PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NELSON BAYOT Y SATINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. R E S O L U T I O N
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated 9 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00269 affirming with modification the Decision[2] dated 31 July 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, 6th Judicial Region, Branch 61, in Criminal Case No. 98-2025, finding herein appellant Nelson Bayot y Satina (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, committed against AAA,[3] thus, sentencing him to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua. The appellate court increased the award of indemnity from P40,000.00 to P50,000.00. It also ordered appellant to pay AAA moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.cralaw Appellant Nelson Bayot y Satina was charged with Rape in an Information[4] dated 29 December 1997, which reads as follows: That on or about the 17th day of September, 1997, in the Municipality of XXX, Province of XXX, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant], by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of and/or sexual intercourse with the [AAA], 44 years old, against her will.[5] On arraignment, appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY to the crime charged. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. In its 31 July 2000 Decision, the RTC convicted appellant of the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA the amount of P40,000.00 as indemnity with costs. In convicting appellant, the RTC ratiocinated that AAAs testimony as regards her ordeal was simple and straightforward, unshaken by a rigid cross-examination. There appeared to be no inconsistency in her testimony. Further, AAAs declaration that she was raped by appellant was corroborated by a medical certificate showing contusion on her vagina at 6:00 oclock quadrant of the crevice, which was explained by Dr. Rodrigo Cubid to have been caused by forceful vaginal intrusion. The RTC negates the sweet heart defense offered by appellant. It stated that appellants claim of being AAAs lover was a mere devise to extricate himself from the consequence of his dastardly lust. AAAs immediate response of reporting the rape incident carries the stamp of truth. Moreover, if, indeed, there was such relationship between appellant and AAA, the latter would not have pursued this case. It bears stressing that despite appellants repeated plea for the dismissal of the case, AAA remained steadfast in seeking justice for the violation of her womanhood.[6] Aggrieved, appellant appealed the aforesaid RTC Decision to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal dated 6 September 2000.[7] In light, however, of this Courts pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[8]the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review per Resolution[9] dated 4 October 2004. In a Decision dated 9 May 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellants conviction with the modification increasing the award of indemnity from P40,000.00 to P50,000.00. It likewise awarded moral damages in favor of AAA in the amount of P50,000.00. The Court of Appeals aptly observed that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed the crime of rape against AAA. It further held that other than the self-serving declaration of appellant that he and AAA were sweethearts; no other evidence was ever presented to substantiate such claim. Even the testimony of appellants daughter, who claimed that her father and AAA are maintaining an illicit relationship, could not be given any considerable weight. Aside from the fact that appellants daughter could not point to any other circumstance supporting her claim, except for one incident when she allegedly saw her father and AAA holding hands during a dance at their barangay fiesta, her testimony could not be stripped of bias and partiality considering that she is the daughter of appellant. In the same way, her testimony that she saw her father and AAA in the act of sexual intercourse deserves scant consideration as she was not present at the time of the commencement of the said act. She could not, therefore, be in a position to state with certainty that there was no struggle on the part of AAA. Hence, her testimony regarding such matter is a mere conclusion of fact.[10] However, in a letter dated 29 May 2006,[11] Dr. Juanito S. Leopando, Penal Superintendent IV of the New Bilibid Prison, informed the Court of Appeals that appellant died at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital on 4 December 2004. Attached in his letter is the original copy of appellants Certificate of Death. [12] Nonetheless, the Public Attorneys Office still appealed, on behalf of appellant, the aforesaid Court of Appeals Decision to this Court via a Notice of Appeal[13] dated 31 May 2006, which was given due course by the Court of Appeals per Resolution[14] dated 19 January 2007. The Court of Appeals also directed the Chief of the Judicial Records Division to forward the entire records of the case to this Court. Taking into consideration appellants death, this Court will now determine its effect to this present appeal. Appellants death on 4 December 2004, during the pendency of his appeal before the Court of Appeals, extinguished not only his criminal liability for the crime of rape committed against AAA, but also his civil liability solely arising from or based on said crime.[15] Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, specifically provides the effect of death of the accused on his criminal, as well as civil, liability. It reads thus: Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished: By death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; [Emphasis supplied]. 1. Applying the foregoing provision, this Court, in People v. Bayotas,[16] which was cited in a catena of cases,[17] had laid down the following guidelines: Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore. 1. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of [the] accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a) Lawb) Contractsc) Quasi-contracts d) x x x x x x x x xe) Quasi-delicts 2. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. 3. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with [the] provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.[18] 4. From the foregoing, it is clear that the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as the civil liability ex delicto. The rationale, therefore, is that the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso factoextinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal case.[19] Evidently, as this Court has pronounced in People v. Olaco and People v. Paniterce,[20] it is already unnecessary to rule on appellants appeal. Appellants appeal was still pending and no final judgment had been rendered against him at the time of his death. Thus, whether or not appellant was guilty of the crime charged had become irrelevant because even assuming that appellant did incur criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto, these were totally extinguished by his death, following the provisions of Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and this Courts ruling in People v. Bayotas. In the same breath, the appealed Decision dated 9 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00269 finding appellant guilty of the crime of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay AAA P50,000.00 as indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages had become ineffectual.cralaw
WHEREFORE, in view of the death of appellant Nelson Bayot y Satina, the Decision dated 9 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00269 is SET ASIDE and Criminal Case No. 98-2025 before the RTC of Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, is DISMISSED. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 141718 January 21, 2005 BENJAMIN PANGAN y RIVERA, petitioner, vs. HON. LOURDES F. GATBALITE, as the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 56, and COL. JAMES D. LABORDO, as the City Jail Warden of Angeles City, respondents. D E C I S I O N AZCUNA, J.: Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 56, rendered on January 31, 2000.1 The facts of this case are undisputed. The petitioner was indicted for simple seduction in Criminal Case No. 85-816, at the Municipal Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 3. During the trial of the case, Atty. Eduardo Pineda, counsel for petitioner, submitted the case for decision without offering any evidence, due to the petitioners constant absence at hearings. On September 16, 1987, the petitioner was convicted of the offense charged and was sentenced to serve a penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, on October 24, 1988, affirmed in toto the decision of the Municipal Trial Court. On August 9, 1991, the case was called for promulgation of the decision in the court of origin. Despite due notice, counsel for the petitioner did not appear. Notice to petitioner was returned unserved with the notation that he no longer resided at the given address. As a consequence, he also failed to appear at the scheduled promulgation. The court of origin issued an order directing the recording of the decision in the criminal docket of the court and an order of arrest against the petitioner.2 Pursuant to the order of arrest, on January 20, 2000, the petitioner was apprehended and detained at the Mabalacat Detention Cell. On January 24, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus at the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City. He impleaded as respondent the Acting Chief of Police of Mabalacat, Pampanga.3 Petitioner contended that his arrest was illegal and unjustified on the grounds that: (a) the straight penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor prescribes in five years under No. 3, Article 93 [of the] Revised Penal Code, and (b) having been able to continuously evade service of sentence for almost nine years, his criminal liability has long been totally extinguished under No. 6, Article 89 [of the] Revised Penal Code.4 After his transfer to the City Jail of Angeles City on January 25, 2000, petitioner filed an Amended Petition with the Regional Trial Court, impleading herein respondent Col. James D. Labordo, the Jail Warden of Angeles City, as respondent.5 In response, the Jail Warden alleged that petitioners detention was pursuant to the order of commitment (mittimus), issued by Marlon P. Roque, Clerk of Court III of the Municipal Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 3, dated January 25, 2000.6 On January 31, 2000, respondent Judge rendered the decision, which is the subject of this present appeal, which pronounced: The Court cannot subscribe to the contention of the petitioner that the penalty imposed on him in the decision adverted to above had already prescribed, hence, his detention is illegal for under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code: "The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription. The elements of prescription are: 1. That the penalty is imposed by final judgment; 2. That convict evaded the service of the sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence; 3. That the convict who had escaped from prison has not given himself up, or been captured, or gone to a foreign country with which we have no extradition treaty, or committed another crime; 4. The penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of time from the date of the evasion of the service of the sentence by the convict. In this case, the essential element of prescription which is the evasion of the service of sentence is absent. