September 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181044 : September 22, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ELVIE EJANDRA ALIAS ELVIE, BEBOT EJANDRA, BEBOT OCAY SUANGCO, MAGDALENA M. CALUNOD ALIAS MAGDALENA SALIOT-SUANGCO, EDWIN A. TAMPOS AND ANTONIO R. HUERA :
[G.R. No. 181044 : September 22, 2008]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ELVIE EJANDRA ALIAS ELVIE, BEBOT EJANDRA, BEBOT OCAY SUANGCO, MAGDALENA M. CALUNOD ALIAS MAGDALENA SALIOT-SUANGCO, EDWIN A. TAMPOS AND ANTONIO R. HUERA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 22 September 2008:
G.R. No. 181044 (People of the Philippines v. Elvie Ejandra alias Elvie, Bebot Ejandra, Bebot Ocay Suangco, Magdalena M. Calunod alias Magdalena Saliot-Suangco, Edwin A. Tampos and Antonio R. Huera)
This is an appeal from the March 30, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01987 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Elvie Ejandra, et al. which affirmed the May 8, 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 95 in Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-97-72407. The RTC found accused-appellants guilty of Kidnapping with Ransom.
The accusatory portion of the Information against accused-appellants states:
The Antecedent Facts
On August 1, 1997, Greggy Go was walking on Kabignayan Street, Quezon City on his way home from school. A black car suddenly stopped alongside him and two persons alighted and asked him for the name of the street. They then grabbed Greggy, dragged him inside the car, and sped off. Inside, Greggy saw accused-appellant Edwin Tampos driving the car, with accused-appellant Elvie Ejandra next to him. Greggy sat in between accused-appellant Magdalena Calunod and the two male persons who had grabbed him. His head was then covered with a t-shirt.
Greggy was brought to a place his kidnappers said was in Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. They removed the shirt from his head before they entered a house. Inside, they blindfolded and handcuffed him. He, however, could still see downwards and recognized accused-appellant Antonio Huera as one of his guards.
A call was made by Ejandra to Greggy's mother, Dulce Go. At first a ransom of PhP 10 million was demanded. This amount was then lowered to PhP 25,000 the next day.
In the afternoon of August 2, 1997, upon Ejandra's instructions, Dulce went to the bank next to the Sto. Domingo church in Quezon City. She was met there by a man who gave her the agreed upon code. She gave him the ransom money and went home to await the arrival of her son. Greggy arrived at their home in the evening of the same day. He had earlier been left on a street in Novaliches, Quezon City and had taken a taxicab to get home.
On August 8, 1997, Greggy reported the kidnapping incident to Camp Crame. A surveillance operation was conducted at a safehouse on Hari Street in Lagro, Quezon City, the place Greggy identified as the place he was taken to on August 1, 1997. He later identified Ejandra, Calunod, Tampos, and Huera as his abductors in a police line-up.
On August 15, 1997, Tampos, with the assistance of his counsel, Atty. Confesor Sansano, executed an extrajudicial confession detailing the roles he and his co-accused played in the abduction of Greggy.
During trial, accused-appellants interposed their respective defenses. Husband and wife Ejandra and Calunod claimed that they left their home in Lagro in the afternoon of August 1, 1997 to buy a bamboo bed in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. They denied knowing Greggy. They alleged that they were arrested on August 14, 1997 while they were on their way to Nueva Ecija to buy onions in pursuit of their business.
Tampos, despite his admissions in his extrajudicial confession, later declared that he was busy butchering pigs in his house in Villa Beatriz, Old Balara, Quezon City on the day of the incident. He was with a certain Nelson Langub from around 9:45 in the morning to 7 o'clock in the evening.
Huera stated that on the dated of the kidnapping he was at his home in Villa Beatriz helping his live-in partner with household chores.
