1

PEOPLE v. JAILON KULAIS, GR Nos. 100901-08, 1998-07-16

Facts:
Five Informations for kidnapping for ransom... and three Informations for
kidnapping... were filed[1] before the Regional Trial Court... against Carlos Falcasantos,
Jailon Kulais, Jumatiya Amlani, Norma Sahiddan de Kulais, Jalina Hassan de Kamming,[2]
Salvador Mamaril, Hadjirul Plasin, Jaimuddin Hassan, Imam[3] Taruk Alah, Freddie Manuel
alias "Ajid," and several John and Jane Does.
The three Informations for kidnapping, also under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code, likewise alleged identical facts and circumstances of the twelve accused, only nine
were apprehended, namely, Jailon Julais, Jumatiya Amlani, Norma Sahiddan de Kulais,
Salvador Mamaril, Hadjirul Plasin, Jainuddin Hassan, Imam Taruk Alah, Jalina Hassan and
Freddie Manuel all the accused pleaded not guilty.
The trial court found Appellant Kulais guilty of five counts of kidnapping for ransom
and one count of kidnapping a woman and public officer, for which offenses it imposed upon
him six terms of "life imprisonment." It also found him guilty of two counts of slight illegal...
detention for the kidnapping of Monico Saavedra and Calixto Francisco.
Appellant Kulais argues that he was denied due process when the trial court took
judicial notice of the testimony given in another case by one Lt. Melquiades Feliciano, who
was the team leader of the government troops that captured him and his purported cohorts.
[16] Because he was allegedly deprived of his right to cross-examine a material witness in
the person of Lieutenant Feliciano, he contends that the latter's testimony should not be
used against him.
Appellant was positively identified by Calunod, as shown by the latter's testimony
likewise clear and straightforward was Bacarro's testimony pointing to appellant as one of
the culprits.
Issues:
(1) judicial notice of other pending cases, (2) sufficiency of the prosecution evidence
, and (3) denial as a defense.
Ruling:
The appeal is bereft of merit. As a general rule, courts should not take judicial notice
of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are
pending in the same court, or have been heard and are actually pending before the same
judge.This is... especially true in criminal cases, where the accused has the constitutional
right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.
Having said that, we note, however, that even if the court a quo did take judicial
notice of the testimony of Lieutenant Feliciano, it did not use such testimony in deciding the
cases against the appellant. Hence, Appellant Kulais was not denied due process. His
conviction was... based mainly on the positive identification made by some of the kidnap
victims, namely, Jessica Calunod, Armando Bacarro and Edilberto Perez. These witnesses
were subjected to meticulous cross-examinations conducted by appellant's counsel. At
best, then, the trial court's... mention of Lieutenant Feliciano's testimony is a decisional
 2

surplusage which neither affected the outcome of the case nor substantially prejudiced
Appellant Kulais.
It is evident from the foregoing testimonies of Calunod, Bacarro and Perez that
kidnapping or detention did take place: the five victims were held, against their will, for fifty-
three days from December 12, 1988 to February 2, 1989. It is also evident that Appellant
Kulais was a... member of the group of armed men who staged the kidnapping, and that he
was one of those who guarded the victims during the entire period of their captivity. His
participation gives credence to the conclusion of the trial court that he was a conspirator.
The appellant's bare denial is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face
of the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of him. Jurisprudence gives greater
weight to the positive narration of prosecution witnesses than to the negative testimonies of
the... defense.[39] Between positive and categorical testimony which has a ring of truth to it
on the one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails.[40] Jessica
Calunod, Armando Bacarro and Edilberto Perez testified... in a clear, straightforward and
frank manner; and their testimonies were compatible on material points. Moreover, no ill
motive was attributed to the kidnap victims and none was found by this Court.
We agree with the trial court's observation that the appellant did not meet the
charges against him head on. His testimony dwelt on what happened to him on the day he
was arrested and on subsequent days thereafter. Appellant did not explain where he was
during the questioned... dates (December 12, 1988 to February 3, 1989); neither did he
rebut Calunod, Bacarro and Perez, when they identified him as one of their kidnappers.
Principles:
The trial court's erroneous taking of judicial notice of a witness' testimony in another
case, also pending before it, does not affect the conviction of the appellant, whose guilt is
proven beyond reasonable doubt by other clear, convincing and overwhelming... evidence,
both testimonial and documentary. The Court takes this occasion also to remind the bench
and the bar that reclusion perpetua is not synonymous with life imprisonment.
 3

