PEOPLE V.

MERCADO

RELOVA, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision, dated September 9, 1982, of the then Court of First Instance of
Rizal Branch XI, in Criminal Case No. 32112, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the accused is convicted of the crime charged and is sentenced to reclusion
perpetua and to pay the costs. (p. 44, Rollo)

As stated by defense counsel, the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense are
correctly summarized in the decision of the trial court, as follows:

The prosecution evidence shows that the accused was the boyfriend of Susan Baylon, the younger
sister of complainant Yvonne Baylon. On September 1, 1979, Susan left the family residence for an
unknown place. The accused suspected that it was her elder sister Yvonne who instigated her to
leave. At about 8:30 o'clock in the morning on the following day while Yvonne was walking on a road
at San Carlos Subdivision, Binangonan, Rizal, the accused came from behind her. Without any
warning, the accused suddenly grabbed Yvonne by the neck and pointed a knife on her throat.
Thereupon, the accused dragged Yvonne to the house of Norma Guerrero, a friend of his. Upon
reaching the porch of the house, Yvonne asked the accused why he was acting that way. The
accused replied that he was angry with her and demanded that she produce her sister, Susan. At
this juncture, the accused dragged Yvonne this time to the road side. Then the brothers of Yvonne
and some neighbors arrived asking the accused to release Yvonne. But instead of doing so, the
accused raised the blouse of Yvonne and inserted his hand underneath it and pointed the knife on
her breast. Thereafter, the accused dragged Yvonne to a store where the Chief of Police and some
policemen talked to him. The accused told the Chief of Police that he wanted to see Susan and also
demanded that he be given transportation and money. This situation lasted up to about 12:00 noon
with the policemen surrounding the accused and Yvonne about 15 meters away. After being given
some food to partake, the barrio captain arrived and he was able to take hold of the accused and
subdue hint him. Yvonne, because of the traumatic experience she was subjected to, lost
consciousness and was brought to the hospital. Her fingers suffered injuries, abrasion on her neck
and a small wound on her stomach.

On the other hand, the accused averred that Susan Baylon was his wife. Although they were not
legally married they had been living together for sometime in her family house at Tayuman.
Sometime in August 1979, he quarelled with Susan about her relatives. He told Susan that he could
no longer live with them and that they better separate from her sister, Yvonne, and brothers.
Thereafter, while he remained upstairs in the house, Susan went down when Yvonne invited her to
eat. When Susan did not return, he went down and inquired from Yvonne where Susan had gone.
Yvonne replied that she did not know and he told her that Susan had left without telling him where
she was going. He then went out of the house, looked for Susan and inquired from their neighbors
and relatives about her whereabouts. When he returned to the house unsuccessful in his search, he
found his clothes already placed in a box near the doorway. Yvonne, who was standing near the
door, then told him to leave the house and he did so after thanking her for his stay. On September 2,
1979, at about 8:30 in the morning he saw Yvonne sitting on a bench inside a store located at
Tayuman. Yvonne at the tune was holding a knife and was about to stab him from behind. Because
a friend was able to warn him he immediately grabbed the knife from the hand of Yvonne and
succeeded in doing so. When he asked Yvonne why she wanted to stab him she replied that Susan
complained to her. It was while he was in the act of holding Yvonne and pointing the knife on her
chest when the barrio captain and the policemen arrived who thought that he was going to stab
Yvonne. He was asked by the barangay captain what he wanted from Yvonne and he replied that he
just wanted Susan produced because he wanted to talk to her. He also asked the barangay captain
for a vehicle but he did not ask for any money. When he lost the knife, the people ganged up on him.
(pp. 41-43, Rollo)

Appellant claims that the lower court erred (1) in not ruling that his guilt has not been proven; (2) in
convicting him of kidnapping and serious illegal detention; (3) in not crediting him with the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation; and (4) in not crediting him with the period of his preventive
detention.

The elements of the crime of illegal detention, as defined in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,
are: (1) that the offender is a private individual; (2) that he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) that the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:

(a) that the kidnapping or detention last for more than 5 days; or

(b) that it is committed simulating public authority; or

(c) that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to
kill him are made; or

(d) that the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. (Reyes, Revised
Penal Code 1975 Revised Edition, Book 11, page 468)

The issue in this review of the aforesaid judgment revolves around the credibility of witnesses, i.e.,
whether or not the trial court was correct in giving more weight to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses than to that of the testimony of appellant, in finding him guilty of the offense charged and,
in sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

In the matter of credibility of witnesses, the rule is now settled that "... [u]nless there is a showing
that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight
and substance that would have affected the result of the case, the appellate court will not disturb the
factual findings of the lower court. For, having had the opportunity of observing the demeanor and
behavior of the witnesses while testifying, the trial court, more than the reviewing tribunal, is in a
better position to gauge their credibility, and properly appreciate the relative weight of the often
conflicting evidence for both parties." (People vs. Ablaza, 30 SCRA 173,176)

In the case at bar, We find no justification to overturn the judgment of the trial court giving credence
to the declarations of five (5) witnesses, three (3) of whom are policemen who did not know
appellant before the incident. The records of the case are convincing enough that Mercado forcibly
brought Yvonne from place to place so that the latter would reveal the whereabouts of Susan, his
common-law-wife. For almost five (5) hours, he held Yvonne in a store before he was subdued.
Pictures of the incident (Exhibits D, D-1 to D-4) clearly show appellant's hand around the neck of
complainant, with a knife poked at it. On the other hand, as correctly observed by the trial court, "[i]f
it was true that it was the complainant who tried to stab the accused and it was the latter who
succeeded in subduing the complainant, the incident would not have lasted several hours and
attracted a throng of onlookers and policemen." (p. 43, Rollo)
The argument advanced by the defense that appellant should be convicted of grave coercion only
since his purpose was "to force Miss Yvonne Baylon to produce Miss Susan Baylon" (p. 38, Rollo), is
without merit. In the Ablaza case (supra), "the victim was actually restrained or deprived of her
freedom, and that makes proper the prosecution of the herein accused under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code. The surrounding circumstances make it clear that the main purpose of
Annabelle's detention was to coerce her into withdrawing her previous charges against appellant
Ablaza, thus obstructing the administration of justice." (p. 178, Ibid) The extant evidence on record
shows that "the accused held complainant because he wanted her to produce her sister, Susan, who
was the common-law wife of the accused." (p. 44, Rollo)

The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising from the desire to compel Susan to live with him
cannot be invoked in favor of the accused whose relationship with her was illegitimate. The
obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments.

We agree, however, with appellant that he should be credited with the period of his preventive
detention. He has been detained since September 2, 1979 and, therefore, in accordance with Article
29 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of his preventive detention should be deducted from the
term of his sentence.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, with costs. Appellant should be credited
with the full time of his preventive imprisonment upon a showing that he agreed to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he shall be credited with four-
fifths (4/5) of the time of such preventive imprisonment.