On May 8, 1998, the RTC rendered judgment against accused-appellants. The dispositive portion reads:
On September 14, 2004, we ordered the transfer of the case to the CA in line with the ruling in People v. Mateo.[3]
Before the CA, accused-appellants Ejandra and Calunod alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC as they were arrested without a warrant. Tampos and Huera, in a separate appeal, contended that the RTC erred in: (1) finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt; (2) giving Tampos' extrajudicial confession weight and credence; and (3) not giving weight and credence to their defenses of alibi and denial.
The CA upheld the RTC's judgment. It ruled that Ejandra and Calunod should have questioned the legality of their arrest before they entered their pleas. It likewise ruled that the testimonies of Greggy and his mother, Dulce, as well as Tampos' extrajudicial confession, withstood the credibility test as against the denial and alibi given by accused-appellants. It likewise ruled that Tampos' extrajudicial confession was made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel and that there was no force and intimidation exerted on him when he executed it.
The CA disposed of the case as follows:
On March 12, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties manifested their willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already submitted.
Accused-appellants Ejandra and Calunod present a lone issue:
On the second issue, accused-appellants Tampos and Huera argue that Tampos' extra-judicial confession was inadmissible as it was obtained through force and intimidation.
In support of the third issue, accused-appellants Tampos and Huera claim that the alibis they presented were backed by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses and should have been given more weight.
The Court's Ruling
We affirm the decision of the CA.
The claim by accused-appellants Ejandra and Calunod that they were arrested without a warrant of arrest cannot be made at this late stage. Ejandra and Calunod erred when they did not question the legality of their arrest before entering their plea. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest must be made before a plea is entered; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[6]
Anent the first issue raised by accused-appellants Tampos and Huera, the records show that Greggy was able to identify his kidnappers because there were times he was not blindfolded. He was even released without a blindfold. What is more, Greggy's testimony identifying accused-appellant Huera as one of his kidnappers was corroborated by Dulce, who testified that Huera was the one who took the ransom money from her.
On the alleged inadmissibility of Tampos' extrajudicial confession, we find the appellate court's ruling proper. An extrajudicial confession is admissible when the following requisites are present: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.[7] We quote the CA:
On the last issue, we agree with the finding of the appellate court that the defenses of alibi and denial of accused-appellants cannot be given much merit due to the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of accused-appellants as the kidnappers of Greggy. Accused-appellants' negative defenses are weak compared to the affirmative allegations of Greggy and Dulce.[10]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01987 finding accused-appellants guilty of kidnapping with ransom and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 181044 (People of the Philippines v. Elvie Ejandra alias Elvie, Bebot Ejandra, Bebot Ocay Suangco, Magdalena M. Calunod alias Magdalena Saliot-Suangco, Edwin A. Tampos and Antonio R. Huera)
This is an appeal from the March 30, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01987 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Elvie Ejandra, et al. which affirmed the May 8, 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 95 in Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-97-72407. The RTC found accused-appellants guilty of Kidnapping with Ransom.
The accusatory portion of the Information against accused-appellants states:
That on or about the 1st day of August, 1997 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, all private individuals, conspiring together, confederating with [another] person whose true name and real identity have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping each other did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap one GREGGY GO Y PHI, a minor, 13 years of age, along Kabignayan Street, this city, and then and there illegally detaining him and depriving him of his liberty for more than 21 hours and thereafter the said accused demanded the amount of P25,000.00, Philippine Currency as ransom for the release of said complainant, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.[1]On September 4, 1997, accused-appellants entered pleas of not guilty upon their arraignment.
The Antecedent Facts
On August 1, 1997, Greggy Go was walking on Kabignayan Street, Quezon City on his way home from school. A black car suddenly stopped alongside him and two persons alighted and asked him for the name of the street. They then grabbed Greggy, dragged him inside the car, and sped off. Inside, Greggy saw accused-appellant Edwin Tampos driving the car, with accused-appellant Elvie Ejandra next to him. Greggy sat in between accused-appellant Magdalena Calunod and the two male persons who had grabbed him. His head was then covered with a t-shirt.
