July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. NO. 169140 : July 27, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ELVIE EJANDRA, MAGDALENA CALUNOD, AND BUENAVENTURA LOSADA :
[G.R. NO. 169140 : July 27, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ELVIE EJANDRA, MAGDALENA CALUNOD, AND BUENAVENTURA LOSADA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JULY 27, 2010, which reads as follows: "
"G.R. NO. 169140 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELVIE EJANDRA, MAGDALENA CALUNOD, and BUENAVENTURA LOSADA. - The appellants insist that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court, which found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom charged despite the testimonies of the victim Kristopher Derrick Chua and his mother, prosecution witness Ma. Theresa Chua, being doubtful and contrary to human experience. The appellants contend that the lower courts should have instead accorded credence to their respective alibis (of being in Iloilo or Davao).
The appellants urge the Court to review the ruling on the credibility of the witnesses of the State. However, such ruling only affirmed the finding of the trial court, which had the first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor and manner of the witnesses of the State when they testified at the trial. It is axiomatic that this Court is bound by the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Moreover, the alibi of the appellants is rejected, because they did not thereby demonstrate that it was impossible for them to be in Manila at the time of the commission of the kidnapping of which they were convicted.
With the passage and effectivity, however, of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," on June 24, 2006, prohibiting the imposition of death penalty, the proper penalty to be imposed on appellants in this case is reclusion perpetua.[1] The applicability of the prohibition brought about by said law on the Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on June 27, 2005 is ndisputable as penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.[2]
WHEREFORE, considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the appeal, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 27, 2005 finding appellants, EL VIE EJANDRA, MAGDALENA CALUNOD and BUENAVENTURA LOSADA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the penalty of death imposed on them is reduced to reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, without eligibility for parole."
Peralta and Mendoza, JJ., no part.
"G.R. NO. 169140 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELVIE EJANDRA, MAGDALENA CALUNOD, and BUENAVENTURA LOSADA. - The appellants insist that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court, which found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom charged despite the testimonies of the victim Kristopher Derrick Chua and his mother, prosecution witness Ma. Theresa Chua, being doubtful and contrary to human experience. The appellants contend that the lower courts should have instead accorded credence to their respective alibis (of being in Iloilo or Davao).
The appellants urge the Court to review the ruling on the credibility of the witnesses of the State. However, such ruling only affirmed the finding of the trial court, which had the first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor and manner of the witnesses of the State when they testified at the trial. It is axiomatic that this Court is bound by the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Moreover, the alibi of the appellants is rejected, because they did not thereby demonstrate that it was impossible for them to be in Manila at the time of the commission of the kidnapping of which they were convicted.
With the passage and effectivity, however, of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," on June 24, 2006, prohibiting the imposition of death penalty, the proper penalty to be imposed on appellants in this case is reclusion perpetua.[1] The applicability of the prohibition brought about by said law on the Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on June 27, 2005 is ndisputable as penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.[2]
WHEREFORE, considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the appeal, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 27, 2005 finding appellants, EL VIE EJANDRA, MAGDALENA CALUNOD and BUENAVENTURA LOSADA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the penalty of death imposed on them is reduced to reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, without eligibility for parole."
Peralta and Mendoza, JJ., no part.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] SECTION 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
[2] Article 22, Revised Penal Code.