PEOPLE V. BRINGAS

VELASCO JR., J.:

The Case

In the instant appeal, accused-appellants John Robert Navarro y Cruz, Christopher

Bringas y Garcia, Bryan Bringas y Garcia, and Eden Sy Chung seek their acquittal by a
reversal of the January 3, 2006 Decision and June 6, 2007 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00911, which affirmed their earlier conviction by
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258 in Paranaque City for violation of Republic
Act No. (RA) 6539 (Carnapping) and for violation of Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) (Kidnapping for Ransom) in Criminal Case Nos. 95-136 and 95-137,
respectively.

The Facts

On April 28, 1995, accused-appellants Christopher Bringas y Garcia alias "Jimboy," John
Robert Navarro y Cruz alias "Jun," Dennis Ticsay y Peña alias "Peng," Aruel Ross y
Picardo, Bryan Bringas y Garcia alias "Bobby," Roger Calaguas y Jimenez alias
"Bronson," Ericson Pajarillo y Baser alias "Erick," Edgardo Sulayao y Petilla alias "Eddie,"
Eden Sy Chung alias "Kim," Glen Sangalang, and Ricky Castillo were indicted for
Carnapping or violation of RA 6539. The Information in Criminal Case No. 95-136 reads:

That at about 1:30 in the afternoon of December 14, 1994 at Marina Subdivision,
Municipality of Paranaque and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-
named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, while in
the process of executing their criminal design to kidnap for ransom a minor child named
PATRICK TENG, with intent to gain and with violence and intimidation, did then and
there, take a motor vehicle, Toyota Corolla, with Plate No. TNK-782, owned by Erick
Teng.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The same accused were likewise indicted for Kidnapping for Ransom or violation of Art.
267 of the RPC. The Information in Criminal Case No. 95-137 reads:

That at about 1:30 in the afternoon of December 14, 1994 at Marina Subdivision,
Municipality of Paranaque and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-
named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then
and there take, carry away and kidnap a minor, PATRICK TENG, against his will and
detained him for the purpose of extorting ransom for his release which was effected
after payment by his parents of the amount of TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P2.5 Million) to the damage and prejudice of aforementioned victim
and his parents.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Jason Rosales, a member of the group, was not included in both indictments as he was
utilized as state witness and placed under the Witness Protection Program of the
Government.

Except for Glen Sangalang and Ricky Castillo who remain at large, the rest of the
accused were apprehended. When arraigned on September 28, 1995, the apprehended
accused, assisted by their respective counsels, uniformly entered a plea of "not guilty."

To substantiate the accusations, the prosecution presented the testimonies of: (1)
Rosales (state witness); (2) Maricel Hipos, house-helper of Eric Teng; (3) Police Chief
Inspector Gilbert C. Cruz of the Philippine Anti-Crime Commission (PACC); (4) Police
Chief Inspector Michael Ray Aquino of Task Force Habagat; (5) Police Chief Inspector
Paul Tucay of Task Force Habagat; (6) Eric, the father of the minor kidnap victim
Patrick Teng; and (7) Antonio Nebrida (Tony) of PTV 4.

Version of the Prosecution

Culled from the records, the People's version of the incident is synthesized as follows:

That sometime around 11:30 a.m. on December 14, 1994, Eric's house helper Maricel
received a phone call purportedly from Eric's brother-in-law, Johnson, informing that a
gift will be delivered for Patrick, and she was instructed to wait for the driver who will
be arriving soon. At around 1:30 p.m., the doorbell rang and Maricel went to check the
gate. When she asked who it was, the men outside answered that they were delivering
the gift for Patrick from Johnson. Peering through the gate she saw two men,whom she
came to know later on to be Rosales and Calaguas with the latter holding a large gift in
Christmas wrapper. Since the gift could not fit the aperture in the gate, Maricel opened
the gate.

Calaguas then poked a gun at Maricel and pulled her towards Eric's house. She was
made to knock at the front door which was opened by Sweeney, the sister of Eric.
Maricel, Sweeney, and the other house helpers, Dina and Melanie, were herded by
Calaguas to the children's room at the second floor together with Eric's children, Patrick
and Mikee. While on the stairway, Rosales asked for the key to Eric's car. Maricel was
then gagged with packing tape by Pajarillo, and the three of them went down. Maricel
pointed to the car key in the kitchen. Thereafter, Maricel was brought upstairs to the
children's room by Pajarillo. Already inside the children's room were Sulayao and
Calaguas. Pajarillo then tied the hands and feet of Maricel, while the others did the
same to Sweeney, Dina and Melanie. However, Dina's feet were not tied. One of the
men said "kunin na ninyo ang bata." Maricel identified Ross as among those who took
Patrick. The kidnappers also took Eric's red Toyota Corolla (Model GLI 1994).

After the kidnappers left, Dina looked for a pair of scissors. After the girls extricated
themselves from their bindings, they immediately called Kim Teng (Kimbol), the brother
of Eric, who rushed to Eric's house. Shortly thereafter, at around 2:30 p.m., Kimbol
called Eric to tell him about the kidnapping of his son, Patrick. [30] Eric rushed home.
[31]
 At around 3:10 p.m., Eric received the first call from one of the kidnappers
(negotiator) demanding a ransom of PhP 10 million for his son and ordered him not to
report the matter to the police else Patrick will be harmed. [32] A friend of the
grandparents of Patrick, however, reported the kidnapping to the PACC Special
Operations Task Force Habagat.[33]

While Eric was trying to pool resources from friends and relatives, he continued
receiving calls from the same negotiator urging him to cooperate. [34] At about 4:00
p.m., Eric received a call from Gen. Panfilo Lacson, then head of the PACC Special
Operations Task Force Habagat.[35] Eric was only able to raise PhP 200,000 that
afternoon.[36]

Through another call, the negotiator instructed Eric to produce six individuals for them
to interview and choose from to deliver the money, the qualifications given was
"kailangang matalik ninyong kaibigan na mapapagkatiwalan ng pera, hindi ninyo
kamag-anak, mukhang instik at marunung managalog."[37] The negotiator gave his
name as Eric.[38] They then called Racquel Chung, the wife of Eden Sy Chung (Chung),
asking if Chung could help. [39] Imelda, Eric's wife, was able to talk to Chung who was
willing to help deliver the money if selected. [40] At around 10:00 p.m., Eric again
received a call from the negotiator which was followed by another call, this time by a
different person.[41]

The next day, December 15, 1994, at 8:00 a.m., Chung arrived. [42] Chung encouraged
Eric to pay the ransom as soon as possible. [43] Thereafter, Eric received so many calls
but was able to identify the negotiator's voice. Upon query on the six individuals, he
informed the negotiator that they could only come up with two: Chung and John Tuang.
[44]
 The negotiator interviewed both Chung and John Tuang on the phone. [45] By
lunchtime, the ransom was reduced to PhP 8 million, [46] which was further reduced to
PhP 5 million at 4:00 p.m. [47] But Eric still could not raise the amount. After dinner, the
negotiator instructed Chung and John Tuang to go home. [48] Chung borrowed Eric's car.
[49]
 Thereafter, they received another call threatening, "puputulin ko ang daliri ng anak
mo, puputulin ko ang bayag ng anak mo papatayin ko kayo."[50]