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has not served the penalty imposed on him in prison and that during the service of the sentence, he escaped therefrom. Notably, at the trial of Crim. Case No. 85-816 in the Municipal Trial Court, Branch III, Angeles City and on the date set for the promulgation of the affirmed decision, the petitioner failed to appear and remained at large.1a\^/phi1.net "There was no evasion of the service of the sentence in this case, because such evasion presupposes escaping during the service of the sentence consisting in deprivation of liberty." (Infante vs. Warden, 48 O.G. No. 122) (92 Phil. 310). Corollarily, the detention of the petitioner in Angeles City Jail in compliance with the Order of Commitment (Exhibit E) is not illegal for "A commitment in due form, based on a final judgment, convicting and sentencing the defendant in a criminal case, is conclusive evidence of the legality of his detention, unless it appears that the court which pronounced the judgment was without jurisdiction or exceeded it." (U.S. vs. Jayne, 24 Phil 90, 24 J.F. 94, Phil. Digest, Vol. 2, 1398). WHEREFORE, for not being meritorious and well-founded, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby denied. SO ORDERED. Angeles City, January 31, 2000.7 From the above quoted decision, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on a question purely of law and raised the following issue: HOW SHOULD THE PHRASE "SHALL COMMENCE TO RUN FROM THE DATE WHEN THE CULPRIT SHOULD EVADE THE SERVICE OF SENTENCE" IN ARTICLE 93 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE ON THE COMPUTATION OF THE PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES BE CONSTRUED? PUT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY, WHEN DOES THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF PENALTIES BEGIN TO RUN?8 Petitioner claims that: xxx the period for the computation of penalties under Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code begins to run from the moment the judgment of conviction becomes final and the convict successfully evades, eludes, and dodges arrest for him to serve sentence.9 Petitioner supports his claim in the following manner: The Decision subject of this appeal, which was based on the 1952 ruling rendered in Infante vs. Warden, 48 O.G. No. 122, 92 Phil. 310, is, petitioner most respectfully submits, not good case law. It imposes upon the convict a condition not stated in the law. It is contrary to the spirit, nature or essence of prescription of penalties, creates an ambiguity in the law and opens the law to abuse by government. THE INFANTE RULING IMPOSES A CONDITION NOT STATED IN THE LAW. It appears that the Infante ruling imposes that, as an essential element, the convict must serve at least a few seconds, minutes, days, weeks or years of his jail sentence and then escapes before the computation of prescription of penalties begins to run. This, petitioner respectfully submits is not a condition stated in Article 93, which states that, the prescription of penalties "shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of sentence." There is no dispute that the duty of government to compel the service of sentence sets in when the judgment of conviction becomes final. The dispute, however, is in the construction of the phrase "should evade the service of sentence." When does the period of prescription of penalties begin to run? The Infante ruling construes this to mean that the convict must escape from jail "because such evasion presupposes escaping during the service of the sentence consisting in deprivation of liberty." Petitioner, with due respect, disagrees because if that were the intention of the law, then the phrase "should evade the service of sentence" in Article 93 would have read: "should escape during the service of the sentence consisting in deprivation of liberty." The legislature could have very easily written Article 93 to read this way "The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should escape during the service of the sentence consisting in deprivation of liberty, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription." But they did not. The legislature wrote "should evade the service of sentence" to cover or include convicts like him who, although convicted by final judgment, were never arrested or apprehended by government for the service of their sentence. With all the powers of government at its disposal, petitioner was able to successfully evade service of his 2 months and 1 day jail sentence for at least nine (9) years, from August 9, 1991 to January 20, 2000. This is approximately 3 years and 5 months longer than the 5-year prescriptive period of the penalty imposed on him. That, as the respondent RTC Judge noted, petitioner did not attend the trial at the Municipal Trial Court and the promulgation of his judgment of conviction in August 9, 1991 is of no moment. His bond for provisional release was surely cancelled and an order of arrest was surely issued against petitioner. The undisputed fact is that on August 9, 1991 the judgment of conviction was promulgated in absentia and an order for petitioners arrest was issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch III. The duty of government, therefore, to arrest petitioner and compel him to serve his sentence began on August 9, 1991. The 5-year prescriptive period of his arresto mayor penalty also began to run on that day considering that no relief was taken therefrom. Since petitioner never gave himself up [n]or was [he], until January 20, 2000, ever captured, for the service of his sentence nor did he flee to some foreign country with which [our] government has no extradition treaty, that 5-year prescriptive period of his penalty ran continuously from August 9, 1991 when his judgment of conviction was promulgated in absentia and was never interrupted. For reasons known only to it, however, government failed or neglected, for almost nine (9) years, to arrest petitioner for the service of his arresto mayor sentence [which] should not be taken against petitioner. He was able to successfully evade service of his sentence for a period longer than the 5- year prescriptive period of his penalty and, as such, is entitled to total extinction of his criminal liability. To say, as was said in Infante, that the prescriptive period of the penalty never began to run in favor of petitioner because he never escaped from jail during the service of his sentence imposes a condition not written in the law. It also violates the basic principle that the criminal statutes are construed liberally in favor of the accused and/or convict and is contrary to the spirit behind or essence of statutes of limitations [and] prescription, in criminal cases.10 The Regional Trial Court based its decision on the case of Infante v. Warden11 . In said case, Infante, the petitioner, was convicted of murder and was sentenced to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal. After serving fifteen years, seven months and eleven days, he was granted a conditional pardon. The condition was that "he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines." Ten years after his release on conditional pardon, Infante was found guilty by a Municipal Court for driving without a license. Infante was immediately ordered rearrested for breach of the condition of his pardon. One of the issues raised by Infante in his petition, xxx was that the remitted penalty for which the petitioner had been recommitted to jail one year and 11 days had prescribed. xxx 12 The Court disagreed and reasoned out thus: The contention is not well taken. According to article 93 of the Revised Penal Code the period of prescription of penalties commences to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence. It is evident from this provision that evasion of the sentence is an essential element of prescription. There has been no such evasion in this case. Even if there had been one and prescription were to be applied, its basis would have to be the evasion of the unserved sentence, and computation could not have started earlier than the date of the order for the prisoner's rearrest.13 A perusal of the facts in Infante v. Warden reveals that it is not on all fours with the present case. In Infante, the convict was on conditional pardon when he was re-arrested. Hence, he had started serving sentence but the State released him. In the present case, the convict evaded service of sentence from the start, and was arrested eight years later. The RTC decision, however, must stand, since it is in accord with applicable decisions of this Court. The issue raised by petitioner is not novel. Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code14 has been interpreted several times by the Court. The case of Tanega v. Masakayan15 falls squarely within the issues of the present case. In that case, petitioner Adelaida Tanega failed to appear on the day of the execution of her sentence.1awphi1.nt On the same day, respondent judge issued a warrant for her arrest. She was never arrested. More than a year later, petitioner through counsel moved to quash the warrant of arrest, on the ground that the penalty had prescribed. Petitioner claimed that she was convicted for a light offense and since light offenses prescribe in one year, her penalty had already prescribed. The Court disagreed, thus: xxx The period of prescription of penalties the succeeding Article 93 provides "shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence". What then is the concept of evasion of service of sentence? Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code furnishes the ready answer. Says Article 157: "ART. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment. xxx" Elements of evasion of service of sentence are: (1) the offender is a convict by final judgment; (2) he "is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty"; and (3) he evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. This must be so. For, by the express terms of the statute, a convict evades "service of his sentence" by "escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment." That escape should take place while serving sentence, is emphasized by the provisions of the second sentence of Article 157 which provides for a higher penalty if such "evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution, . . ." Indeed, evasion of sentence is but another expression of the term "jail breaking." xxx We, therefore, rule that for prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by final sentence to commence to run, the culprit should escape during the term of such imprisonment. Adverting to the facts, we have here the case of a convict who sentenced to imprisonment by final judgment was thereafter never placed in confinement. Prescription of penalty, then, does not run in her favor.16 In Del Castillo v. Torrecampo 17 , the Court cited and reiterated Tanega. Petitioner, Del Castillo, was charged for violation of Section 178 (nn) of the 1978 Election Code. The trial court found Del Castillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of 1 year as minimum to 3 years as maximum. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. During the execution of judgment on October 14, 1987, petitioner was not present. The presiding Judge issued an order of arrest and the confiscation of his bond. Petitioner was never apprehended. Ten years later, petitioner filed a motion to quash the warrant of arrest on the ground that the penalty imposed upon him had already prescribed. The motion was denied by the trial court. Del Castillo, on a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, questioned the denial by the trial court. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Upon denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, Del Castillo raised the matter to this Court. The Court decided against Del Castillo and after quoting the ratio decidendi of the Court of Appeals in full, it ratiocinated, thus: The foregoing conclusion of the Court of Appeals is consistent with the ruling of this Court in Tanega vs. Masakayan, et al., where we declared that, for prescription of penalty imposed by final sentence to commence to run, the culprit should escape during the term of such imprisonment.1a\^/phi1.net The Court is unable to find and, in fact, does not perceive any compelling reason to deviate from our earlier pronouncement clearly exemplified in the Tanega case. Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides when the prescription of penalties shall commence to run. Under said provision, it shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, "escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and 157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody. Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom. In the instant case, petitioner was never brought to prison. In fact, even before the execution of the judgment for his conviction, he was already in hiding. Now petitioner begs for the compassion of the Court because he has ceased to live a life of peace and tranquility after he failed to appear in court for the execution of his sentence. But it was petitioner who chose to become a fugitive. The Court accords compassion only to those who are deserving. Petitioner's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt but he refused to answer for the wrong he committed. He is therefore not to be rewarded therefor. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is based on settled jurisprudence and applicable laws. It did not engage in judicial legislation but correctly interpreted the pertinent laws. Because petitioner was never placed in confinement, prescription never started to run in his favor.18l^vvphi1.net Consistent with the two cases cited above, this Court pronounces that the prescription of penalties found in Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code, applies only to those who are convicted by final judgment and are serving sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty. The period for prescription of penalties begins only when the convict evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. Since petitioner never suffered deprivation of liberty before his arrest on January 20, 2000 and as a consequence never evaded sentence by escaping during the term of his service, the period for prescription never began. Petitioner, however, has by this time fully served his sentence of two months and one day of arresto mayor and should forthwith be released unless he is being detained for another offense or charge. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 56 is AFFIRMED, but petitioner is ordered released effective immediately for having fully served his sentence unless he is detained for another offense or charge. No costs. SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 143380. April 11, 2005] OLIMPIO PANGONOROM and METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. D E C I S I O N CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition for review[1] to annul the Decision[2] dated 29 November 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 14764, as well as its Resolution[3] dated 5 May 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the 5 February 1993 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 79 in Criminal Case No. Q-90-11397. The Charge On 21 March 1990, Assistant City Prosecutor Rosario U. Barias filed an Information charging Olimpio Pangonorom (Olimpio) with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple slight physical injuries, committed as follows: That on or about the 10th day of July, 1989, in Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, being then the driver and person in charge of a motor vehicle (MMTC- passenger bus) with plate No. NVJ-999 TB Pil. 89, did, then and there unlawfully and feloniously drive, manage and operate the same along E. de los Santos Ave., Quezon Avenue this City, in a careless, reckless and imprudent manner, by then and there driving the same without due regard to traffic laws and regulations and without taking the necessary precautions to prevent accident to person and damage to property, causing by such carelessness, recklessness and imprudence said motor vehicle so driven by him to strike and collide with an [I]suzu [G]emini car with plate No. NAR-865 L Pil. 89, belonging to Mary Berba and driven by Carlos Berba y Remulla, thereby causing damages in the total amount of P42,600.00, Philippine Currency; as a consequence thereof said Carlos Berba sustained physical injuries for a period of less than nine (9) days and incapacitated him from performing his customary labor for the same period of time and also his passengers namely: Mary Berba y Matti and Amelia Berba y Mendoza sustained physical injuries for a period of less than nine (9) days and incapacitated them from performing their customary labor for the same period of time, thereafter, abandoned said offended parties without aiding them, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended parties in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the Civil Code. CONTRARY TO LAW.[5] Arraignment and Plea When arraigned on 26 June 1990, Olimpio, with the assistance of counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.[6] The Trial The prosecution presented five witnesses: (1) Carlos R. Berba; (2) Mary M. Berba; (3) Amelia Berba; (4) Edward Campos; and (5) Enrico B. Estupigan. On the other hand, the defense presented three witnesses: (1) Olimpio himself; (2) Milagros Garbo; and (3) Nenita Amado. The facts, as summarized by the trial court, are as follows: The evidence of the prosecution shows that on July 10, 1989 at around 9:00 P.M. Carlos R. Berba was driving an Isuzu Gemini car bearing Plate No. NAR-865 L Pil. 89 belonging to his mother Mary Berba. With him inside the car were his mother Mary Berba who was seated in front beside him and his auntie Amelia Berba who was at the back seat. They were cruising along EDSA coming from the direction of Makati and headed towards the intersection of EDSA and Quezon Boulevard but upon nearing 680 Appliances along EDSA, Quezon City, their car was bumped from behind by MMTC Passenger Bus bearing Plate No. NVJ-999 TB Pil. 89 driven by herein accused Olimpio Pangonorom thereby causing damages to their car which was estimated at P42,600.00 (Exhs. F, F-1). The front and rear portions of their car incurred damages because by reason of the strong impact at the rear portion of their car, it was pushed forward and bumped the car in front of it, then it rested near the island. The bus driven by the accused still travelled a distance of 20 meters from the point of impact. The accused left his bus but they came to know his name is Olimpio Pangonorom. Their car was a total wreck as shown in its photographs (Exhs. B and C). Carlos Berba noticed this bus following them closely at Nepa Q-Mart up to the point of collision. His car was running along the second lane of EDSA from the island. The MMTC bus driven by the accused was running very fast, kept on switching lane until it finally occupied the second lane and bumped his car. Carlos Berba sustained cuts on his shoulder and back because of broken glasses and was treated at East Avenue Medical Center. He incurred P1,000.00 for medication (Exhs. G to G-3). Mary Berba sustained contusion, hematoma and abrasion (Exh. H). Amelia Berba sustained abrasion on his right elbow (Exh. K). Both were also treated at East Avenue Medical Center. Edward Campos and Enrico Bantique Estupigan, passengers of MMTC Bus driven by the accused explained that their bus was running at 70-80 kph when it swerved to the right to avoid hitting a van stranded at the left side of the island but in the process it hit and bumped an Isuzu Gemini car in front of it. The rear portion of the Isuzu Gemini car was smashed and the front part was also damaged as it hit the Lancer car running ahead. The bus driver, herein accused, fled from the scene. It was a rainy day, road was slippery, the rain had just stopped but was still drizzling. The defense on the other hand presented accused Olimpio Pangonorom, Milagros Garbo, Nenita Amado and documents marked as Exhs. 1 to 15 with sub-markings. Accused Olimpio Pangonorom testified that he was a driver since 1976, having worked as a truck driver in Mindanao, then employed as driver of Silangan Transit up to 1981 and from 1981 up to the present is a driver of Metro Manila Transit. He is a holder of professional drivers license with OR No. 15160307 (Exhs. 1, 1-A). On July 10, 1989 he drove MMTC bus from Monumento to Baclaran and vice-versa. He was driving MMTC bus between 7:00 8:00 P.M. along EDSA headed towards Monumento when upon reaching infront of 680 Appliances his bus was involved in a vehicular accident. It was drizzling, his bus was running at a speed of 70 kph along the third lane of EDSA going to Monumento and an Isuzu Gemini car ahead of him was on his left side running along the second lane of EDSA at a distance of 30 meters away. When the car was at a distance of 20 meters away and before reaching the stalled vehicle, it swerved to the right without signal light, so he blew his horn, stepped on his brakes, but since the street was downgrade, it was raining and slippery, his brakes failed to control his bus, thus hit and bumped the Isuzu Gemini car. He identified the Isuzu Gemini car and damages sustained by the car in the photograph marked as Exh. C. His bus slided after he applied his brakes because the street was slippery. He reported at their garage after the accident, left his vehicle and went back at the scene with a wrecker. The passengers of the Isuzu car were brought to the hospital. The training officer of MMTC, Milagros Garbo, testified on the procedure of the company in hiring an applicant driver and the requirements to be submitted by the applicant. An applicant for a driver of MMTC as what had been done to the accused before he was admitted as company driver of MMTC must pass an interview, seminars, written examination, actual driving test, psycho-physical test, road test, line familiarization test, defensive driving seminar, drivers familiarization seminar, and traffic rules and environment seminar. Documents they required to be submitted by an applicant driver were NBI Clearance, Residence Certificate, Professional Drivers License, and Official Receipts of payment of required fees for drivers license (Exhs. 1 to 15). The internal control relative to the supervision of their drivers was explained by witness Nenita Amado, a transport supervisor of MMTC. She supervises and gives instructions and recommendations on bus rules and regulations to their drivers. They have ten (10) comptrollers, thirty-six (36) dispatchers, seven (7) field supervisors, sixty (60) inspectors and four (4) service wreckers who helped in the supervision of the drivers and conductors of MMTC. They have centralized radio that monitor the activities of their drivers during their travel. Her instructions to the drivers were to avoid accident, obey traffic rules and regulations and to be courteous to passengers.[7] On 5 February 1993, the trial court rendered its Decision with the following dispositive portion: PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds accused Olimpio Pangonorom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple slight physical injuries and sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of thirty (30) days of arresto menor, to indemnify the offended parties of the damages incurred by their Isuzu Gemini car in the sum of P42,600.00 and to reimburse the medical expenses of Carlos R. Berba in the sum of P182.50, Amelia Berba in the sum of P217.50 and Mary Berba in the sum of P45.00. SO ORDERED.[8] Petitioners appealed the trial courts decision to the Court of Appeals.[9] The Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals ruled that the finding that Olimpio drove the passenger bus in a negligent manner, considering the circumstances of weather and road condition, is a finding of fact of the trial court that is entitled to respect. The Court of Appeals stated that it is a settled rule that factual findings of trial courts are accorded great respect unless it can be shown that they overlooked some circumstances of substance which, if considered, will probably alter the result. The Court of Appeals held that no such circumstance was overlooked in this case. The Court of Appeals ruled that even if it were true, as Olimpio claimed, that the car Carlos Berba (Carlos) was then driving occupied Olimpios lane while the car was 20 meters away, it is a safe distance for a vehicle to switch lanes. The Court of Appeals held that if only Olimpio did not drive very fast and considered that the street was downgrade and slippery, he could have easily avoided the accident by applying his brakes. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the testimonies of Edward Campos (Edward) and Enrico Bantigue, who were passengers of the MMTC bus, are worthy of credence. The Court of Appeals stated that they are neutral witnesses who had no motive to testify against Olimpio. They testified that: (1) the MMTC bus was running at 70-80 kilometers per hour; (2) the bus swerved to the right to avoid hitting a van stranded at the left side of the island; and (3) in the process, the bus hit and bumped the Gemini car ahead of it. Edward further testified that Olimpio earlier overtook another bus. Edward stated that it was for this reason that the MMTC bus went into the lane where the stalled van was located. The Court of Appeals held that the MMTC bus was the one switching lanes. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads: WHEREFORE, the judgment herein appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.[10] On 28 December 1999, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision. Petitioners asserted that the Court of Appeals erred in finding Olimpio negligent in driving the subject bus. Petitioners also asserted that Carlos was the one switching lanes and was therefore the one negligent in driving his car. Petitioners stated that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the MMTC was not subsidiarily liable for Olimpios civil liability in the instant case. Petitioners stated that the testimonies of witnesses Milagros Garbo and Nenita Amado, as well as Exhibits 1 to 15, proved that the MMTC exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its drivers.[11] On 5 May 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution[12] denying the motion for reconsideration. With the assailed decision having amply discussed, considered and ruled upon the issues that petitioners raised in their motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals held that there was no cogent reason for it to reverse the assailed decision. The Court of Appeals also held that the MMTC was already estopped in assailing the trial courts decision considering that the MMTC never appealed the decision within the reglementary period. The Issues Petitioners have presented the following for our consideration: 1. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in sustaining the trial courts findings of facts instead of considering certain facts and circumstance raised by petitioners that properly cast an element of reasonable doubt. 2. Whether Estoppel applies to MMTC.[13] The Ruling of the Court The petition is without merit. In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial courts decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[14] Petitioners fault the Court of Appeals for having sustained the trial courts findings of fact. Petitioners assert that the Court of Appeals failed to consider certain circumstances that would warrant a reversal of the factual findings of the trial court. Petitioners claim that Carlos negligence in switching lanes to avoid hitting a stranded van caused the collision. Petitioners assert that Carlos was negligent because he transferred to the lane where Olimpio was then driving along without first blinking his signal light and with his car only 20 meters away from the bus. This being so, petitioners assert that they should not be held responsible for Carlos negligence. Petitioners assertions have no merit. The issue of whether a person is negligent is a question of fact.[15] Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, when they affirm the findings of fact of the trial court, are binding on this Court, unless the findings of the trial and appellate courts are palpably unsupported by the evidence on record or unless the judgment itself is based on misapprehension of facts.[16] We hold that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in upholding the factual findings of the trial court. Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration (1) his employment or occupation; (2) his degree of intelligence; (3) his physical condition; and (4) other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. Olimpio is a professional driver who has been in the employ of the MMTC since 1984.[17] As a public utility driver, Olimpio should have as his primary concern the safety not only of himself or of his passengers, but, also the safety of his fellow motorists. Considering that it had just rained, it was still drizzling and the road was slippery when the subject incident took place, [18] Olimpio should have been more cautious and prudent in driving his passenger bus. Based on Olimpios testimonial admission, he was driving at 70 kilometers per hour. He testified he was familiar with the road.[19]Therefore, he ought to have known the downhill slope coming from the Nepa-Q Mart. [20] As the bus was moving downhill, Olimpio should have slowed down since a downhill drive would naturally cause his vehicle to accelerate. However, instead of slowing down, Olimpio admitted he was running very fast. Thus, Olimpio testified: Atty. ANTONIO: Q It was nighttime Mr. Witness, will you tell us whether you were able to see this vehicle you were following? A Yes, sir. Q Will you tell us how did you notice this vehicle? A Because I saw its tail light, sir. Q Before this vehicle you were following reached the place where this stalled vehicle was, do you know where was this vehicle proceeded? FISCAL: I think he is incompetent, Your Honor. COURT: Sustained. Atty. ANTONIO: Q Before your vehicle reached the place where this stalled vehicle was, what did you notice if any? A I noticed that the vehicle I was following Isuzu Gemini before reaching the stalled vehicle suddenly swerved to the right and I was already approaching, sir. Q Before this Isuzu Gemini car you were following suddenly swerved to the right, how far were you? A About twenty (20) meters, sir. It suddenly swerved to the right and I was running very fast because it was downward. Q And when you noticed this Isuzu Gemini suddenly swerved to the right, what if any did you do? A I blew my horn and stepped on my brakes, sir. Considering that it was raining and slippery I cannot control. Q And after your were not able to control your vehicle despite the precaution you made, what happened? A I bumped him, sir.[21] (Emphasis supplied) The only conclusion that we can draw from the factual circumstances is that Olimpio was negligent. He was hurrying to his destination and driving faster than he should have. The fact that after Olimpio stepped on the brake, the bus still traveled a distance of 20 meters before it finally stopped, and the car, after it was hit, was thrown 10 to 15 meters away,[22] only prove that Olimpios bus was running very fast. Olimpios claim that Carlos suddenly transferred to his lane to avoid hitting a van stranded at the left side of the island could hardly carry the day for him. Olimpio says that the distance between the car and the bus before the car allegedly swerved to the bus lane was 20 meters. Therefore, at that point, Olimpio still had the opportunity to avoid the collision by slowing down or by stepping on the brake. However, what Olimpio did was to continue running very fast. Another telling proof of Olimpios negligence is the testimony of Edward, a passenger of the MMTC bus who was seated at the right front seat nearest to the door of the bus.[23] Edward recounted the incident, thus: Q You said that there was a van parked which the Metro Manila Transit tried to avoid. Where was that van parked? A It was stranded above the middle island of the road, sir. COURT: Q When you said of the road you are referring to EDSA? A Yes, Your Honor. FISCAL: Q So when it swerved to avoid hitting the parked van, what happened? A It was too late, sir, when he noticed that there was a car slowly cruising EDSA so when he swerved he was very fast so it was too late to avoid the car. He just braked, the road was slippery so he could not swerve because the bus might turn over. x x x Q Mr. Witness, did you notice this stalled vehicle before you reached the place where it was stalled? A No, sir. Q Even when the lights of the Metro Manila Transit were on, you did not notice it? A Actually, sir, he was overtaking another bus so thats why he did not notice this stalled van. Q Who was overtaking another bus? A MMTC bus, sir, because it stopped at the MMC office near Timog and then it overtook another moving bus. He went to the left side overtaking that bus. x x x Atty. ANTONIO: Q Are you a driver? A Yes, sir. Q And if circumstances similar to that incident that happened, it would be prudent for you to swerve also, is it not? A At that condition, sir, Id rather brake than swerve, it is slippery. Q Mr. Witness, will you tell how far was this MMTC bus when it swerved in relation to the place where the stalled vehicle was? A I guess, sir, it was a few seconds before too late because when it swerved the bus was already tilting, so it is a matter of seconds. Atty. ANTONIO: Q It was a matter of seconds? A Yes, sir. Q So if you were in this position stopping would not be sufficient precautionary measure, was it not? A Before that, sir, he overtook that bus so if he did not overtake that bus he would have seen the parked van. Being a driver myself the way he overtook was dangerous, it was so close that you could not see the other lane. x x x Q Will you please explain Mr. Witness, how this MMTC bus hit the car when you claimed that the car was running ahead of the bus? A There was this stalled van and there was this bus, now this was the Gemini car, this slowed down to avoid also the stalled van, it swerved so the bus was here running very fast and then noticed the van so it swerved also and the Gemini here was of course slowed down to avoid that van, the bus was still running fast then after swerving it was too late for him to notice that there was this car running slowly by the bus, he stepped on the brake. Q Do you mean to say Mr. Witness, that both the Isuzu vehicle and the MMTC bus were running on the same course? A Yes, sir.[24] (Emphasis supplied). Edwards declarations that the bus was running very fast and that Olimpio did not see the stranded van because he earlier overtook another bus are clear and categorical. There is no evidence of any ill or improper motive on Edwards part that would discredit his testimony. He was not in any way related to the complainants. Neither was the defense able to show that some form of consideration induced Edward to testify for the prosecution. The defense did not even try to rebut Edwards testimony. When there is nothing to indicate that a witness was actuated by improper motives, his positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under solemn oath deserve full faith and credit.[25] Petitioners likewise fault the Court of Appeals for having ruled that the MMTC is already estopped from assailing the trial courts decision considering that the MMTC never appealed the same within the reglementary period. We have carefully gone over the records of this case and found that when petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal with the trial court on 8 March 1993, the MMTC already appealed the civil aspect of this case. We quote petitioners Notice of Appeal: The ACCUSED and his employer, Metro Manila Transit Corporation, by their undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully give notice that they are appealing, as they hereby appeal, the Decision dated February 5, 1993, which was received on February 23, 1993, to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the Decision is contrary to the facts, law and settled jurisprudence. Metro Manila Transit Corporation likewise interposes an appeal with respect to the civil aspect of this case because of its subsidiary liability as employer of the accused under the Revised Penal Code.