Professional Documents
Culture Documents
K - SeriousID People v. Santiago
K - SeriousID People v. Santiago
SYLLABUS
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 1
failure of evidence to hold the accused guilty of the other charge.
DECISION
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 2
VITUG, J : p
When arraigned, the four accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The trial
thereupon ensued.
"On May 13, 1993, the kidnap victim, Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr. and
his live-in partner, Loida Navidad, were arrested by appellants Jose
Sandigan and Armenia Pillueta and several other NARCOM agents for
alleged illegal possession of marijuana (p. 32, TSN, April 20, 1994).
"After the arrest, they were brought to the NARCOM Office situated
at the compound of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Headquarters,
Naga City (p. 32, ibid.). Thereat, they were at first warned by appellant
Pillueta not to contact a lawyer (p. 35, ibid.). Appellant Pillueta likewise
reminded them that 'it is only a matter of P10,000.00" (p. 35, ibid.).
"On December 27, 1993, at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening, the
victim asked permission from a jail trustee to allow him to buy viand outside
the jail (pp. 7-9, ibid.). When he left, the victim was wearing a fatigue
jacked and short pants (p. 9, ibid.).
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 3
"As the victim emerged from the PNP store, he was accosted by
appellants Sandigan and Santiano (p. 7, TSN, April 25, 1994). The two (2)
appellants held the victim between them and thereafter hurriedly proceeded
towards the NARCOM Office situated at a distance of about twenty-five
(25) meters away (pp. 7, 38-41, ibid.). Upon reaching the door of the
NARCOM office the victim was pushed inside (pp. 7-8, ibid.). Once the
victim was already inside the NARCOM Office, appellant Sandigan
proceeded to and took his place at Plaza Barlin facing the PNP Police
Station (pp. 8-12, ibid.). The victim was made to sit and thereafter mauled
by appellant Santiano (pp. 8-11, ibid.). Santiano got hold of a handkerchief,
rolled it around his fists and continued to punch the victim for almost fifteen
(15) minutes (p. 16, ibid.). As the victim was being mauled, appellant
Pillueta stood by the door of the NARCOM office, her both hands inside her
pockets while looking to her right and left, acting as a lookout (ibid.).
"At this time, appellant Chanco who owned and drove his trimobile,
parked it in front of the door of the NARCOM Office (pp. 15, 17, TSN,
April 25, 1994). Thereafter, he proceeded inside the NARCOM Office (pp.
15, 17, ibid.).
"When prosecution witness Rañola heard over the radio that a person
was found dead at the canal in Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur, he lost no time
in informing a policeman Prila of the Pili Police Department that the
descriptions of the dead person he heard over the radio fit not only the
person he saw being hauled to and thereafter mauled at the NARCOM
Office but likewise the same person who was on board the trimobile driven
by appellant Chanco (p. 13, TSN, May 6, 1994).
"That upon leaving the NARCOM office and while on board the
trimobile accused-appellants. Sandigan, Santiano and Chanco were deciding
whether to see a movie or have a round of drink and, after failing to decide
whether to see a movie or a round of drink, accused-appellants Sandigan and
Chanco conducted accused-appellant Santiano to the jeepney terminal for
Milaor, Camarines Sur and thereupon, accused-appellant Chanco also
conducted accused-appellant Sandigan to the Philtranco terminal where the
latter boarded a bus to Bato, Camarines Sur where he resides.