After a while, the negotiator called again demanding for Chung to come back, and
Chung came back to the Teng's residence at around 8:00 p.m. [51] Eric was then
instructed to have the ransom money delivered, which at that time was significantly
reduced to PhP 2.5 million and which he was able to raise that day. [52] It was to be
placed in a box and gift wrapped. [53] Chung was instructed by the negotiator to deliver
the ransom money at the Quezon Memorial Circle near GSIS. [54] Chung then took Eric's
two-door Honda Civic with Plate No. TGH 439. [55]

On the way, Chung called Eric telling him that he was intercepted by two cars which he
had to follow.[56] The PACC operatives tailing Chung who were on radio contact with the
PACC, however, belied Chung's allegation of interception. [57] The PACC then suspected
Chung to be in cahoots with the kidnappers. [58] Gen. Lacson thereafter instructed Eric to
delay Chung upon his return.[59] Eventually, Chung, bringing Patrick, arrived at Eric's
place past midnight.[60] Chung reported to Eric that "hinarang ako inipit ako sa
dalawang kotse at nakita ko si Johnson sa isa sa mga sasakyan."[61] Five minutes after
Chung's arrival, Gen. Lacson and his men arrived and arrested Chung. [62]

A few hours thereafter, at around 4:00 a.m. of December 16, 1994, Eric received a call
from Gen. Lacson informing him that the ransom money was recovered except for PhP
100,000 which was given by Chung to Navarro. [63] At around noon of December 16,
1994, Eric again received a call from the PACC informing him that Chung wanted to talk
to him.[64] Chung apologized to Eric saying, "Sorry, ginawa ko sa inyo ito, napipilitan
lang ako" and "[T]utulong naman ako sa PACC ibinigay ko na yung dalawang
pangalan."[65] Chung named Navarro and Jimboy Bringas. [66] At 4:00 p.m. of December
16, 1994, Eric again received a call from the PACC confirming the arrest of both
Navarro and Jimboy Bringas.[67] And, later, at 9:00 p.m., the PACC further informed Eric
that they have arrested the other kidnappers who were pointed out by Jimboy Bringas.
[68]
 Moreover, Eric's red Toyota Corolla was likewise recovered. [69]

During the December 17, 1994 press conference at the PACC Headquarters in Camp
Crame, Eric recognized the voice of the negotiator among the kidnappers whom he
identified later on to be that of Navarro. [70] In the same press conference, Navarro
admitted to the media that he made three calls to the Teng family regarding the
ransom and that Pajarillo likewise admitted to the media that Chung supplied them with
handguns except the ammunition.[71] Eric Teng was able to tape segments of the news
aired over Channels 2 and 4 covering the admissions of Navarro and Pajarillo. [72]

Tony of PTV 4 testified [73] that he was the newscaster of PTV 4 of the December 17,
1994 evening news edition that what was taped by Eric Teng.

Police Chief Inspector Aquino was the Operations Chief of the PACC Task Force Habagat
who coordinated the operation, monitoring and response to the kidnapping of Patrick
Teng; he assigned Police Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza to secure the house of Eric
Teng and monitor the communications with the negotiator of the kidnappers. [74] Police
Chief Inspector Cruz was the one who led a team in arresting Navarro and Jimboy
Bringas at around half past 1:00 p.m. on December 16, 1994 in the vicinity of Malate.
[75]
 And Police Chief Inspector Tucay was the team leader who led the team which tailed
Chung in the evening of December 15, 1994 to the house of Chung's mother, the
Bowling Inn and Philippine Westin Plaza; and also led the team in the afternoon and
evening of December 16, 1994 in arresting Calaguas, Sulayao, Ross, Pajarillo, Bobby
Bringas and Dennis Ticsay in Pampanga and in recovering Eric Teng's red Toyota
Corolla.[76]

Version of the Defense

The fractious defense offered in evidence the testimonies of: (1) John Robert Navarro;
(2) Sr. Police Inspector Michael Ray Aquino; (3) Eden Sy Chung (Chung); (4)
Christopher Bringas (Jimboy Bringas); (5) Roger Calaguas (Calaguas); (6) Lourdes
Bringas, mother of Christopher and Bryan; (7) Bryan Bringas (Bobby Bringas); (8)
Edgardo Sulayao (Sulayao), also known as Kosa; (9) Ericson Pajarillo (Pajarillo); and
(10) Aruel Ross (Ross).

The accused's divergent defenses uniformly assailed the credibility of Maricel Hipos and
state witness Rosales, and in assiduously declaring their innocence they pointed to each
other as the perpetrator or mastermind of the kidnapping for ransom.

From their testimonies, Navarro[77] and Chung[78] similarly asserted being implicated by

the other in the crime and pointed at each other as the mastermind thereof. Calaguas,
[79]
 Sulayao,[80] Pajarillo[81] and Ross[82] uniformly point to Chung and Navarro as the
brains behind the kidnapping who were assisted by Rosales and Jimboy Bringas, and
that they were merely implicated for they were merely hired as factory workers
(Calaguas and Sulayao), for a driving job (Ross) or was only doing a favor for Rosales
(Pajarillo). They admitted the taking of Patrick Teng but denied doing any violence and
the use of handguns. Calaguas and Sulayao repudiated their joint August 21,
1995 Pinagsanib na Salaysay ng Pagpapabulaan[83]  sworn to before the state prosecutor
for allegedly not being true as their former counsel, Atty. Gasmen, did not put therein
what they actually narrated to him.

Jimboy Bringas maintained that he was only implicated by Chung and Navarro for he
was neither involved with the crime nor participated in its commission as he was only
tasked to look for factory workers by Chung and for tourist guides by Navarro. [84]

It must be noted that, while all the accused pinpointed and identified Navarro as one of
the masterminds, only Pajarillo testified otherwise that John Robert Navarro is not the
same person as John or Jun Navarro who was with him and Rosales in the evening of
December 13, 1994 in Tradewinds Hotel, and on December 14, 1994 when they
delivered gifts and the kidnapping of Patrick was committed.

Bobby Bringas strongly protested his innocence as he was in Pampanga on the days
material and was never involved in the crime but was merely implicated by Rosales. His
testimony[85] and that of his mother, Lourdes Bringas,[86] were dispensed with upon the
prosecution's stipulation that he was in Pampanga from December 14, 1994 until his
arrest by PACC operatives on December 16, 1994.

Acquittal of Dennis Ticsay

On July 30, 1997, accused Dennis Ticsay (Ticsay) filed a Motion for Leave of Court to
File Demurrer to Evidence[87] which was unopposed and granted by the trial court.
[88]
 Accordingly, on August 22, 1997, Ticsay filed his Demurrer to Evidence. [89] On
December 3, 1997, the trial court granted the demurrer and acquitted Ticsay. [90]
Subsequently, on June 10, 1998, the motions to grant bail filed by the other accused
were denied by the trial court.[91]

The Ruling of the RTC and CA

The RTC, finding the testimonies of prosecution witnesses more credible, rendered, on
March 26, 1999, its Joint Decision[92] finding accused-appellants and the other accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, viewed in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

In Criminal Case No. 95-136 for CARNAPPING, defined and penalized under Republic
Act No. 6539, finding accused CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS y Garcia; JOHN ROBERT
NAVARRO y Cruz; ARUEL ROSS y Picardo; ROGER CALAGUAS y Jimenez; ERICKSON
PAHARILLO y Baser; EDGARDO SULAYAO y Petilla and EDEN SY CHUNG GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of nineteen (19) years as minimum to twenty-seven (27) years, as
maximum.