[26] It is therefore not correct for the Court of Appeals to state in its Resolution[27] dated 5 May 2000 that the MMTC failed to appeal seasonably the issue of its alleged non-subsidiary liability[28] as Olimpios employer. However, due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not a defense in the present case. The law involved in the present case is Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Articles 100[29] and 102[30] of the same Code, which reads thus: Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. Pursuant to Article 103, an employer may be subsidiarily liable for the employees civil liability in a criminal action when there is adequate evidence establishing (1) that he is indeed the employer of the convicted employee; (2) that he is engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties; and (4) that the execution against the employee has not been satisfied due to insolvency.[31] The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability Articles 102 and 103 are deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer.[32] The subsidiary liability of the employer arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal action.[33] In the present case, there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioners, the MMTC is engaged in the transportation industry,[34] and Olimpio has been adjudged guilty of a wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of his duties.[35] However, there is no proof here of Olimpios insolvency. The judgment of conviction against Olimpio has not attained finality. This being so, no writ of execution can issue against him to satisfy his civil liability. Only after proof of the accused-employees insolvency may the subsidiary liability of his employer be enforced.[36] In short, there is as yet no occasion to speak of enforcing the employers subsidiary civil liability unless it appears that the accused- employees primary liability cannot in the first instance be satisfied because of insolvency. This fact cannot be known until some time after the verdict of conviction shall have become final. And even if it appears prima facie that execution against the employee cannot be satisfied, execution against the employer will not issue as a matter of course.[37] The procedure for the enforcement of a judgment will have to be followed. Once the judgment of conviction against Olimpio becomes final and executory, and after the writ of execution issued against him is returned unsatisfied because of his insolvency, only then can a subsidiary writ of execution be issued against the MMTC after a hearing set for that precise purpose. It is still too early to hold the MMTC subsidiarily liable with its accused-employee considering that there is no proof yet of Olimpios insolvency. WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant petition. The Decision dated 29 November 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 14764 finding petitioner Olimpio Pangonorom GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple slight physical injuries, as well as its Resolution dated 5 May 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 154130 October 1, 2003 BENITO ASTORGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. D E C I S I O N YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of a Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986, dated July 5, 2001,1 as well as its Resolutions dated September 28, 2001 and July 10, 2002. On October 28, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman filed the following Information against Benito Astorga, Mayor of Daram, Samar, as well as a number of his men for Arbitrary Detention: That on or about the 1st day of September, 1997, and for sometime subsequent thereto, at the Municipality of Daram, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named accused, a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Daram, Samar, in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, conniving, confederating and mutually helping with unidentified persons, who are herein referred to under fictitious names JOHN DOES, who were armed with firearms of different calibers, with deliberate intent, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously detain Elpidio Simon, Moises dela Cruz, Wenifredo Maniscan, Renato Militante and Crisanto Pelias, DENR Employees, at the Municipality of Daram, by not allowing them to leave the place, without any legal and valid grounds thereby restraining and depriving them of their personal liberty for nine (9) hours, but without exceeding three (3) days. CONTRARY TO LAW.2 On September 1, 1997, Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Office No. 8, Tacloban City sent a team to the island of Daram, Western Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection operations in line with the governments campaign against illegal logging. The team was composed of Forester II Moises dela Cruz, Scaler Wenifredo Maniscan, Forest Ranger Renato Militante, and Tree Marker Crisanto Pelias, with Elpidio E. Simon, Chief of the Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Section, as team leader. The team was escorted by SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1 Rufo Capoquian.3 The team stopped at Brgy. Bagacay, Daram, Western Samar at 2:00 p.m., where they saw two yacht-like boats being constructed. After consulting with the local barangay officials, the team learned that the boats belonged to a certain Michael Figueroa. However, since Figueroa was not around at the time, the team left Brgy. Bagacay.4 En route to Brgy. Manungca, Sta. Rita, Samar, the team spotted two more boats being constructed in the vicinity of Brgy. Lucob-Lucob, Daram, Samar, between 4:30-5:00 p.m., prompting them to stop and investigate. Thus, Maniscan and Militante disembarked from the DENRs service pump boat and proceeded to the site of the boat construction. There, they met Mayor Astorga. After conversing with the mayor, Militante returned to their boat for the purpose of fetching Simon, at the request of Mayor Astorga.5 When Simon, accompanied by dela Cruz, SPO3 Cinco, and SPO1 Capoquian, approached Mayor Astorga to try and explain the purpose of their mission, Simon was suddenly slapped hard twice on the shoulder by Mayor Astorga, who exclaimed, "Puwede ko kamo papaglanguyon pag-uli ha Tacloban. Ano, di ka maaram nga natupa ako? Natupa baya ako. Diri kamo makauli yana kay puwede kame e charge ha misencounter." (I can make you swim back to Tacloban. Dont you know that I can box? I can box. Dont you know that I can declare this a misencounter?)6 Mayor Astorga then ordered someone to fetch "reinforcements," and forty-five (45) minutes later, or between 5:00-6:00 p.m., a banca arrived bearing ten (10) men, some of them dressed in fatigue uniforms. The men were armed with M-16 and M14 rifles, and they promptly surrounded the team, guns pointed at the team members. 7 At this, Simon tried to explain to Astorga the purpose of his teams mission. 8 He then took out his handheld ICOM radio, saying that he was going to contact his people at the DENR in Catbalogan to inform them of the teams whereabouts. Suddenly, Mayor Astorga forcibly grabbed Simons radio, saying, "Maupay nga waray kamo radio bis diri somabut an iyo opisina kon hain kamo, bis diri kamo maka aro hin bulig." (Its better if you have no radio so that your office would not know your whereabouts and so that you cannot ask for help).9 Mayor Astorga again slapped the right shoulder of Simon, adding, "Kong siga kamo ha Leyte ayaw pagdad-a dinhi ha Samar kay diri kamo puwede ha akon." (If you are tough guys in Leyte, do not bring it to Samar because I will not tolerate it here.)10 Simon then asked Mayor Astorga to allow the team to go home, at which Mayor Astorga retorted that they would not be allowed to go home and that they would instead be brought to Daram.11 Mayor Astorga then addressed the team, saying, "Kon magdakop man la kamo, unahon an mga dagko. Kon madakop niyo an mga dagko, an kan Figueroa dida ha Bagacay puwede ko liwat ipadakop an akon." (If you really want to confiscate anything, you start with the big-time. If you confiscate the boats of Figueroa at Brgy. Bagacay, I will surrender mine.)12 Simon then tried to reiterate his request for permission to leave, which just succeeded in irking Mayor Astorga, who angrily said, "Diri kamo maka uli yana kay dad on ko kamo ha Daram, para didto kita mag uro istorya." (You cannot go home now because I will bring you to Daram. We will have many things to discuss there.)13 The team was brought to a house where they were told that they would be served dinner. The team had dinner with Mayor Astorga and several others at a long table, and the meal lasted between 7:00-8:00 p.m.14 After dinner, Militante, Maniscan and SPO1 Capoquian were allowed to go down from the house, but not to leave the barangay.15 On the other hand, SPO3 Cinco and the rest just sat in the house until 2:00 a.m. when the team was finally allowed to leave.161awphi1.nt Complainants filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary detention against Mayor Astorga and his men, which led to the filing of the above-quoted Information. Mayor Astorga was subsequently arraigned on July 3, 2000, wherein he pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged.17 At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO1 Capoquian and SPO3 Cinco, as well as their Joint Affidavit.18 However, the presentation of Simons testimony was not completed, and none of his fellow team members came forward to testify. Instead, the members of the team sent by the DENR RSOG executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance.19 On July 5, 2001, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision, disposing of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused BENITO ASTORGA Y BOCATCAT guilty of Arbitrary Detention, and in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correctional as maximum. SO ORDERED.20 The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 11, 200121 which was denied by the Sandiganabayan in a Resolution dated September 28, 2001.22 A Second Motion for Reconsideration dated October 24, 200123was also filed, and this was similarly denied in a Resolution dated July 10, 2002.24 Hence, the present petition, wherein the petitioner assigns a sole error for review: 5.1. The trial court grievously erred in finding the accused guilty of Arbitrary Detention as defined and penalized under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code, based on mere speculations, surmises and conjectures and, worse, notwithstanding the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the five (5) complaining witnesses wherein the latter categorically declared petitioners innocence of the crime charged.25 Petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish the required quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused,26 especially in light of the fact that the private complainants executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance.27 Petitioner asserts that nowhere in the records of the case is there any competent evidence that could sufficiently establish the fact that restraint was employed upon the persons of the team members. 28Furthermore, he claims that the mere presence of armed men at the scene does not qualify as competent evidence to prove that fear was in fact instilled in the minds of the team members, to the extent that they would feel compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob.29 Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person.30The elements of the crime are: 1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. 2. That he detains a person. 