ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
G.R.
Nos.
139474-75
-versus- EDUARDO PABILLARE
Y VARONA, ALFREDO CORPUZ Y FLORES,
EDUARDO PABILLARE
Y VARONA, AND CONRADO CAÑADA Y VILLONGCO,
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary For automatic review
is the Decision[1]
dated February 15, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon
City, in Criminal Case No. 96-65215, entitled "People of the
Philippines
vs. Eduardo Pabillare y Varona, Alfredo Corpuz y Flores, Sotero Santos
y Cruz, and Conrado Cañada y Villongco" for kidnapping for
ransom.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellants here are Eduardo Pabillare and Conrado Cañada who were meted the supreme penalty of death. Upon arraignment, both appellants and the other two accused, assisted by their respective counsel, pleaded "not guilty." Thereafter, trial ensued.cralaw:red The prosecution established the following facts through the testimonies of Gurmail Singh, private complainant, SPO4 Epifanio Derequito, SPO4 Eduardo Frias, SPO1 Ruben Reyes and Rajeet Singh.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Gurmail Singh is an Indian national engaged in the buy-and-sell business. On March 10, 1996 at around 3:45 in the afternoon, while riding in his motorcycle along NIA Road, Quezon City, a brown Ford Telstar car with Plate No. DED 714, driven by appellant Conrado Cañada, suddenly blocked his way causing him to fall. Appellant Eduardo Pabillare and a certain Johnny "Kulot" (who has remained at large) got off the car and told him, "You have raped a woman," referring to Johnny's niece. They then forcibly took and dragged him to the back seat of the car. Gurmail resisted but could do nothing because Pabillare had a gun tucked in his waist. Once inside the car, Johnny and Pabillare beat him and took his P1,500.00 and his driver's license.[3] Then Pabillare told him to produce P100,000.00 for his release. He answered that he could only give them P5,000.00. Disappointed with such response, they again beat him. He then agreed to pay them P25,000.00. Pabillare coerced him to write a note to his wife to give P25,000.00 for his release. Johnny took the letter and proceeded to Gurmail's house.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred After an hour drive, Cañada parked the car in front of an apartment. Gurmail remained at the back seat guarded by Cañada. Pabillare went out and came back with a woman who was allegedly raped by Gurmail. Meanwhile, Johnny arrived and punched Gurmail because contrary to his assurance that no one was in his house, some Indian nationals were there. Upon Pabillare's order, Gurmail gave the telephone number of his cousin Lakhbir Singh who would deliver the P25,000.00 ransom.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Gurmail stayed in the car for 1½ hours. Meantime, Cañada and an unidentified man brought him to a "bodega". Pabillare and Johnny were left at the apartment. In the "bodega" were three persons. Two were later identified as accused Alfredo Corpuz and Sotero Santos. They stayed there for an hour. Thereafter, the group boarded the same car driven by Cañada and proceeded to Jollibee, at San Francisco Del Monte Avenue, Quezon City. The unidentified man got off the car while they were on their way to Jollibee.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred At that instance, Lakhbir Singh, Gurmail's cousin, received a call at his house informing him that his cousin Gurmail was kidnapped. The caller demanded P25,000.00 for the release of Gurmail. Immediately, Lakhbir reported the matter to Police Station No. 10 in Quezon City. SPO1 Eduardo Frias instructed him to keep in touch with the abductors and wait for final instructions from the police. Upon reaching home, Lakhbir was informed by his brother Harbir that according to the caller, the pay-off (in the sum of P20,000.00) will be at the Jollibee, corner of Roosevelt and Del Monte Avenue, Quezon City. Lakhbir returned to the police station and narrated what his brother Harbir told him. Police Inspector Edgardo Jovellano organized a team, composed of himself, SPO1 Frias, SPO1 Rebancos, SPO1 Lozada, and SPO1 Ruben Reyes in order to entrap the abductors.[7] Harbir was assigned to deliver the ransom money.[8] The team, wearing civilian clothes, went to Jollibee and spread out in different areas. SPO1 Frias and SPO1 Lozada entered the restaurant and the rest of the team members waited outside. Thirty minutes thereafter, Harbir arrived with Rajeet Singh, also a cousin of Gurmail. While seated inside the restaurant, Pabillare approached them, introduced himself as a policeman and asked for the ransom money. Harbir told him that he wanted to see Gurmail first before handing the money. So Pabillare led them to Gurmail who was in the car parked in front of the restaurant. Cañada opened the front window and they saw Gurmail. Rajeet then gave Pabillare P20,000.00 placed in an envelope. The latter opened the envelope then winked at Corpuz and made a thumb-up sign. Forthwith Corpuz and Santos approached Pabillare. At this juncture, the policemen apprehended appellants Pabillare and Cañada and accused Corpuz and Santos. SPO1 Ruben Reyes recovered from Pabillare the ransom money and a .38 caliber revolver[9] with six live ammunitions.