For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of BRYAN BRINGAS y GARCIA, he is
hereby ACQUITTED.

In Criminal Case No. 95-137, for KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM, defined and penalized
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act no. 7659,
finding accused CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS y Garcia; JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y Cruz;
ARUEL ROSS y Picardo; BRYAN BRINGAS y Garcia; ROGER CALAGUAS y Jimenez;
ERICKSON PAHARILLO y Baser; EDGARDO SULAYAO y Petilla; and EDEN SY CHUNG
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme
penalty of DEATH.

Likewise, accused JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y Cruz is hereby directed to pay Eric Teng
the sum of PhP100,000.00 as actual damages with interest thereon at the legal rate
from December 15, 1994 until fully paid and all the accused are directed to pay Eric
Teng jointly and severally the amount of PhP5,000,000.00 as moral damages;
PhP2,000,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.

Let Alias Warrants of Arrest issued against GLEN SANGALANG and RICKY CASTILLO for
their immediate apprehension which need not be returned until after they have been
arrested.

SO ORDERED.[93]

Thru its Order of Commitment (Mittimus), [94] the RTC sent the accused to the Bureau of
Corrections in Muntinlupa City.[95] The RTC also elevated the records of the case to this
Court for automatic review, docketed under G.R. Nos. 139115-16.

In accordance, however, with People v. Mateo,[96] the Court, per its September 7, 2004

Resolution,[97] transferred the case to the CA for intermediate review, docketed thereat
as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00911.

Eventually, the CA rendered the assailed Decision dated January 3, 2006, affirming the
trial court. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the March 26, 1999 Joint Decision of the Regional
Trial Court or Parañaque City, Branch 258, is hereby AFFIRMED. However, considering
that the death penalty was imposed, instead of entering judgment, We hereby CERTIFY
the case and elevate its entire record to the Supreme Court for review and final
disposition, pursuant to Section 13 (a & b), Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

SO ORDERED.

Navarro, Pajarillo and Chung filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the
assailed decision. As stated at the threshold hereof, the CA, in the herein equally
assailed Resolution dated June 6, 2007, denied the motions, but, noting the passage of
RA 9346 lifting the death penalty, accordingly reduced the penalty to reclusion
perpetua. In the same assailed Resolution, however, the CA further noted that the
accused failed to file their motions for reconsideration or notices of appeal as regards
Criminal Case No. 95-136 for Carnapping, the lesser offense, and, citing Sec. 13(b) of
Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, it pronounced finality of the
affirmed RTC decision as regards Criminal Case No. 95-136.

Subsequently, on July 16, 2007, the CA issued a Resolution for the issuance of a Partial
Entry of Judgment in Criminal Case No. 95-136 as to Ross, Jimboy Bringas, Calaguas
and Sulayao. Undaunted, accused-appellants Navarro, Jimboy Bringas, Bobby Bringas
and Chung filed their respective notices of appeal pursuant to Sec. 13 (b), Rule 124 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

In the meantime, on April 8, 2006, Pajarillo died from aspiration pneumonia secondary
to PTB, while Sulayao died on March 10, 2007.

On June 23, 2009, the CA issued a Resolution giving due course to the notices of appeal
filed by accused-appellants and ordered the issuance of a (Partial) Entry of Judgment
against Ross who opted not to take any further appeal to this Court, and dismissed the
instant criminal case as to Sulayao on account of his death on March 10, 2007 without
prejudice to his civil liability.

We take notice, however, that the CA failed to note the May 4, 2009 letter from the
Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City belatedly informing it, on May 6, 2009, of the
death of Pajarillo way back on April 8, 2006. Consequently, the appeal of Pajarillo filed
by his counsel on July 4, 2007 is rendered moot and academic. Moreover, we further
note that the CA failed to pronounce an entry of judgment as regards Calaguas who
failed to file either a motion for reconsideration or to take a further appeal of the
January 3, 2006 CA Decision. Consequently, for his failure to file an appeal as required
by the rules, the instant case has become final as to Calaguas.

Thus, the instant appeals before us from accused-appellants Navarro, Jimboy Bringas,
Bobby Bringas and Chung who prayed for their respective acquittal from the crime of
kidnapping for ransom.
 The Issues/Assignment of Errors

The People of the Philippines, represented by the OSG, and accused-appellants Navarro
and Chung chose not to file any supplemental briefs, maintaining their respective
positions, assignment of errors and arguments in their respective briefs earlier filed
in G.R. Nos. 139115-16.

In his appellant's brief, Chung raises the following assignment of errors:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT CHUNG HAD CONSPIRED
WITH THE OTHER APPELLANTS CONSIDERING THAT:

A. There is no clear and sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant Chung

participated in the planning of the crime;
B. The evidence of conspiracy against Appellant fails to establish his participation in
the planning of the offense beyond reasonable doubt;
C. There are no overt acts attributable to Appellant Chung which would establish
that he intended to, or did actually carry out the alleged conspiracy;
D. There is no evidence which would establish Appellant Chung's presence at the
scene of the crime, or his alleged participation in aiding his co-appellants in the
commission thereof.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON THE ALLEGED WEAKNESS OF THE

DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE RATHER THAN ON THE DOUBTFUL STRENGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
FOR THE PROSECUTION.

III

THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING, WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER,
THAT APPELLANT CHUNG IS THE MASTERMIND OF THE CONSPIRACY.

IV

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF JASON
ROSALES, AN ADMITTED CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE PLANNING AND COMMISSION OF
THE OFFENSE.

THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO PERFORM ITS DUTY OF RESOLVING ALL DOUBTS IN
THE INTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT CHUNG.

Navarro, on the other hand, raises in his Appellant's Brief the sole assignment of error
that: The Court a quo committed serious error when it convicted him on the basis of
what may at best be considered circumstantial evidence despite clear and direct
testimonies of law enforcers and the other accused that proved his absence of
involvement in the crimes charged.

In their Accused-Appellants' Brief, Jimboy and Bobby Bringas raise the following
assignment of errors:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE
THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY AS

PRINCIPALS OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.

Moreover, in their supplemental brief, Jimboy and Bobby Bringas additionally raise the
assignment of errors that: (a) The Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding them guilty
despite the prosecution's failure to prove it beyond reasonable doubt; and, (b) that
they conspired with the other perpetrators.

The foregoing issues or assignment of errors can actually be reduced and summarized
as follows: first, on the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in
general and, in particular, of Maricel Hipos and of the state witness Rosales;
and, second, on the finding of conspiracy.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is bereft of merit.

First Core Issue: Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses

Accused-appellants strongly assert that Maricel Hipos and state witness Rosales only
made up their respective testimonies relative to how the kidnapping transpired.