3. That the detention is without legal grounds.31 That petitioner, at the time he committed the acts assailed herein, was then Mayor of Daram, Samar is not disputed. Hence, the first element of Arbitrary Detention, that the offender is a public officer or employee, is undeniably present. Also, the records are bereft of any allegation on the part of petitioner that his acts were spurred by some legal purpose. On the contrary, he admitted that his acts were motivated by his "instinct for self-preservation" and the feeling that he was being "singled out."32 The detention was thus without legal grounds, thereby satisfying the third element enumerated above. What remains is the determination of whether or not the team was actually detained. In the case of People v. Acosta,33 which involved the illegal detention of a child, we found the accused-appellant therein guilty of kidnapping despite the lack of evidence to show that any physical restraint was employed upon the victim. However, because the victim was a boy of tender age and he was warned not to leave until his godmother, the accused-appellant, had returned, he was practically a captive in the sense that he could not leave because of his fear to violate such instruction.34 In the case of People v. Cortez,35 we held that, in establishing the intent to deprive the victim of his liberty, it is not necessary that the offended party be kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion. At the time of her rescue, the offended party in said case was found outside talking to the owner of the house where she had been taken. She explained that she did not attempt to leave the premises for fear that the kidnappers would make good their threats to kill her should she do so. We ruled therein that her fear was not baseless as the kidnappers knew where she resided and they had earlier announced that their intention in looking for her cousin was to kill him on sight. Thus, we concluded that fear has been known to render people immobile and that appeals to the fears of an individual, such as by threats to kill or similar threats, are equivalent to the use of actual force or violence.36 The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of the victims liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victims person. If the acts and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is, for all intents and purposes, detained against his will. In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is evident. Inspite of their pleas, the witnesses and the complainants were not allowed by petitioner to go home.37 This refusal was quickly followed by the call for and arrival of almost a dozen "reinforcements," all armed with military-issue rifles, who proceeded to encircle the team, weapons pointed at the complainants and the witnesses.38 Given such circumstances, we give credence to SPO1 Capoquians statement that it was not "safe" to refuse Mayor Astorgas orders.39 It was not just the presence of the armed men, but also the evident effect these gunmen had on the actions of the team which proves that fear was indeed instilled in the minds of the team members, to the extent that they felt compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob. The intent to prevent the departure of the complainants and witnesses against their will is thus clear. Regarding the Joint Affidavit of Desistance executed by the private complainants, suffice it to say that the principles governing the use of such instruments in the adjudication of other crimes can be applied here. Thus, in People v. Ballabare, it was held that an affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the defenses of the accused, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be other circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance, create doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and accepted by the judge. Here, there are no such circumstances.40 Indeed, the belated claims made in the Joint Affidavit of Desistance, such as the allegations that the incident was the result of a misunderstanding and that the team acceded to Mayor Astorgas orders "out of respect," are belied by petitioners own admissions to the contrary.41 The Joint Affidavit of Desistance of the private complainants is evidently not a clear repudiation of the material points alleged in the information and proven at the trial, but a mere expression of the lack of interest of private complainants to pursue the case. 1awphi1.nt This conclusion is supported by one of its latter paragraphs, which reads: 11. That this affidavit was executed by us if only to prove our sincerity and improving DENR relations with the local Chiefs Executive and other official of Daram, Islands so that DENR programs and project can be effectively implemented through the support of the local officials for the betterment of the residence living conditions who are facing difficulties and are much dependent on government support.42 Petitioner also assails the weight given by the trial court to the evidence, pointing out that the Sandiganbayans reliance on the testimony of SPO1 Capoquian is misplaced, for the reason that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the private complainants in the case.43 He also makes much of the fact that prosecution witness SPO1 Capoquian was allegedly "not exactly privy to, and knowledgeable of, what exactly transpired between herein accused and the DENR team leader Mr. Elpidio E. Simon, from their alleged confrontation, until they left Barangay Lucob-Lucob in the early morning of 2 September 1997."44 It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial courts factual findings are conclusive and binding upon appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.45 Nothing in the case at bar prompts us to deviate from this doctrine. Indeed, the fact that SPO1 Capoquian is not one of the private complainants is completely irrelevant. Neither penal law nor the rules of evidence requires damning testimony to be exclusively supplied by the private complainants in cases of Arbitrary Detention. Furthermore, Mayor Astorgas claim that SPO1 Capoquian was "not exactly privy" to what transpired between Simon and himself is belied by the evidence. SPO1 Capoquian testified that he accompanied Simon when the latter went to talk to petitioner.46 He heard all of Mayor Astorgas threatening remarks.47 He was with Simon when they were encircled by the men dressed in fatigues and wielding M-16 and M-14 rifles.48 In sum, SPO1 Capoquian witnessed all the circumstances which led to the Arbitrary Detention of the team at the hands of Mayor Astorga. Petitioner submits that it is unclear whether the team was in fact prevented from leaving Brgy. Lucob-Lucob or whether they had simply decided to "while away the time" and take advantage of the purported hospitality of the accused.49 On the contrary, SPO3 Cinco clearly and categorically denied that they were simply "whiling away the time" between their dinner with Mayor Astorga and their departure early the following morning.50 SPO1 Capoquian gave similar testimony, saying that they did not use the time between their dinner with Mayor Astorga and their departure early the following morning to "enjoy the place" and that, given a choice, they would have gone home.51 Petitioner argues that he was denied the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge", because the ponente of the assailed decision acted both as magistrate and advocate when he propounded "very extensive clarificatory questions" on the witnesses. Surely, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is not an idle arbiter during a trial. It can propound clarificatory questions to witnesses in order to ferret out the truth. The impartiality of the court cannot be assailed on the ground that clarificatory questions were asked during the trial.52 Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Arbitrary Detention. Article 124 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that, where the detention has not exceeded three days, the penalty shall be arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, which has a range of four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner is entitled to a minimum term to be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, or arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, which has a range of one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. Hence, the Sandiganbayan was correct in imposing the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum. Before closing, it may not be amiss to quote the words of Justice Perfecto in his concurring opinion in Lino v. Fugoso, wherein he decried the impunity enjoyed by public officials in committing arbitrary or illegal detention, and called for the intensification of efforts towards bringing them to justice: The provisions of law punishing arbitrary or illegal detention committed by government officers form part of our statute books even before the advent of American sovereignty in our country. Those provisions were already in effect during the Spanish regime; they remained in effect under American rule; continued in effect under the Commonwealth. Even under the Japanese regime they were not repealed. The same provisions continue in the statute books of the free and sovereign Republic of the Philippines. This notwithstanding, and the complaints often heard of violations of said provisions, it is very seldom that prosecutions under them have been instituted due to the fact that the erring individuals happened to belong to the same government to which the prosecuting officers belong. It is high time that every one must do his duty, without fear or favor, and that prosecuting officers should not answer with cold shrugging of the shoulders the complaints of the victims of arbitrary or illegal detention. Only by an earnest enforcement of the provisions of articles 124 and 125 of the Revised Penal Code will it be possible to reduce to its minimum such wanton trampling of personal freedom as depicted in this case. The responsible officials should be prosecuted, without prejudice to the detainees right to the indemnity to which they may be entitled for the unjustified violation of their fundamental rights.53 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986, dated July 5, 2001 finding petitioner BENITO ASTORGA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum, is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. EN BANC
[G.R. NO. 137182. April 24, 2003] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ABDILA SILONGAN Y LINANDANG, MACAPAGAL SILONGAN Y LINANDANG, AKMAD AWAL Y LAGASI, TEDDY SILONGAN, ROLLY LAMALAN Y SAMPOLNAK, SACARIA ALON Y PAMAALOY, JUMBRAH MANAP Y BANTOLINAY, RAMON PASAWILAN Y EDO, MAYANGKANG SAGUILE, HADJI KUTANG OMAR, BASCO SILONGAN, MONGA ALON, OTENG SIILONGAN, BEDDO LAXAMANA, and FIFTY-FOUR (54) OTHERS KNOWN ONLY BY THEIR ALIASES, AND OTHER JOHN DOES, accused, ABDILA SILONGAN Y LINANDANG, MACAPAGAL SILONGAN Y LINANDANG, AKMAD AWAL Y LAGASI, ROLLY LAMALAN Y SAMPOLNAK, SACARIA ALON Y PAMAALOY, JUMBRAH MANAP Y BANTOLINAY, and RAMON PASAWILAN Y EDO, appellants. D E C I S I O N PER CURIAM: For automatic review is the decision[1] dated January 18, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 98-75208 convicting appellants Abdila Silongan, Macapagal Silongan, Akmad Awal, Rolly Lamalan, Sacaria Alon, Jumbrah Manap, and Ramon Pasawilan of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Serious Illegal Detention[2] and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of death. The appellants were also ordered to pay jointly and severally, Alexander Saldaa[3] and Americo Rejuso, Jr., indemnification damages of P50,000 each and moral damages of P100,000 and P50,000, respectively. The amended information,[4] under which the appellants have been tried and convicted, reads as follows: That on or about 8:30 oclock in the evening of March 16, 1996, at Sitio Kamangga, Barangay Laguilayan, Municipality of Isulan, Province of Sultan Kudarat, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, in the company with other unidentified persons, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap ALEXANDER SALDANA, AMERICO REJUSO, JR., ERVIN TORMIS and VICTOR CINCO for the purpose of demanding ransom in the amount of Twelve Million Pesos (P 12,000,000.00), detaining and depriving Alexander Saldana of his personal liberty up to September 24, 1996. CONTRARY TO LAW.... xxx Upon arraignment,[5] all the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Subsequently, this Court issued a Resolution[6] on December 9, 1997, granting the request of the Secretary of Justice for a change of venue from the RTC, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, to any of the special crimes court of the RTC of Quezon City. The case was raffled to the RTC, Branch 103, Quezon City, and trial ensued. The facts established by the prosecution are as follows: On March 16, 1996, businessman Alexander Saldaa went to Barangay Laguilayan, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat with Americo[7] Rejuso,[8] Jr., Ervin Tormis, and Victor Cinco to meet with a certain Macapagal Silongan alias Commander Lambada.