People vs.

Villanueva
G.R. No. 218958
December 13, 2017

FACTS:

 The appellant Eugene Villanueva is appealing for the reversal of the RTC decision
affirmed by the Court of Appeals regarding his conviction for the complex crime of
attempted Kidnapping with Murder.
 The appellant who admitted that he was a close friend of the deceased narrated that the
deceased invited him to go to a disco to celebrate his forthcoming birthday. They were
to hire a car and met accused Edilberto Norada who is a taxi driver to look for said car to
hire. Norada managed to hire a red Suzuki Multicab owned by the girlfriend of another
accused, Agustin Seva.
 The appellant narrated that on the 10th of February 2004, he fetched the deceased from
their house and met up with Norada. Instead of heading directly to the disco, the
deceased decided to find a place to spend the rest of the night. There, the deceased and
Villanueva drank beer and when the latter tried to leave, the deceased did not want him
to leave and stated that he wanted to use him. They struggled and when Norada wanted
to pacify them, he was boxed by the deceased. Norada then left the room and returned
with a piece of wood which was used to hit the deceased in the head several times until
he was unconscious. They panicked at the sight of blood and decided to dump the body
at Villa Angela Subdivision where it was found.
 Norada also testified that the incident was a plot to kidnap the Canadian friend of the
deceased, Ray Truck. They conspired to lure both the deceased and Truck to the
apartelle where they will execute their plans.
 When only the deceased came with the accused, they decided to go through with the
kidnapping thinking that Truck will pay for the ransom of the deceased. They drank
liquor at the apartelle and early in the following morning, when the deceased was
already asleep, they tried to tie him up but he somehow woke up and resisted leading to
Norada hitting him in the head with a piece of wood. The deceased was briefly rendered
unconscious and was hit again until he stayed motionless and snoring. They taped the
mouth and bound the hands and feet of the deceased and dumped him at Villa Angela
Subdivision.
 The RTC gave credence to the testimony of Norada and ruled that accused were guilty of
attempted kidnapping with murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
RTC.

ISSUE:

WON the correct charged for the crime was Attempted Kidnapping with Murder.

RULING:
NO. The Court ruled that the correct charge was Homicide. The crime of kidnapping was not
satisfactorily satisfied as there was no concrete evidence established where it can be inferred
that the appellants intended to deprive the deceased of his liberty and was bent on kidnapping
his Canadian friend Ray Truck. The Court added that courts should not indulge in speculation no
matter how strong the guilt of the accused. Hence since the offense of kidnapping was not
sufficiently established, the trial court erred in holding appellant liable for attempted
kidnapping.

The defense self-defense of appellant Villanueva was untenable for failing to prove that there
was an unlawful aggression coming from the deceased. By invoking self-defense, the appellant
in effect admitted to the killing of the deceased. In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a sine
qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense and
defense of strangers are unavailing because there would be nothing to repel.

The court also decided that Treachery was not attendant in the killing. Treachery cannot be
assumed and must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. To constitute treachery, two
conditions must concur:
1. The employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the
offender's safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party;
and
2. The offender's deliberate or conscious choice of the means, method or manner of
execution.

In the case at bar, the records is bereft of any evidence that appellant and his co-accused made
some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or
to make it impossible or hard for the victim to defend himself. The mode or manner of the
attack on the victim did not appear to have been consciously and deliberately adopted.

Finally, the Court ruled that the crime committed was Homicide considering that none of the
circumstances alleged in the information was proven.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated January 14, 2015 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00686 is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. A new one is entered
as follows:

1) appellant Eugene Villanueva is hereby found GUILTY of the crime of Homicide and sentenced
to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

2) appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the following amounts:

a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity;

b) P50,000.00 as moral damages;
c) P50,000.00 as temperate damages; and,
d) P1,950,967.26 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity.

In conformity with current policy, we impose interest on all the monetary awards for damages
at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.