There is no dispute that Patrick Teng was kidnapped. It is admitted by the accused that
Patrick Teng was brought to Pampanga on the day he was abducted and was released
shortly before midnight the next day or on December 15, 1994. There is likewise no
dispute that a PhP 2.5 million ransom was raised by the Teng family on December 15,
1994 and was handed to Chung in the evening of the same day for the payment and
release of Patrick Teng as instructed by the negotiator. The undisputed facts also show
that Chung was apprehended by the PACC shortly after midnight or very early on
December 16, 1994; while Jimboy Bringas and Navarro were apprehended at past 1:00
p.m. on December 16, 1994; and the other accused were apprehended in Pampanga
late afternoon and early evening on December 16, 1994.

Both courts a quo found all accused guilty beyond reasonable for the crime of
carnapping and kidnapping. With the instant appeal, what remains to be resolved is the
respective criminal liability or lack thereof of accused-appellants Navarro, Chung,
Jimboy and Bobby Bringas. An assiduous review of the records at hand, particularly the
testimonies of both prosecution and defense witnesses, however, constrains this Court
to affirm the appellate court's decision and resolution affirming their conviction except
that of Bobby Bringas.

Prosecution Witnesses More Credible

First. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Maricel Hipos and Eric Teng were
straightforward, cohesive, positive and credible. More so when they are corroborated on
material points by the testimonies of both prosecution and defense witnesses. Besides,
there is no showing that Maricel Hipos and Eric Teng had any motive to falsely testify
against the accused. As a rule, absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for
prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive
exists, and their testimonies are thus worthy of full faith and credit.

The testimony of Maricel was initially assailed by accused-appellant Sulayao who

testified that when the kidnapping was carried out they did not use any weapon or
handgun, that they were let into the house voluntarily by Maricel and that it was
Rosales who took Patrick Teng without a struggle. This assertion was uniformly shared
by Pajarillo, Calaguas and Ross. However, aside from their mere assertion, they did not
present any evidence supporting such contention.

The testimony of Maricel on what occurred is corroborated by the testimony of the

accused that the gift Calaguas was holding did not fit the aperture in the gate. Maricel
never intended them to enter the Teng's premises but was merely constrained to open
the gate due to the ruse adopted by the accused.

Very telling are the testimonies of Pajarillo, Sulayao and Ross asserting that they did
not see Maricel. This is incredulous for Maricel positively identified them as among the
companions of Rosales during the extra-judicial line-up conducted by the PACC in Camp
Crame. Aside from Calaguas, Maricel picked out Pajarillo, Sulayao and Ross from a line-
up of about 15 men. During her testimony in open court, she again positively identified
them. If indeed they did not meet her, Maricel could not have identified them as among
the companions of Rosales and Calaguas.

Moreover, the mere denials of Calaguas, Pajarillo, Sulayao and Ross cannot prevail over
the positive assertion of Maricel that she was with Sweeney, the sister of Eric Teng, and
two other helpers, Dina and Melanie, who were the "yayas" of Patrick and Mikee.
Pajarillo, Sulayao, Calaguas and Ross want the Court to believe that it was only Maricel
who was in the house of Eric Teng or that aside from her there was nobody in the first
floor of Eric Teng's house when Rosales supposedly brought down Patrick Teng.

Further, the testimony of Maricel is not only credible but cohesive as well considering
the events that transpired from the phone call received at around 11:30 a.m. to the
arrival of the kidnappers at 1:30 p.m., the time Dina was able to find scissors to cut
their bindings and being freed therefrom and calling Kimbol, who rushed to Eric's place;
then Kimbol calling Eric at around 2:30 p.m. with the latter rushing home. The
testimony of Eric would show how he received the call from his brother, his rushing
home and receiving the first call from the negotiator [kidnappers] at around 3:10 p.m.
As to the use of violence and intimidation, it is abundantly clear from Maricel's
testimony that the accused indeed used guns to threaten and intimidate them. At the
very least, Maricel positively identified Calaguas as the one holding the gift and poking
her with a gun when she opened the gate, and her being herded together with Sweeney
and the other house helpers to the children's room at the second floor. The use of guns
to threaten and intimidate is not only plausible but well nigh credible considering the
crime involved. Besides, it must be noted that during the press conference on
December 17, 1994, caught on camera and shown during the evening news on the
same day was Pajarillo uttering words to the effect that Chung provided them with a .
45 caliber and a .38 caliber handguns.

It must be noted that there is no showing that Maricel simply made up the details of
her testimony or that she was coached. Both courts a quo found her testimony credible,
cohesive and straightforward. We find no cogent reason to substitute the findings of the
trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. Besides, the trial court is in the best
position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of their
unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand, and to note their demeanor,
conduct and attitude under grueling examination--significant factors in evaluating the
sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing the truth.

Furthermore, the testimony of Eric supplies what transpired after he received the call
from his brother Kimbol on December 14, 1994 until the morning of December 17,
1994 when the PACC held a press conference presenting the alleged kidnappers and his
being able to tape segments of the evening news showing footages of the press
conference. His testimony is likewise straightforward, cohesive and credible, which was
not at all rebutted by the defense.

Second. The testimony of state witness Rosales was likewise straightforward, cohesive
and credible. And it was likewise corroborated on some material points by the officers
of the PACC Task Force Habagat.

Rosales was among the six arrested on December 16, 1994 in Pampanga. Jimboy
Bringas pinpointed them to PACC operatives led by Police Chief Inspector Tucay. He
was not included in the two Informations since he was utilized as a state witness and
placed under the witness protection program of the government. It must be noted that
prosecutorial powers include the discretion of granting immunity to an accused in
exchange for testimony against another. And the fact that an individual had not been
previously charged or included in an Information does not prevent the prosecution from
utilizing said person as a witness.

In People v. Bohol, the Court held that the fact that an accused has been "discharged
as a state witness and was no longer prosecuted for the crime charged does not render
his testimony incredible or lessen its probative weight."

The testimony of Rosales was not rebutted by the accused. His narration of the events
transpiring from December 7 to 13, 1994 leading up to the actual kidnapping on
December 14, 1994 cohesively showed the specific roles of the other accused relative
to the instant crime. Although the Court believes that he had a greater role than what
he testified to as being merely coerced. Be that as it may, it would not change the fact
that in his participation of the crime, he knew and clearly pointed out the specific roles
of the accused in the conspiracy and actual execution of the kidnapping and the
carnapping.

The testimonies of police officers from the PACC corroborated the transfer of the Patrick
to Chung at around or shortly before midnight of December 15, 1994 in the parking lot
of Philippine Westin Plaza.

It bears stressing that prosecution witnesses Maricel Hipos, Eric Teng and state witness
Jason Rosales never wavered in their testimonies under rigorous cross-examination by
the various counsels representing the accused during trial. The same holds true with
the testimonies of the PACC police officers.

In fine, when the credibility of witnesses is in issue, the trial court's assessment is
accorded great weight unless it is shown that it has overlooked a certain fact or
circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. In
the instant case, we find no fact or circumstance of substance overlooked,
misunderstood or misappreciated by the courts a quo, except as to that of Bobby
Bringas.