[9] They arrived in the morning and were able to talk to Macapagal concerning the gold nuggets that were purportedly being sold by the latter.[10] During the meeting Macapagal told them that someone in his family has just died and that he has to pick up an elder brother in Cotabato City, hence, they had better transact business in the afternoon.[11] In the afternoon, Alexanders group and Macapagal, with a certain Teddy Silongan and another person named Oteng[12] Silongan, traveled to Cotabato City to fetch Macapagals brother.[13] Afterwards, the group returned to Isulan on Macapagals orders. At Isulan, Macapagal gave additional instructions to wait until dark allegedly because the funeral arrangements for his relative were not yet finished.[14] When the group finally got on their way, Macapagal ordered the driver to drive slowly towards the highway.[15] Oteng Silongan and his bodyguards alighted somewhere along the way. Then around 7:30 p.m., as they headed to the highway, Alexander Saldaa noticed that Macapagal Silongan was busy talking over his hand- held radio with someone. But because the conversation was in the Maguindanaoan dialect, he did not understand what was being said. At 8:30 p.m., they neared the highway. Macapagal ordered the driver to stop. Suddenly, 15 armed men appeared. Alexander and his three companions were ordered to go out of the vehicle, tied up, and blindfolded. Macapagal and Teddy were also tied up and blindfolded, but nothing more was done to them.[16] Alexander identified the appellants Oteng Silongan, Akmad Awal,[17] Abdila Silongan alias Long Silongan,[18] and Rolly Lamalan as belonging to the group that abducted them.[19] He also pointed to an elder brother of Macapagal, alias Keddy, alias Wet, and an alias Ngunib as also belonging to the group.[20] The four victims were taken to a mountain hideout in Maganoy, Maguindanao, where a certain Salik Karem, Hadji Kutang Omar alias Commander Palito, and Jumbrah Manap met them.[21] Initially, the three demanded fifteen million pesos (P15,000,000) from Alexander Saldaa for his release, but the amount was eventually reduced to twelve million pesos after much haggling.[22] They made Alexander write a letter to his wife to pay the ransom. The letter was hand-carried by a certain Armand Jafar, alias Dante, and two of the victims, Ervin Tormis and Victor Cinco, who both later managed to escape.[23] No ransom was obtained so Commander Palito and Jumbrah Manap sent other persons and one of the victims, Americo Rejuso, Jr., to renegotiate with Alexanders wife. No agreement was likewise reached. Seven days later, Alexander Saldaa and Americo Rejuso, Jr., were transferred to the town proper of Maganoy. Commander Palito, Jumbrah Manap, Sacaria[24] Alon alias Jack Moro,[25] Ramon Pasawilan, [26] guarded them. When the kidnappers learned that the military was looking for Alexander, they returned to the mountain hideout and stayed there for two weeks.[27] At one time, Alexander Saldaa was made to stay at a river hideout where a certain Commander Kugta held him and sheltered his abductors for at least a week.[28] There, Alexander saw Macapagal Silongan with Jumbrah Manap and other armed men. These men brought Alexander to Talayan where he met Mayangkang Saguile. From Talayan, Mayangkang and his men brought Alexander to Maitum, Kabuntalan, Maguindanao, where Mayangkangs lair is located. Mayangkang made Alexander write more letters[29] to the latters family. On several occasions, Mayangkang himself would write letters[30] to Alexanders wife. Alexander personally was detained in Kabuntalan for a total period of five (5) months and was kept constantly guarded by armed men. Among his guards were the appellants Macapagal Silongan, Abdila Silongan, Akmad Awal, and a certain Basco Silongan.[31] On September 24, 1996, Mayangkang released Alexander Saldaa to the military in exchange for a relative who was caught delivering a ransom note to Alexanders family. However, only eight of the accused were brought to trial, namely, Abdila, Macapagal, and Teddy, all surnamed Silongan, Akmad Awal, Rolly Lamalan, Sacaria Alon, Jumbrah Manap, and Ramon Pasawilan. The prosecution presented Alexander Saldana; his wife, Carmelita Saldaa, and a certain Major Parallag who was responsible for Alexanders release. Carmelita testified as to matters relayed to her by Americo Rejuso, Jr., and identified the ransom notes sent to her. Major Parallag, for his part, testified as to the operations undertaken by the military to effect the rescue of Alexander. In their defense, all the accused, except Macapagal and Teddy Silongan, denied ever having met Alexander Saldaa and his three (3) companions much less having kidnapped them.[32] Additionally, all eight of the accused established that they came under the control of the government military authorities when they surrendered as Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) rebels.[33] They claim they voluntarily surrendered when a certain Perry Gonzales convinced them that the government would grant them amnesty, pay for their guns, and give them the items listed in their lists of demands.[34] On the witness stand, appellant Macapagal Silongan admitted being with Alexanders group in the van when they were waylaid. But he denies involvement in the kidnapping.[35] In fact he said when Alexander Saldaa saw him in the mountains, he was there specifically to beg Mayangkang Saguile to release Alexander. He further claimed that he was also hogtied by the armed men who blocked the van that evening of March 16, 1996. He testified that he was separated from Teddy Silongan and did not know what happened to Teddy.[36] He admitted knowing Alexander Saldaa for four months prior to March 16, 1996 because the latter asked for his help in locating a plane that crashed in the mountains.[37] According to him, Alexander Saldaa hired him to act as a guide in treasure hunting. When asked to give more information about the plane, Macapagal Silongan stated that he saw it before he met Alexander, and that when he saw said plane it had no more sidewalls. He added that many people have already seen the plane and that vines and mosses have grown about the plane because it had been quite some time since it crashed.[38] Appellant Teddy Silongan, for his part, testified that his cousin Macapagal Silongan contacted him so he could act as interpreter for Macapagal because Alexander could not speak Maguindanaoan and Macapagal does not understand any other language. He added that after the van stopped, one of those who stopped the van opened its rear door and then someone hit him with the butt of a gun rendering him unconscious. When he regained consciousness he found himself hogtied like Macapagal but could not find Alexanders group or the van.[39] All eight of the accused, except Akmad Awal, admitted having signed separate extra-judicial confessions[40] admitting to their complicity in the kidnapping of Alexander Saldaa and his companions, but they asserted that they did not understand what they were signing.[41] Additionally, they assert that they did not know or hire Atty. Plaridel Bohol III, the lawyer who appears to have assisted them in making their confessions.[42] After trial, the RTC rendered judgment[43] on January 18, 1999, the decretal portion of which reads as follows: ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding the herein accused: 1. ABDILA SILONGAN y Linandang; 2. MACAPAGAL SILONGAN y Linandang; 3. AKMAD AWAL y Lagasi; 4. ROLLY LAMALAN y Sampolnak; 5. SACARIA ALON y Pamaaloy; 6. JUMBRAH MANAP y Bantolinay; and 7. RAMON PASAWILAN y Edo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principals, of the crime, herein charged, of Kidnapping for Ransom as defined by law, and the said seven (7) accused are hereby sentenced to DEATH as provided for in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659. On the civil aspect, the above-named seven (7) accused are hereby ordered jointly and severally to pay Alexander Saldana the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnification damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages; and to pay Americo Rejuso, Jr. the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnification damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. The accused TEDDY SILONGAN is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of Kidnapping for Ransom filed in this case. Cost against the accused, except Teddy Silongan. SO ORDERED. Hence, this automatic review.[44] The appellants in their brief allege that the trial court committed the following errors: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PROSECUTION EVIDENCE HAS ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES; II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE PUT UP BY ACCUSED WHICH ARE VALID, CREDIBLE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCES.[45] Essentially, the issue before this Court is whether the guilt of the appellants has been proven by credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants assert that the identification of the kidnappers of Alexander Saldaa is gravely flawed. They contend that Alexander Saldaa and Americo Rejuso,Jr., could not have positively identified Rolly Lamalan, Akmad Awal, Sacaria Alon, and Abdila Silongan as their abductors[46] because the incident happened at night in a place where there was no electricity,[47] and more importantly, because both of them were hogtied and blindfolded at the time. Americo Rejuso, Jr., erroneously pointed to Akmad Awal when asked to identify the accused Teddy Silongan. Neither did he know the names of Jumbrah Manap and Ramon Pasawilan.[48] Alexander Saldaa, for his part, testified that Mayangkang Saguile detained him for five months in Kabuntalan,[49] but when asked in open court to point to Mayangkang Saguile,[50] he pointed to someone who was not Mayangkang Saguile. The appellants claim the real Mayangkang Saguile remains at large. The appellants also point to inconsistencies in the testimony of Alexander Saldaa who testified that Teddy and Macapagal Silongan were among the 15 armed persons who stopped the vehicle and abducted the group[51] after having earlier testified that the two were inside the van and were unarmed.[52] Also, Alexander testified that they were abducted around 7:30 p.m. on March 16, 1996, but at pre-trial, the time of the abduction was stipulated to be around 8:30 p.m. on the same date.[53] The appellants further argue that the fact that they are rebel surrenderees precludes conviction for the common crime of kidnapping. [54] CitingPeople v. Hernandez,[55] they contend that common crimes are absorbed in rebellion. Therefore, the trial court erred when it convicted them of kidnapping for ransom. Finally, appellants assert that some of them are illiterate and that the trial court should have accordingly mitigated their liability. At the outset, we hold that the trial court correctly ruled that the extrajudicial statements of the appellants are inadmissible in evidence. The assistance afforded by Atty. Plaridel Bohol is not the assistance contemplated by the fundamental law. Atty. Bohol limited his assistance (f)or the purpose of (the) written waiver as expressly stated by him in all confessions. It does not appear that he was present and independently and competently participated in all the investigation proceedings. All the accused, except Teddy Silongan, are conversant only in the Maguindanaoan dialect and yet the statements were written in almost perfect Filipino. There is no evidence that the accused, prior to the taking of the supposed confessions, were made aware of their right to be silent and to have independent and competent counsel. Neither is there evidence that, as required by Rep. Act. No. 7438, [56]the statements were read to and explained to the accused by the investigating officer. This notwithstanding, we find there exist sufficient evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the appellants. The rule in evidence, which the Court has always applied, is that positive identification prevails over the simple denial of the accused. Denial, like alibi, is an insipid and weak defense, being easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. A positive identification of the accused, when categorical, consistent and straightforward, and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over this defense.