemnity(2)P100,000.00as
moral damages and (3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annumfromthedateoffinalityofjudgmentuntilfullypaid.

SOORDERED.

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

WECONUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ARTUROD.BRION MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveResolutionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_207949_2014.html 4/6
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 207949
Chairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveResolutionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
Rollo, pp. 225. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate Justices Rebecca De
GuiaSalvadorandApolinarioD.Bruselas,Jr.,concurring.
2
Id.at67.
3
Seeid.at45.
4
Id.at7.
5
Id.
6
Id.at78.
7
"Virginio"insomepartsoftherecords.
8
Oneoftheoriginalfive(5)accusedwhodiedduringtrial,resultinginthedismissalofthecaseagainsthim.
(SeeCArollo,p.37.)
9
Seerollo,pp.6and89.
10
Id.at3.
11
Id.at3and20.
12
Seeid.at912.
13
Records,p.300,includingthedorsalportionthereof.
14
CArollo,pp.3699.PennedbyPresidingJudgeThelmaCanlasTrinidadPeAguirre.
15
Seeid.at9395.
16
Entitled"ANACTPROHIBITINGTHEIMPOSITIONOFDEATHPENALTYINTHEPHILIPPINES."
17
CArollo,pp.9899.
18
Id.at97.
19
Id.at60.
20
Rollo,pp.225.
21
Id.at1516.
22
Id.at1819.
23
Seeid.at2324.
24
Seeid.at2224.
25
Peoplev.Mercado,400Phil.37,71(2000).SeealsoPeoplev.Lamsen,G.R.No.198338,February20,
2013,691SCRA498,505506.
26
SeeCADecisionrollo,pp.1619.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_207949_2014.html 5/6
4/17/2017 G.R. No. 207949
27
Peoplev.Castro,434Phil.206,221(2002).
28
Peoplev.Buntag,471Phil.82,93(2004).
29
Rollo,p.23.
30
"[T]he abovenamed accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, being then private
persons,didthenandtherebyforceandintimidationwillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslywiththeuseofmotor
vehicleandsuperiorstrengthtake,carryanddepriveEDWINNAVARROYONA,ofhislibertyagainsthiswill,
forthepurposeofextortingransomasinfactademandofP15,000,000.00wasmadeasaconditionofthe
victims release and on the occasion thereof, the death of the victim resulted." (Id. at 3 emphasis and
underscoringsupplied).
31
Peoplev.Quimzon,G.R.No.133541,April14,2004,427SCRA261,281,citingPeoplev.Feliciano,418
Phil.88,106(2001).
32
Supranote25.
33
Id.at8283.
34
Pursuant to Section 3 of RA 9346 which states that "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with
reclusionperpetua,orwhosesentenceswillbereducedtoreclusionperpetua,byreasonofthisAct,shallnot
beeligibleforparoleunderActNo.4180,otherwiseknownastheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,asamended."
(SeePeoplev.Tadah,G.R.No.186226,February1,2012,664SCRA744,747seealsoPeoplev.Lalog,
G.R.No.196753,April21,2014.)
35
532Phil.414(2006).
36
Id.at428.
37
SeePeoplev.Gambao,G.R.No.172707,October1,2013.
38
SeePeoplev.Reyes,600Phil.738,788(2009).
39
Seeid.at787.
40
Peopev.Dumadag,G.R.No.176740,June22,2011,652SCRA535,550,citingPeoplev.Galvez,G.R.
No.181827,February2,2011,641SCRA472,485.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_207949_2014.html 6/6