Third. The prosecution witnesses PACC police officers gave clear, credible and
straightforward testimonies on what transpired on their end regarding the kidnapping:
their monitoring of the negotiation, the surveillance of Chung and the arrest of the
accused. Their testimonies were not at all rebutted. In fact, as aptly narrated by Police
Chief Inspector Tucay, accused-appellants Chung and Navarro could not deny seeing
each other in the evening of December 15, 1994 in the vicinity of their houses in Paco,
their subsequent meeting at the Bowling Inn and at the Philippine Westin Plaza. After
his arrest in the house of Eric Teng, Chung supplied to the PACC the names and
identities of Jimboy Bringas and Navarro which led to their arrest at past 1 p.m. on
December 16, 1994 in Malate. And, after his arrest, Jimboy Bringas in turn pinpointed
to the PACC operatives led by Police Chief Inspector Tucay the other accused who were
arrested in Pampanga late in the afternoon and early evening of December 16, 1994.

Fourth. From the defense testimonies of Jimboy Bringas, Ross, Pajarillo, Sulayao and
Calaguas--upon the backdrop of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses--they
collectively point to Chung and Navarro as the brains of the kidnapping. Pajarillo,
however, asserted that his co-accused Navarro is not the same person as the
mastermind Navarro. This assertion, however, fails vis-Ã -vis the testimony of Rosales
and other accused who testified that Navarro worked closely with Chung.

Second Core Issue: Presence of Conspiracy

Kidnapping for ransom proven

beyond reasonable doubt

The crime of Kidnapping and serious illegal detention, under Art. 267 of the RPC, has
the following elements:

(1) the offender is a private individual; not either of the parents of the victim or a
public officer who has a duty under the law to detain a person;
(2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any 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 following circumstances is present:

(a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days;
(b) it is committed by simulating public authority;
(c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made or;
(d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public official.

It must be noted that when the victim is a minor and the accused is any of the parents,
the crime is Inducing a minor to abandon his home defined and penalized under the
second paragraph of Art. 271 of the RPC. While if it is a public officer who has a duty
under the law to detain a person but detains said person without any legal ground is
liable for Arbitrary detention defined and penalized under Art. 124 of the RPC.

The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty,
coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect the same. Moreover, if
the victim is a minor, or the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose
of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention becomes inconsequential. Ransom
means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a
captured person that will release him from captivity.

In the instant case, all the elements of the crime of kidnapping for ransom has been
proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are all private individuals. The
kidnapping of Patrick Teng, then three years old, a minor is undisputed. That ransom
was demanded and paid is established. The only issue to be resolved is whether the
accused are equally guilty of kidnapping for ransom having conspired with each other.

Duly-Proven Conspiracy

Accused-appellants uniformly assail the court a quo's findings of conspiracy in the

commission of the kidnapping for ransom of Patrick Teng. Our assiduous review of the
records of the case shows the presence of conspiracy. However, we fail to appreciate
the direct participation of Bobby Bringas in the conspiracy. Thus, accused-appellants
Jimboy Bringas, Chung and Navarro together with the other accused Pajarillo, Sulayao,
Ross and Calaguas are equally guilty and liable for the crime charged for having
conspired to commit and did commit kidnapping for ransom of Patrick.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a crime and decide to commit it. It may be proved by direct or
circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words or conduct of the alleged conspirators
before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or
purpose.

Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred
from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with
respect to the commission of the offense. Corollarily, it is not necessary to show that
two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out
the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be
carried out.

To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown

to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity--mere
presence when the transaction was made does not necessarily lead to an inference of
concurrence with the criminal design to commit the crime. Moreover, the same degree
of proof necessary to prove the crime is required to support a finding of criminal
conspiracy.

The testimony of state witness Rosales is the lynchpin by which the conspiracy is
proven. Jimboy Bringas brought together Rosales, Calaguas and Sulayao from
Pampanga, while Rosales brought in Ross and Pajarillo from Laguna. They thus formed
the team, although Jimboy Bringas did not join the team but was in on the sharing of
the ransom. Together with Chung, Navarro and two others (Glenn Sangalang and Ricky
Castillo), they proceeded to Eric's house on December 14, 1994 and kidnapped Patrick.
Verily, a conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of a fellow criminal than by any
other method.

Together with Ricky Castillo and Rosales, accused Ross, Pajarillo, Sulayao and Calaguas
actively participated in the kidnapping. Ross drove one of the cars. Pajarillo, Sulayao
and Calaguas entered the house with Rosales. Calaguas poked a gun at Maricel.
Pajarillo gagged and bound Maricel. The others herded the house helpers, the kids and
Sweeney to the second floor. They took Patrick after binding everyone except Mikee
Teng. Then they brought Patrick to Pampanga. In all, they carried out a concerted plan
of kidnapping and detaining Patrick until they were given word to bring back the child to
Manila which they did the very next day shortly before midnight at the Philippine Westin
Plaza.

Then they went back to Pampanga, apparently to await their share of the ransom
money. Clearly, Ross' testimony that he is employed as a driver who can earn so much
as PhP5,000 in a day and can ill afford to be absent is belied by his accompanying the
others to Pampanga after they delivered Patrick Teng to Chung on December 15, 1994
shortly before midnight. And he continued to stay in Pampanga with the others until his
arrest on December 16, 1994 while on a drinking spree. In all, he was absent from
work from the 14th until the 16th of December 1994.

Jimboy Bringas evidently participated in the planning and the subsequent execution of
the conspiracy by bringing in Calaguas and Sulayao from Pampanga. Together with
them, he met with Chung and Navarro. And together with Rosales he went to Laguna to
fetch Pajarillo and Ross. In effect, he recruited or brought in the team that would carry
out the kidnapping. He knows the other accused and was the one who went with the
PACC team led by Police Chief Inspector Tucay to Pampanga in the late afternoon of
December 16, 1994 and identified them to be arrested.
Rosales' actuations, first in ringing the doorbell at the gate and urging Maricel to open it
and in asking for the car key and taking the Toyota Corolla of Eric do not tend to show
that he was merely coerced. This is, however, academic considering his turning state
witness.

Accused-appellant Navarro's assertion that he was only implicated fails to persuade. His
direct involvement in the conspiracy is clearly shown in that: (1) the testimony of
Rosales shows Navarro's involvement with Chung; (2) the unanimous testimonies of
Calaguas, Pajarillo, Sulayao and Ross to the effect that Navarro was together with
Chung in their meetings before the kidnapping and Navarro was with them when they
went to Eric Teng's place on December 14, 1994; (3) Navarro's admission caught on
camera during the December 17, 1994 press conference that he made calls to negotiate
the ransom which bolsters Eric's testimony that he recognized the voice of Navarro as
the negotiator calling his residence; (4) Navarro received PhP100,000 from Chung in
the evening of December 15, 1994 at the Bowling Inn; (5) Navarro was with Chung
when Patrick Teng was delivered by the other accused in the parking lot of Philippine
Westin Plaza.