Greggy was brought to a place his kidnappers said was in Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. They removed the shirt from his head before they entered a house. Inside, they blindfolded and handcuffed him. He, however, could still see downwards and recognized accused-appellant Antonio Huera as one of his guards.
A call was made by Ejandra to Greggy's mother, Dulce Go. At first a ransom of PhP 10 million was demanded. This amount was then lowered to PhP 25,000 the next day.
In the afternoon of August 2, 1997, upon Ejandra's instructions, Dulce went to the bank next to the Sto. Domingo church in Quezon City. She was met there by a man who gave her the agreed upon code. She gave him the ransom money and went home to await the arrival of her son. Greggy arrived at their home in the evening of the same day. He had earlier been left on a street in Novaliches, Quezon City and had taken a taxicab to get home.
On August 8, 1997, Greggy reported the kidnapping incident to Camp Crame. A surveillance operation was conducted at a safehouse on Hari Street in Lagro, Quezon City, the place Greggy identified as the place he was taken to on August 1, 1997. He later identified Ejandra, Calunod, Tampos, and Huera as his abductors in a police line-up.
On August 15, 1997, Tampos, with the assistance of his counsel, Atty. Confesor Sansano, executed an extrajudicial confession detailing the roles he and his co-accused played in the abduction of Greggy.
During trial, accused-appellants interposed their respective defenses. Husband and wife Ejandra and Calunod claimed that they left their home in Lagro in the afternoon of August 1, 1997 to buy a bamboo bed in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. They denied knowing Greggy. They alleged that they were arrested on August 14, 1997 while they were on their way to Nueva Ecija to buy onions in pursuit of their business.
Tampos, despite his admissions in his extrajudicial confession, later declared that he was busy butchering pigs in his house in Villa Beatriz, Old Balara, Quezon City on the day of the incident. He was with a certain Nelson Langub from around 9:45 in the morning to 7 o'clock in the evening.
Huera stated that on the dated of the kidnapping he was at his home in Villa Beatriz helping his live-in partner with household chores.
On May 8, 1998, the RTC rendered judgment against accused-appellants. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Elvie Ejandra, alias Elvie, Bebot [Ejandra], Bebot Ocay Suangco; Magdalena Calunod y Maganoy, alias Magdalena Saliot-Suangco; Edwin Tampos y Amparo; and Antonio Huera y Randa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping With Ransom defined in and penalized by Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, and are hereby sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH. They are further ordered to return the ransom money in the amount of P25,000.00 to Mrs. Dulce Go with the legal rate of interest computed from August 2, 1997 until fully paid, and to pay the costs.Accused-appellants appealed the lower court's decision to this Court.
The other three (3) accused, namely: Jackson Yang y Siega, Roel Revilla y Ceron and Buenaventura Lozada y Danao, for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, are hereby found NOT GUILTY of the crime charged against them and are accordingly ACQUITTED. The City Warden of the Quezon City Jail is hereby ordered to release from custody the said three (3) acquitted accused unless they are being detained for another charge or lawful cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[2]
On September 14, 2004, we ordered the transfer of the case to the CA in line with the ruling in People v. Mateo.[3]
Before the CA, accused-appellants Ejandra and Calunod alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC as they were arrested without a warrant. Tampos and Huera, in a separate appeal, contended that the RTC erred in: (1) finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt; (2) giving Tampos' extrajudicial confession weight and credence; and (3) not giving weight and credence to their defenses of alibi and denial.
The CA upheld the RTC's judgment. It ruled that Ejandra and Calunod should have questioned the legality of their arrest before they entered their pleas. It likewise ruled that the testimonies of Greggy and his mother, Dulce, as well as Tampos' extrajudicial confession, withstood the credibility test as against the denial and alibi given by accused-appellants. It likewise ruled that Tampos' extrajudicial confession was made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel and that there was no force and intimidation exerted on him when he executed it.