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred After the prosecution formally rested its case, accused Sotero Santos filed a demurrer to evidence[11] which was granted by the trial court in its Order[12] dated June 6, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Appellant Cañada's testimony is as follows: On March 10, 1996, Napoleon de Guzman, a mechanic, introduced to Silveriano Cañada, appellant's father, a certain Johnny who wanted to rent a vehicle. Silveriano was then engaged in a rent-a-car business. Johnny rented a Ford Telstar car for P1,000.00 which he would use in going to Fairview, Quezon City in order to check a car for sale. Silveriano instructed Cañada to drive for Johnny. Cañada acceded to his father's instruction and told Johnny to come back after lunch. At around 2:30 p.m., Johnny, together with appellant Pabillare, arrived. They then drove to Fairview. But because the owner of the car, which Johnny was supposed to buy was not yet around, they went to the house of Pabillare's mother-in-law at NIA Road, Quezon City. Both Pabillare and Johnny alighted. After 20 minutes, they boarded the car and returned to Fairview. On their way, they saw Gurmail Singh on board a motorcycle. Pabillare and Johnny ordered Cañada to chase Gurmail. When Gurmail stopped, Johnny and Pabillare brought him inside the car and they proceeded to San Francisco Del Monte. They stopped in front of an apartment. Pabillare and Johnny entered the apartment, while Gurmail and Cañada remained in the car. Thereupon, Johnny returned to the car with a woman. Cañada took a snack. When the woman left, Johnny and Pabillare went inside the car. Cañada did not see what went on inside because the glass windows of the car were heavily tinted. Afterwards, both Johnny and Pabillare left. Later, a boy arrived and relayed to Cañada Johnny's instruction to proceed to a big compound within the area. After Cañada parked the car, the boy disappeared. Cañada and Gurmail stayed in the place for about an hour. Then the boy came back and told Cañada to go to Jollibee. On their way, the boy alighted near the market. When they reached Jollibee, Johnny was already there. He ordered Cañada to park in front of the restaurant. But when Cañada opened the door of the car, a policeman suddenly poked a gun at him, dragged him outside and told him to lie on the pavement. Then he was brought to Police Precinct No. 10 and was pinpointed as one of the kidnappers of Gurmail. Criminal cases for robbery, illegal possession of firearms and kidnapping were filed against him. All the cases were dismissed, except kidnapping.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Appellant Pabillare testified that on March 10, 1996, he accompanied Johnny to San Pedro Subdivision in Novaliches, Quezon City to look for a car for sale. Cañada drove for them. When they reached the subdivision, the owner of the car was not there so they went to the house of his mother-in-law along NIA Road, Quezon City to see his wife and children. But they were not around. So he asked Cañada to bring him home. While on their way to Frisco, Johnny told Cañada to chase Gurmail. When Gurmail stopped, Johnny forcibly took him inside the car. Pabillare alighted and went home. At past 6:00 p.m., he went to Jollibee to buy snacks for his children. He saw Johnny there by chance. At around 7:00 p.m., several policemen arrived and arrested them. Immediately they were brought to a small room at the precinct and while there, many Indian nationals came charging them with kidnapping.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred After hearing, the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrobles virtual law library
The capital punishment having been imposed upon appellants Cañada and Pabillare, the assailed Decision is now with this Court for automatic review. In his brief, Cañada raises the following assignments of error:chanrobles virtual law library
For his part, Pabillare ascribes to the trial court the following errors:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Appellant Cañada contends that he did not conspire with the other accused who were strangers to him. He merely drove the car Johnny rented from his father. If he were a conspirator, he would not have driven his father's Ford Telstar and expose himself unnecessarily considering that its plate number was prominently visible. Moreover, there is no evidence that he assisted appellant Pabillare and Johnny in dragging the victim inside the car. He denies that he was guarding the victim. In fact, the victim was not restrained of his movement. He could have gone out of the car by simply unlocking the doors. Neither was there a threat to his life since appellant Pabillare, who was in possession of a gun, stayed away for sometime. Likewise, there is no proof that he had any motive to commit or consent to the commission of the crime. At most, he was a victim of circumstances.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Appellant maintains that the ponente is not the trial judge. Consequently, having no opportunity to observe the demeanor of the victim on the witness stand, he should not have believed the latter's testimony.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred For his part, appellant Pabillare contends that the prosecution witnesses have inconsistent versions with regard to the amount and manner of payment of the ransom money. While the Indian witness testified that he and Gurmail's cousin handed the money to Pabillare, the police officer who headed the entrapment, declared on the witness stand that only one person delivered the money. Also, Gurmail testified that the ransom money was P25,000.00, however, his cousin stated that it was P20,000.00. The prosecution witnesses also were inconsistent regarding the color of the envelope containing the money.cralaw:red The above contentions and arguments boil down to the issue of credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution and for the defense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred It is a legal truism of long standing that we accord great respect to the factual conclusions drawn by the trial court, particularly on the matter of credibility of witnesses, unless some material facts have been overlooked or misconstrued as to affect the result. In this case, we find no such material fact from the record that would impair the correctness of the conclusions of the trial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the victim who testified as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