Similarly, accused-appellant Chung's assertion that he was only implicated flies from
logic given that not only Rosales pinned him as the mastermind but that the other
accused testified to the effect that together with Navarro he orchestrated the
kidnapping. The foregoing clearly shows his involvement: (1) per Pajarillo's admission
during the December 17, 1994 press conference, Chung provided the guns; (2) Chung's
admission to Eric through a phone call he made at noon on December 16, 1994 asking
pardon and forgiveness; (3) Chung gave misleading information to Eric about his being
intercepted when he was supposed to deliver the ransom money; (4) Chung proceeded
to his parents' place in Paco and gave PhP50,000 from the ransom money to his
mother; (5) Chung left the remaining PhP2.35 million in his parents' place without
telling Eric about it; (6) Chung took Patrick from the other accused at the parking lot of
Philippine Westin Plaza shortly before midnight of December 15, 1994 without paying
the ransom; (7) Chung brought Patrick back home without telling Eric upon their arrival
about the ransom money.

Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of
a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose,
conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.

Bobby Bringas' participation either as accomplice or as co-conspirator not

established

As to Bobby Bringas, it is undisputed that he did not participate in the actual

kidnapping. He was in Pampanga from December 10, 1994 until he was arrested
together with the others on December 16, 1994. It may be true that the other accused
brought Patrick to Bobby Bringas' place but it was not shown that Bobby Bringas took
care of Patrick as the group moved to different places. It was neither clearly shown that
Bobby Bringas recruited the other accused to carry out the kidnapping. It was only
Rosales' testimony that Bobby Bringas asked him to drive. Aside from that, the fact
alone that the other accused went to his place does not point to his direct involvement
in the conspiracy considering that he knows them. He worked as driver for the mother
of Rosales and Pajarillo is his kumpare. There is therefore no clear and convincing
evidence of Bobby Bringas' direct involvement either in the kidnapping of Patrick or in
the conspiracy to its commission.

In the absence of evidence showing the direct participation of the accused in the
commission of the crime, conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing
evidence in order to convict the accused. Given our observation that the involvement of
Rosales was not merely of a person under coercion, there is reasonable doubt as to
Bobby Bringas' involvement for it was Jimboy Bringas who brought or recruited Sulayao
and Calaguas from Pampanga. There is therefore a palpable reasonable doubt of the
existence of conspiracy on the part of Bobby Bringas. The presence of reasonable doubt
as to the existence of conspiracy suffices to negate not only the participation of the
accused in the commission of the offense as principal but also, in the absence of proof
implicating the accused as accessory or accomplice, the criminal liability of the accused.
Consequently, Bobby Bringas must be acquitted from the crime of kidnapping for
ransom.

The penalty for kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267 of the RPC, as amended, would
have been the supreme penalty of death. However, the passage of RA 9346 or the Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty has banned the death penalty and reduced
all death sentences to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Award of damages modified

Anent the award of damages, we find proper the award of actual damages against
Navarro in the amount of PhP 100,000 with legal interest of 12% from December 15,
1994 until fully paid. We, however, find the award of PhP 5 million as moral damages
and PhP 2 million as exemplary damages to be exorbitant and not in accord with
jurisprudence.

In line with current jurisprudence, an award of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity is proper.
An award of PhP 200,000 as moral damages is likewise proper considering the minority
of Patrick. Moreover, when the crime of kidnapping is attended by a demand for
ransom, by way of example or correction, PhP 100,000 exemplary damages is also
proper.

With the affirmance of the conviction of accused appellants Jimboy Bringas, Navarro
and Chung, they are jointly and severally liable together with Ross, Pajarillo, Sulayao
and Calaguas for the payment of the damages awarded.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appeals of accused-appellants Christopher Bringas, John

Robert Navarro and Eden Sy Chung are DENIED; while the appeal of accused-appellant
Bryan Bringas is GRANTED. Accordingly, the January 3, 2006 Decision and June 6, 2007
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00911 are
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION insofar as the amount of the damages
awarded and the acquittal of Bryan Bringas. As modified, the dispositive portion of the
March 26, 1999 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 258 in Parañaque
City, pertaining to Criminal Case No. 95-137, for Kidnapping for Ransom, shall read:

In Criminal Case No. 95-137, for KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM, defined and penalized
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act no. 7659,
finding accused CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS y Garcia; JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y Cruz;
ARUEL ROSS y Picardo; ROGER CALAGUAS y Jimenez; and EDEN SY CHUNG guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346.

The instant criminal charge is DISMISSED as to accused ERICSON PAJARILLO y Baser

and EDGARDO SULAYAO y Petilla on account of their death pursuant to Article 89, 1 of
the Revised Penal Code.

The accused JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y Cruz is hereby directed to pay Eric Teng the
sum of PhP100,000.00 as actual damages with interest thereon at the legal rate of 12%
from December 15, 1994 until fully paid.

The accused CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS y Garcia; JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO y Cruz; ARUEL
ROSS y Picardo; ROGER CALAGUAS y Jimenez; ERICSON PAJARILLO y Baser;
EDGARDO SULAYAO y Petilla and EDEN SY CHUNG are directed to pay Eric Teng jointly
and severally the amount of PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity, PhP200,000.00 as moral
damages; and PhP100,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.

Accused BRYAN BRINGAS y GARCIA is hereby ACQUITTED for reasonable doubt as to

his involvement.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Corona, (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 186472               July 5, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
ANTONIO SIONGCO y DELA CRUZ, ERIBERTO ENRIQUEZ y GEMSON, GEORGE HAYCO y
CULLERA, and ALLAN BONSOL y PAZ, Accused,
ANTONIO SIONGCO y DELA CRUZ and ALLAN BONSOL y PAZ, Appellants.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

Before the Court for review is the September 20, 2007 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA),
affirming the guilty verdict rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 166, Pasig
City,2 promulgated on November 6, 2000, against appellants Antonio Siongco (Siongco) and Allan
Bonsol (Bonsol), with modification on the penalty imposed and the amount of damages to be paid to
their victim, Nikko Satimbre (Nikko).3 This review is made, pursuant to the pertinent provisions of
Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 122 and Section 13 of Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.