The CA disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeals are dismissed and the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-97-72407 dated May 8, 1998 is affirmed with modification in that appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic Act 9346. It is so ordered.[4]On June 6, 2007, the Bureau of Corrections notified the CA of the death of accused Elvie Ejandra at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital.[5]
On March 12, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties manifested their willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already submitted.
Accused-appellants Ejandra and Calunod present a lone issue:
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE ARRESTED WITHOUT ANY WARRANT OF ARREST.Accused-appellants Tampos and Huera assign the following errors:
On the first issue, accused-appellants Tampos and Huera argue that Greggy's testimony was inconsistent. Greggy claimed to have recognized Huera as his guard even when he said his eyes were covered and he could only see downward. He also identified Tampos as the "boss" when he earlier identified him as the driver. On Dulce's testimony, it was pointed out that she contradicted her earlier statement when she testified later that she received a call from a man and a woman instead of just one caller, a man.I THE [TRIAL COURT] GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM.II
THE [TRIAL COURT] GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF ACCUSED EDWIN TAMPOS INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.
III
THE [TRIAL COURT] GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANTS' DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL.
On the second issue, accused-appellants Tampos and Huera argue that Tampos' extra-judicial confession was inadmissible as it was obtained through force and intimidation.
In support of the third issue, accused-appellants Tampos and Huera claim that the alibis they presented were backed by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses and should have been given more weight.
The Court's Ruling
We affirm the decision of the CA.
The claim by accused-appellants Ejandra and Calunod that they were arrested without a warrant of arrest cannot be made at this late stage. Ejandra and Calunod erred when they did not question the legality of their arrest before entering their plea. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest must be made before a plea is entered; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[6]
Anent the first issue raised by accused-appellants Tampos and Huera, the records show that Greggy was able to identify his kidnappers because there were times he was not blindfolded. He was even released without a blindfold. What is more, Greggy's testimony identifying accused-appellant Huera as one of his kidnappers was corroborated by Dulce, who testified that Huera was the one who took the ransom money from her.
On the alleged inadmissibility of Tampos' extrajudicial confession, we find the appellate court's ruling proper. An extrajudicial confession is admissible when the following requisites are present: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.[7] We quote the CA:
P/Supt. Mancao testified that it was Tampos himself who told Insp. Tanaggan that he was volunteering to give information and to cooperate with authorities. Atty. Sansano categorically declared that [accused-appellant] executed his sworn statement dated August 15, 2007 voluntarily and with legal assistance.The RTC also found that Tampos' counsel, Atty. Sansano of the Free Legal Aid Office, was a competent and independent counsel chosen by Tampos to represent him.[9]
Nevertheless, even if his confession is deemed flawed or inadmissible, it does not absolve him of the crime as the case is "replete with proof that he actually participated in the abduction of Greggy." Thus, even if We rule in Tampos' favor as far as the second issue is concerned, his appeal will still fail.[8]
On the last issue, we agree with the finding of the appellate court that the defenses of alibi and denial of accused-appellants cannot be given much merit due to the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of accused-appellants as the kidnappers of Greggy. Accused-appellants' negative defenses are weak compared to the affirmative allegations of Greggy and Dulce.[10]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01987 finding accused-appellants guilty of kidnapping with ransom and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] CA rollo, pp. 8-9.
[2] Id. at 48. Penned by Judge Diosdado Madarang Peralta.
[3] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[4] Rollo, p. 14. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente.
[5] CA rollo, p. 299.
[6] People v. Salvatierra, G.R. No. 105004, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 55, 63.
[7] People v. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 294, 324.
[8] Rollo, pp. 9-10.
[9] CA rollo, p. 45.
[10] People v. Zamoraga, G.R. No. 178066, February 6, 2008, 544 SCRA 143, 153; citing People v. Lozano, 423 Phil. 20, 27-28 (2001); People v. Acala, 366 Phil. 797, 815 (1999).