PEOPLE v. BENEDICTO RAMOS Y BINUYA, GR No. 118570, 1998-10-12

Facts:
Finding accused-appellant BENEDICTO RAMOS y BINUYA guilty of two (2)
separate heinous crimes - kidnapping for ransom and murder... supreme penalty of DEATH
American pastor named Malcolm Bradshaw was driving his car along EDSA to take his
daughter Michelle to school.
Unfortunately for her, Ramos caught up with her and squeezed himself into the same
car. Bradshaw slowed down Ramos pulled out his gun and ordered him to go straight
ahead, which the latter obeyed... convicted Ramos of two (2) separate crimes - kidnapping
for ransom and murder... instead of the complex crime charged in the Information.There
was no proof that the victim was kidnapped for the purpose of killing her... so as to make
the offense a complex crime.The killing of the victim was found to be merely an
afterthought, making accused-appellant liable for two (2) separate offenses. Strangle her
and shoot her to death for no sane reason than that she... refused to go with him to
Bulacan.
Thus when accused-appellant suddenly, unexpectedly and without warning, shot the
victim from behind twice after the latter failed in her attempt to escape but was dragged
instead by the cab where she was held captive, and while in a pitiable state of utter
helplessness, the... crime committed cannot be any less than murder qualified by treachery.
We agree with the trial court that victim Alicia Abanilla was indeed kidnapped for
ransom and then murdered by accused-appellant.
Issues:
The lower court erred in finding him guilty of the crimes of kidnapping for ransom and
murder.
Ruling:
But the kidnapping for ransom and murder should not be treated as separate crimes
for which two (2) death... penalties must as a consequence be imposed... accused-
appellant should be convicted of the special complex crime of KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM
WITH MURDER and impose upon him the maximum penalty of DEATH.
It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases
where the killing of the kidnapped victim was purposely sought by... the accused, and those
where the killing of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was merely an
afterthought.
Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of
whether the killing was purposely sought or... was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping
and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph
of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659.
Principles:
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.
 4

This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of "special complex crime"
of kidnapping with murder or homicide.

CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. VENANCIO ROXAS

FACTS: 
Venancio Roxas was found guilty by the RTC of the crimes of Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention with Frustrated Murder, Violation of the Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972, and Theft.
In the automatic review of the decision, the accused contends that his
constitutional rights were violated since then Justice Secretary Hernando Perez
was present at the trial, thus imputing bias upon the trial judge in convicting
him. ADVERTISEMENT: Work from home! Be an online English tutor. Earn at
least PHP100/hour.

ISSUE:  
Whether or not the presence of the Justice Secretary imputes bias
upon the trial court, thus, violating the accused right to due process?

HELD: 

No. There is no basis for appellant's allegation that he was deprived of due
process of law and that the trial conducted was far from impartial and fair. The
imputation of bias and partiality is not supported by the record. The fact that the
trial judge opted to believe the prosecution's evidence rather than that of the
defense is not a sign of bias.

Even if the RTC had allowed the presence of then Secretary Hernando Perez
and the media, there is no sufficient basis to show that their presence or
pervasive publicity unduly influenced the court's judgment. Before we could
conclude that appellant was prejudiced by the presence of the media and
Secretary Perez, he must first show substantial proof, not merely cast suspicions.
There must be a showing that adverse publicity indeed influenced the court's
decision. There was none in the present case.
 5

People vs. Puno

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Isabelo Puno y Guevarra, alias "Beloy," and
Enrique Amurao y Puno, alias "Enry," accused-appellants

Facts:
 January 13, 1988 in QC, at around 5:00 pm: the accused Isabelo Puno, who is the
personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband (who was then away in Davao purportedly
on account of local election there) arrived at Mrs. Sarmiento's bakeshop in Araneta Ave,
QC
 He told Mrs. Sarmiento that her own driver Fred had to go to Pampanga on an
emergency so Isabelo will temporarily take his place
 When it was time for Mrs. Sarmiento to go home to Valle Verde in Pasig, she got into her
husband's Mercedes Benz with Isabelo driving
 After the car turned right on a corner of Araneta Ave, it stopped and a young man,
accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the car beside the driver
 Enrique pointed a gun at Mrs. Sarmiento as Isabelo told her that he needs to "get
money" from her
 Mrs. Sarmiento had P7,000 on her bag which she handed to the accused
 But the accused said that they wanted P100,000 more
 The car sped off north towards the North superhighway where Isabelo asked Mrs.
Sarmiento to issue a check for P100,000
 Mrs. Sarmiento drafted 3 checks: two P30,000 checks and one P40,000 check
 Isabelo then turned the car around towards Metro Manila; later, he changed his mind
and turned the car again towards Pampanga
 According to her, Mrs. Sarmiento jumped out of the car then, crossed to the other side of
the superhighway and was able to flag down a fish vendor's van, her dress had blood
because according to her, she fell down on the ground and was injured when she
jumped out of the car
 The defense does not dispute the above narrative of the complainant except that
according to Isabelo, he stopped the car at North Diversion and freely allowed Mrs.
Sarmiento to step out of the car
 He said he even slowed the car down as he drove away, until he saw that his
employer had gotten a ride
 He claimed that she fell down when she stubbed her toe while running across the
highway
 6

Issues:
1. Whether or not the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom as charged
2. Whether or not the said robbery can be classified as "highway robbery" under PD No.
532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974)
Holding:
1. No.
2. No.
Ratio:
1. There is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any motive, nurtured prior to or
at the time they committed the wrongful acts against complainant, other than the
extortion of money from her under the compulsion of threats or intimidation.
 For this crime to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the
malefactors was to deprive the offended party of her liberty
 In the case, the restraint of her freedom of action was merely an incident in the
commission of another offense primarily intended by the offenders
 This does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention
2. Jurisprudence reveals that during the early part of the American occupation of our
country, roving bands were organized for robbery and pillage and since the then existing
law against robbery was inadequate to cope with such moving bands of outlaws, the
Brigandage Law was passed (this is the origin of the law on highway robbery)
 PD No. 532 punishes as highway robbery only acts of robbery perpetrated by
outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on Philippine highways
and not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular
victim
 The mere fact that the robbery was committed inside a car which was
casually operating on a highway does not make PD No 532 applicable to
the case
 This is not justified by the accused's intention
Accused-appellants convicted of robbery (indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months or
prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor. Accused to pay Mrs. Sarmiento
P7,000 as actual damages and P20,000 as moral damages.)