[57] The conditions which purportedly created serious doubt on the ability of prosecution witnesses Alexander Saldaa and Americo Rejuso, Jr., to identify positively their abductors did not perdure throughout the duration of their captivity. The records bear out that Alexander and Americo both had a number of opportunities to see the faces of the appellants. They were transferred from one lair to another without blindfolds and often in broad daylight. These improved circumstances necessarily permitted both Alexander and Americo to see the faces of the appellants. Moreover, it must be remembered that Alexander was detained for six months. During this period, Alexander saw them, ate with them, and actually lived with them. Appellants Akmad Awal and Ramon Pasawilan have both acted as guards to Alexander many times: Akmad in Kabuntalan[58] and Ramon in the mountain hideout of Maganoy[59] as well as when Alexander was transferred to the hideout in the town proper of Maganoy.[60] For their part, the appellants Jumbrah Manap, Abdila Silongan, and Sacaria Alon guarded Alexander both in the mountain hideout of Maganoy and in Kabuntalan.[61] These instances, among many others, gave Alexander ample time to see and imprint their faces in his memory. We likewise note that as borne by the records, the kidnappers made little or no attempt to conceal their identities. In fact, they even told Alexander their names when he asked for them.[62] The positive identification Alexander and Americo made in open court[63] thus deserves much weight. We have held in People v. Bacungay,[64] that it is the most natural reaction for victims of crimes to strive to remember the faces of their assailants and the manner in which they committed the crime. That prosecution witness Americo Rejuso, Jr., does not know the names of the abductors is not sufficient to cast doubt on his testimony. It is not necessary that the name of an accused be specifically stated by a witness in an affidavit or in his testimony. Victims of crimes cannot always identify their assailants by name. It is imperative, however, that the attacker be pointed out and unequivocally identified during the trial in court as the same person who committed the crime.[65] We hold that this imperative requirement has been met as to all appellants. Moreover, not only are the testimonies of Alexander Saldaa and Americo Rejuso, Jr., consistent in all material aspects, they are also replete with precise details of the crime and the specific involvements of the different accused therein. In more than one instance, Alexander has identified the appellants to be his kidnappers. He has recounted both on the witness stand as well as in his sworn statement the specific acts performed by the appellants. The records of this case reflect that in more than one instance, the appellants have acted together as guards to Alexander in Kabuntalan, Maganoy, and while he was being transferred from one lair to another. [66] There can be no question, therefore, that the appellants committed the crime. Absent any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and influence which could affect the outcome of the case, the factual findings and assessment of credibility of a witness made by the trial court remain binding on the appellate tribunal.[67] The records are bereft of any evidence that Alexander Saldaa entertained any particular or specific prejudice against the appellants especially because there were 68 accused in this case. The trial court correctly opined that it was quite strange that Alexander would point to the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime if it were true that all of them, except Macapagal and Teddy, do not know or have not even met Alexander. Indeed, it was in Alexanders best interest to implicate only those people who were responsible for abducting him. He has nothing to gain by implicating and testifying against persons innocent of the crime. In People v. Garalde, [68] this Court ruled that when there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. The essence of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention as defined and penalized in Article 267[69] of the Revised Penal Code is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty coupled with proof beyond reasonable doubt of an intent of the accused to effect the same. It is thus essential that the following be established by the prosecution: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances enumerated in Article 267 be present.[70] But if the kidnapping was done for the purpose of extorting ransom, the fourth element is no longer necessary.[71] There is no mistaking the clear, overwhelming evidence that the appellants abducted Alexander Saldaa and his companions at gunpoint and deprived them of their freedom. That the appellants took shifts guarding the victims until only Alexander was left to be guarded and in transferring Alexander from one hideout to another to prevent him from being rescued by the military establish that they acted in concert in executing their common criminal design. Macapagals participation is clearly evident from the records. Aside from being one of Alexanders armed guards in Kabuntalan,[72] and having been part of a party which brought Alexander from the river hideout of Commander Kugta to Mayangkang Saguiles lair in Talayan,[73]indirect evidence also support Macapagals participation in the criminal design. First, Macapagal made several postponements of their trip on March 16, 1996 until it was already 7:30 in the evening. His reason that someone in his family died is not corroborated at all. Teddy, his cousin, never mentioned it, and his other relative, co-accused Abdila Silongan, was reticent about it. In fact, nobody told the trial court the name of the deceased relative. Secondly, Americo testified that when they stopped over at Macapagals house, he heard the wife of Macapagal utter the words kawawa naman sila as they were leaving.[74] Thirdly, it was established that Macapagal ordered the driver to proceed slowly towards the highway. During this time, he was busy talking on his handheld radio with someone and the victims heard him say ok. When they were near the highway, he ordered the driver to stop whereupon 15 armed men appeared and blocked their vehicle. Finally, while the 15 men took away Alexander Saldaa and his three companions, nothing was done to Macapagal or to Teddy Silongan. By their own admission, they were just left behind after being hogtied. How they managed to escape was not explained. All these taken together give rise to the reasonable inference that Macapagal had concocted the funeral for a supposed recently deceased relative purposely to afford his co-conspirators time to stage the kidnapping. Then, also, it was through Macapagals indispensable contribution that the armed men were able to stop the vehicle at a precise location near the highway. Likewise, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from Alexander, as to warrant the mandatory imposition of the death penalty. For the crime to be committed, at least one overt act of demanding ransom must be made. It is not necessary that there be actual payment of ransom because what the law requires is merely the existence of the purpose of demanding ransom. In this case, the records are replete with instances when the kidnappers demanded ransom from the victim. At the mountain hideout in Maganoy where Alexander was first taken, he was made to write a letter to his wife asking her to pay the ransom of twelve million pesos. Among those who demanded ransom were the appellants Ramon Pasawilan,[75] Sacaria Alon,[76] and Jumbrah Manap.[77] Then, when Alexander was in the custody of Mayangkang Saguile, not only was he made to write more letters to his family, Mayangkang himself wrote ransom notes. In those letters, Mayangkang even threatened to kill Alexander if the ransom was not paid. As regards the argument that the crime was politically motivated and that consequently, the charge should have been rebellion and not kidnapping, we find the same likewise to be without merit. As held in Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga Del Norte vs. CA,[78] the political motivation for the crime must be shown in order to justify finding the crime committed to be rebellion. Merely because it is alleged that appellants were members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front or of the Moro National Liberation Front does not necessarily mean that the crime of kidnapping was committed in furtherance of a rebellion. Here, the evidence adduced is insufficient for a finding that the crime committed was politically motivated. Neither have the appellants sufficiently proven their allegation that the present case was filed against them because they are rebel surrenderees. This court has invariably viewed the defense of frame-up with disfavor. Like the defense of alibi, it can be just as easily concocted. Finally, that appellants Jumbrah Manap, Abdila Silongan, Rolly Lamalan, Sacaria Alon, and Macapagal Silongan are illiterate is not sufficient to lower the penalty. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code is specific. It states that (i)n all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. Hence, while illiteracy is generally mitigating in all crimes, such circumstance, even if present, cannot result in a reduction of the penalty in this case. Considering that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the abduction of Alexander Saldaa, Americo Rejuso, Jr., Ervin Tormis, and Victor Cinco were for the purpose of extorting ransom, the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty. As already stated, the trial court ordered the appellants to pay, jointly and severally, Alexander Saldaa and Americo Rejuso, Jr., indemnification damages of P50,000 each and moral damages of P100,000 and P50,000, respectively. However, to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available to the injured party.[79] There is no evidence adduced before the trial court as to actual damages suffered by either Alexander or Americo. Hence, we are constrained to delete the award. This notwithstanding, under Article 2221[80] of the New Civil Code, nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated by the defendant, may be vindicated by him. Conformably, the Court rules that both Alexander and Americo shall be awarded P50,000 each as nominal damages.[81] We affirm the award of P100,000 to Alexander and P50,000 to Americo as moral damages. The amount of moral anxiety suffered by the two victims is in no wise the same. Undoubtedly, Alexanders family had undergone greater distress in the uncertainty of seeing Alexander again. Three Justices of the Court maintain their position that R.A. No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional, and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103, convicting the appellants ABDILA SILONGAN, MACAPAGAL SILONGAN, AKMAD AWAL, ROLLY LAMALAN, SACARIA ALON, JUMBRAH MANAP, and RAMON PASAWILAN of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Serious Illegal Detention and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of DEATH is AFFIRMED. Further, the appellants are ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, Alexander Saldaa and Americo Rejuso, Jr., nominal damages of P50,000.00 each and moral damages of P100,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively. In accordance with Section 25 of R.A. No. 7659 amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded, upon finality of this decision, to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power. SO ORDERED.