"That between 6:30 and 7:00 o'clock P.M. of the same date,
accused-appellant Santiano was in Milaor, Camarines Sur, a Municipality
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 5
less than four kilometers away from Naga City, and fetched Ms. Arcadia
Paz, a traditional mid-wife (Komadrana), from the latter's residence to
conduct/perform a pre-natal therapy (hilot) upon his (Santiano) pregnant
wife; that Ms. Paz and accused-appellant Santiano proceeded to and arrived
at the latter's house in Naga City about past 7:00 o'clock in the evening
where Ms. Paz conducted a pre-natal therapy upon appellant Santiano's wife;
that Ms. Paz finished the pre-natal therapy at or about 9:00 o'clock P.M.; that
she (Paz) left the house of accused-appellant Santiano and was accompanied
for home by latter at or about 10:00 o'clock of the same evening; that from
past 7:00 o'clock when Paz and Santiano arrived at the latter's house until
past 10:00 o'clock when they left Santiano's house, accused appellant
Santiano was all the time present at and never left his house;
"That on December 27, 1993, at any time of the day, the late Ramon
John Dy Kow, Jr. was neither seen by the accused-appellants nor was he in
the NARCOM office more specifically and particularly between 6:00 to 7:00
P.M. of the same date; that the late Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr. was known to
SPO3 Fernandez and his (Dy Kow, Jr.) height and body built is almost the
same or similarly the same as that of accused-appellant Chanco; that she
(SPO3 Fernandez) also known William Rañola whom she usually see
drunk/under the influence of liquor; LLphil
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 7
"Ear: lacerated wound ripping off the lowest pole of the lobule, right;
serrated border
Evaluating the evidence before it, the trial court found all four accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping, defined and penalized under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code; the court adjudged:
Assailing the decision of the court a quo, appellants would insist that the
amended information under which they were arraigned, tried and convicted,
although so captioned as an indictment for the complex crime of kidnapping with
murder, was, in reality, a mere indictment for murder. According to appellants, the
use of the words "abducted" and "kidnapping" in the amended information was not
in itself indicative of the crime of kidnapping being charged but that, from the
averments of the information, it could be apparent that Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr.,
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 8
was "abducted or kidnapped" not for the purpose of detaining but of liquidating
him. Hence, the defense theorized, the conviction for kidnapping had no legal
ground to stand on.
The accused have gone through trial without any objection thereover. Exceptions
relative to the statement or recital of fact constituting the offense charged ought be
presented before the trial court; if none is taken and the defective or even omitted
averments are supplied by competent proof, it would not be error for an appellate
court to reject those exceptions on appeal. 9(9)
The issue is next posed: When a complex crime has been charged in an
information and the evidence fails to support the charge on one of the component
offenses, can the defendant still be separately convicted of the other offense? The
question has long been answered in the affirmative. In United States vs.
Lahoylahoy and Madanlog, 10(10) the Court has ruled to be legally feasible the
conviction of an accused on one of the offenses included in a complex crime
charged, when properly established, despite the failure of evidence to hold the
accused guilty of the other charge.
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, prior to its amendment by Section 8
of Republic Act 7659, 11(11) reads:
"1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five
days.
"3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon
the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been
made.
The elements of the offense, here adequately shown, are (a) that the offender is a
private individual; (b) that he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 10
deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) that the act of detention or kidnapping is
illegal; and (d) that, in the commission of the offense, any of the following
circumstances is present, i.e.; (i) that the kidnapping or detention lasts for more
than 5 days, or (ii) that it is committed simulating public authority, or (iii) that any
serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made, or (iv) that the person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer. 12(12)
Prosecution witness William Rañola testified that he had seen the victim
being accosted; held and thereafter dragged to the NARCOM office by appellants
Santiano and Sandigan. Inside the NARCOM office, the victim was mauled by
Santiano. For several minutes, Santiano continued to batter him with punches
while Pillueta stood by the door and so acted as the "lookout." The appellants then
took the victim away on a trimobile owned and driven by Chanco. Rañola
positively identified the fatigue jacket worn by the victim on the evening of his
abduction on 27 December 1993 and when his lifeless body was found in the
morning of 28 December 1993. Don Gumba corroborated Rañola's testimony.
Gumba was positive that he had seen the victim at around eight o'clock in the
evening of 27 December 1993 with appellants Santiano and Pillueta on board the
trimobile driven by appellant Chanco on its way towards the direction of Palestina,
Pili, Camarines Sur, where, the following morning, the victim was found dead
evidently after succumbing to several gunshot wounds.
Appellants have not shown any nefarious motive on the part of the
witnesses that might have influenced them to declare falsely against appellants; the
Court sees no justification to thereby deny faith and credit to their testimony.