It is thus clear that appellant Pabillare and one Johnny forcibly dragged the victim inside the car. They beat him and restrained his liberty. He could not escape because Pabillare had a gun, while appellant Cañada was guarding him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The trial court was correct in convicting both appellants on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.cralaw:red By the same token, the trial court did not err in disregarding the denial of both appellants.cralaw:red It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases that denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense, for it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. It cannot stand vis-à-vis the unequivocal assertion to the contrary of the complainant. It can safely be stated that the defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Appellant Pabillare claims that the prosecution witnesses gave conflicting versions with respect to the amount of the ransom money; the color of the envelope containing it; and the person who handed the same envelope to said appellant. Suffice it to state that these are minor, trivial and inconsequential matters which do not alter the fact that appellants committed the crime charged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred While appellant Cañada presented witnesses to corroborate his testimony that upon his father's instruction, he merely drove for Johnny and appellant Pabillare, such fact does not prove that he is innocent. It is highly unthinkable that members of a kidnapping syndicate would entrust the performance of a crucial and sensitive phase of their criminal scheme to a person not trusted by them and who has no knowledge of the details of their evil plan.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.[20] There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[21] Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.[22] The following acts of appellants Cañada and Pabillare lead us to conclude that they conspired to commit the crime:chanrobles virtual law library
Now, since appellants indeed conspired in kidnapping the victim for the purpose of extorting ransom, they are both liable under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659,[23] which provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The imposition of the death penalty upon both appellants is in order.[24] The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt their motive, which is ransom for the victim. Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person or persons; a payment that releases from captivity.[25] Since appellants demanded and received money as a requisite for releasing complainant from captivity, whatever other motive may have impelled them to do so, the money is still ransom under the law.[26] The purpose of the offender in extorting ransom is a qualifying circumstance which may be proved by their words and overt acts before, during, and after the kidnapping and detention of the victim.[27] Neither actual demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for the crime to be committed.[28] The fact that appellants sought to extort ransom is clear from the following testimonies:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred 1. Testimony of Gurmail Singh:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Incidentally, while it may be true that the instant case was merely re-raffled[32] to Judge Diosdado M. Peralta, the ponente, on July 9, 1998, hence, he had no opportunity to personally hear the testimony of Gurmail on June 4, 1996 and observed his demeanor, such fact would not alter the outcome of the present case. The accuracy of a decision is not necessarily tarnished by the fact that the ponente only took over from a colleague who had previously presided over the trial. For it does not follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision. In the present case, it appears that Judge Peralta relied upon the transcribed stenographic notes taken during the trial as the basis of his decision. The full record was available to him. As the decision shows, he thoroughly examined and analyzed the evidence and carefully weighed the credibility of the witnesses with the seasoned perspective of a trial judge. Going back to the penalty imposable, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to exemplary damages within the meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[33] There being a demand for ransom in this case, an aggravating circumstance, an award of P25,000.00 as damages to the victim is in order.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95 in Criminal Case No. Q-96-65215 sentencing appellants Conrado Cañada and Eduardo Pabillare to DEATH for kidnapping for ransom is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION in the sense that they shall pay in solidum the amount of twenty five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages to the victim, Gurmail Singh.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Three (3) Justices of the Court maintain their position that R.A. 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 the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Let the records of this case, upon finality of this Decision, be forwarded to the Office of the President for the possible exercise of her pardoning power pursuant to Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of RA 7659.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Cost de oficio.cralaw:red SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and
Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Penned by Judge Diosdado Madarang Peralta; now Associate Justice of the
Sandiganbayan.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions - Back to Home |
|