13(13) The Court likewise shares the view of the Solicitor General in pointing out
that —
"1. There is no question that the victim, who was on the date in
question detained at the Naga City Jail, asked permission from the jail
trustee in order to buy viand outside. It was while he was emerging from the
PNP store that he was accosted by appellants Santiano and Sandigan.
"2. From the moment that the victim was accosted in Naga City, he
was at first dragged to the NARCOM Office where he was mauled. This
circumstance indicated the intention to deprive him of his liberty for
sometime, an essential element of the crime of kidnapping.
"3. The victim did not only sustain serious physical injuries but
likewise died as indicated in the autopsy report, thus, belying appellants'
claim that none of the circumstances in Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code was present.
The fact alone that appellant Pillueta is "an organic member of the
NARCOM" and appellant Sandigan "a regular member of the PNP" would not
exempt them from the criminal liability for kidnapping. 15(15) It is quite clear
that in abducting and taking away the victim, appellants did so neither in
furtherance of official function nor in the pursuit of authority vested in them. It is
not, in fine, in relation to their office, but in purely private capacity, that they have
acted in concert with their co-appellants Santiano and Chanco.
The claim of appellants that they cannot be held liable for indemnity in the
amount of P50,000.00 because the prosecution did not present evidence to prove
damages is without merit. The indemnity awarded by the trial court clearly refers
to the civil indemnity for the offense 16(16) and not for actual damages sustained.
SO ORDERED. cdasia
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 235-240.
2. Rollo, pp. 109-113.
3. Rollo, pp. 171.
4. Records, p. 20.
5. Rollo, p. 226.
6. Rollo, p. 16.
7. Sta. Rita vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 484.
8. Rollo, p. 16.
9. See U.S. vs. Lampano, 13 Phil. 409, 413.
10. 38 Phil. 330. see Francisco, Criminal Procedure, 1993 Ed., p. 56.
11. The offense was committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 12
(containing more onerous provisions than its prior counter-part) on 31 January
1994. This provision, following the amendment, now reads;
ART. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private
individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him
of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death;
"1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
"2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
"3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the
person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
"4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when
the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
"The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the
commission of the offense.
"When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is
raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall
be imposed.
12. See Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book Two, Twelfth Ed., pp. 513-514.
13. See People vs. Gonzales, Jr., 182 SCRA 393.
14. Rollo, pp. 254-255.
15. Instead of arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code.
16. See People vs. Gonzales, Jr., supra.
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 13
Endnotes
1 (Popup - Popup)
1. Rollo, pp. 235-240.
2 (Popup - Popup)
2. Rollo, pp. 109-113.
3 (Popup - Popup)
3. Rollo, pp. 171.
4 (Popup - Popup)
4. Records, p. 20.
5 (Popup - Popup)
5. Rollo, p. 226.
6 (Popup - Popup)
6. Rollo, p. 16.
7 (Popup - Popup)
7. Sta. Rita vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 484.
8 (Popup - Popup)
8. Rollo, p. 16.
9 (Popup - Popup)
9. See U.S. vs. Lampano, 13 Phil. 409, 413.
10 (Popup - Popup)
10. 38 Phil. 330, see Francisco, Criminal Procedure, 1993 Ed., p. 56.
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 14
11 (Popup - Popup)
11. The offense was committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659
(containing more onerous provisions than its prior counter-part) on 31 January
1994. This provision, following the amendment, now reads;
ART. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private
individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him
of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death;
"1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
"2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
"3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the
person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
"4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when
the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
"The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the
commission of the offense.
"When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is
raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall
be imposed.
12 (Popup - Popup)
12. See Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book Two, Twelfth Ed., pp. 513-514.
13 (Popup - Popup)
13. See People vs. Gonzales, Jr., 182 SCRA 393.
14 (Popup - Popup)
14. Rollo, pp. 254-255.
15 (Popup - Popup)
15. Instead of arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code.
16 (Popup - Popup)
16. See People vs. Gonzales, Jr., supra.
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 15
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 16