The factual findings of both courts show that between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. of December 27, 1998, 11-
year-old Nikko, a resident of Balanga, Bataan, was induced by Siongco to board a bus bound for
Pilar, Bataan, together with the latter’s friends, Marion Boton (Boton) and Eriberto Enriquez
(Enriquez). Nikko was told that the two would accompany him in getting the "Gameboy" that Siongco
promised. Siongco was no stranger to Nikko as he used to be a security guard at Footlockers shoe
store where Nikko’s mother, Elvira Satimbre (Elvira), works as a cashier. After a short stop in Pilar,
Bataan, the three proceeded to Mariveles, Bataan, where they met with George Hayco (Hayco). The
boy was then brought to Dinalupihan, Bataan, where he was kept for the night. 4

Meanwhile, Elvira arrived home at 7:00 p.m. and found that her son was not there. She searched for
him in the places he frequented, but to no avail. As her continued search for the child proved futile,
she reported him missing to the nearest police detachment. 5

The following day, December 28, 1998, Enriquez and Siongco took Nikko to Bicutan, Taguig, Metro
Manila.6 On December 29, 1998, Elvira received a phone call from a man, later identified as
appellant Siongco, who claimed to have custody of Nikko and asked for ₱400,000.00 in exchange
for his liberty. Elvira haggled with her son’s captor until the latter agreed to reduce the ransom
money to ₱300,000.00. Elvira was also able to talk to her son who was only able to utter "Hello Ma"
as Siongco immediately grabbed the phone from him. Siongco warned Elvira to refrain from
reporting the matter to the police. He also threatened that Nikko would be killed if she fails to give
the ransom money at 6:00 p.m. of the next day at Genesis Bus Station in Pasay City. 7 That night,
Elvira telephoned the Office of the Chief of Police of Balanga, Bataan and reported that Nikko was
kidnapped.8

On December 30, 1998, Enriquez and Siongco moved Nikko to Pateros and cautioned him not to tell
anybody that he was kidnapped. They stayed at the house of Heracleo San Jose (Heracleo), a
relative of Enriquez. They again called Elvira who failed to keep her appointment with them in Pasay
City. She explained that she was still gathering funds for the ransom money. The captors reiterated
their threats and, at midnight, they called and instructed her to proceed to Avenida with whatever
available money she had, subject to a subsequent agreement as to the balance. Elvira refused and
insisted that she preferred to give the amount in full. 9

In the morning of December 31, 1998, Siongco called Elvira several times with the same threats and
demands. Elvira agreed to meet them that afternoon at the Genesis Bus Station in Pasay City. Nikko
was allowed to speak with his mother and he assured her that he was not being maltreated. After the
call, Enriquez informed Nikko that his mother wanted a "kaliwaan" (face to face exchange) deal.
Soon thereafter, Enriquez and Siongco left to meet Elvira, while Nikko stayed behind. 10

On the same day, Police Senior Inspector Rodolfo Azurin, Jr. (Police Senior Inspector Azurin, Jr.)
was on duty at Crimes Operation Division of the Philippine Anti-Organized Crime Task Force
(PAOCTF) office in Camp Crame, Quezon City. At 11:00 a.m., Elvira arrived and requested for
assistance for the recovery of her kidnapped son. The PAOCTF team then instructed her to bring to
the pay-off site a brown envelope with a letter asking for extension of payment. After briefing, Azurin
and other police operatives proceeded to Genesis Bus Station in Pasay City. While waiting for Elvira,
they noticed two (2) male persons, later identified as Enriquez and Siongco, restlessly moving
around the place. At around 2:30 p.m., Elvira arrived carrying the brown envelope. As instructed by
the kidnappers, she positioned herself near a tree and tied a white kerchief around her neck. Shortly
thereafter, Enriquez approached Elvira and took the brown envelope from her. As he was walking
away, the PAOCTF team arrested him. Thereafter, they followed Siongco, who hurriedly hailed a
taxicab and sped away. Siongco was arrested at the residence of Heracleo in Pateros where Nikko
was also rescued. Thereafter, Siongco and Enriquez were brought to Camp Crame. 11

The investigations of Nikko and the two detainees, coupled with the follow-up operations of the
PAOCTF, led to the arrest of appellant Bonsol, and the other cohorts, Hayco and Boton. 12

On January 4, 1999, an Information 13 was filed in court, charging herein appellants Siongco and
Bonsol, together with Enriquez, Hayco, Boton, and a John Doe, with KIDNAPPING and SERIOUS
ILLEGAL DETENTION under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

Arraigned on February 24, 1999, the five accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. 14 Trial
then ensued; in the course of which, the prosecution presented in evidence the oral testimonies of its
witnesses: 1) the victim himself, 11-year-old Nikko; 2) his mother, Elvira; 3) Heracleo, relative of
accused Enriquez; 4) Police Senior Inspector Azurin, Jr. of the PAOCTF; and 5) Police
Superintendent Paul Tucay, the one who arrested Bonsol, Hayco and Boton. 15

With the exception of Boton, all of the accused took the witness stand. Hayco and Bonsol denied
knowledge of and participation in the crime. Siongco testified that, on December 27, 1998, he saw
Nikko at a "peryahan" in Balanga, Bataan but he did not mind the boy as he was busy conversing
with Enriquez about their business of selling toys. He went to Manila and stayed at the house of
Heracleo on December 28 and 29, 1998 to collect installment payments from customers. On
December 31, 1998, he went to his brother’s house in San Juan, Metro Manila and when he came
back to Pateros on the same day, he was arrested by PAOCTF agents.

Enriquez declared that Nikko voluntarily went with them. He affirmed that he travelled with Nikko and
Siongco to Manila. They stayed in Bicutan and then moved to Pateros. He alleged that they called
Nikko’s mother because the boy kept asking for a "Gameboy." He went to the Genesis Bus Station
to meet Nikko’s mother, who, according to Siongco, would have something tied around her neck. 16

The RTC rejected the denials and alibis raised by the accused and held that they conspired and
mutually helped one another in kidnapping and illegally detaining Nikko by taking him through a
circuitous journey from Balanga, Bataan to Manila where ransom demands for his liberty were made.

In a decision dated November 6, 2000, the RTC convicted Siongco, Bonsol, Enriquez and Hayco of
the offense charged in the Information and meted upon them the extreme penalty of death. Boton
was ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. The pertinent portion of the RTC decision
reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Antonio Siongco y Dela Cruz, Eriberto Enriquez y Gemson,
George Hayco y Cullera and Allan Bonsol y Paz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for the purpose of extorting ransom, as defined and
penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 8 of R.A. 7659, and
are hereby sentenced to suffer the Supreme penalty of Death and indemnify the victim, Nikko
Satimbre, and his mother, Elvira Satimbre, each, in the amount of ₱50,000.00, as moral damages,
plus the costs of suit.

On the ground of reasonable doubt, the Court finds accused Marion Boton y Cereza NOT GUILTY of
the crime charged in the Information.

SO ORDERED.17

From the RTC, the case went directly to this Court for automatic review. 18 The parties were then
required to file, as they did file, their respective appellants’ 19 and appellee’s20 briefs. Consistent with
this Court’s ruling in People v. Mateo, 21 the case was transferred to the CA22 for intermediate review
and disposition.

Upon review, the CA concurred with the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and
affirmed the judgment of conviction but modified the penalty imposed to reclusion perpetua. The CA
increased the amount of moral damages to ₱100,000.00 and awarded ₱100,000.00 as exemplary
damages, to be paid jointly and solidarily by the accused to their victim, Nikko. The fallo of the CA
Decision states:

WHEREFORE, the Judgment dated November 6, 2000 of the RTC Branch 166, Pasig City, in
Criminal Case No. 115317-H, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellants are
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered to
jointly and solidarily pay private complainant Nikko Satimbre the amounts of ₱100,000.00 as moral
damages and ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.23

Only herein appellants Siongco and Bonsol were able to perfect an appeal 24 of the CA Decision.
Consequently, in its September 29, 2008 Resolution, 25 the CA declared the conviction of accused
Enriquez and Hayco as final and executory, and a Partial Entry of Judgment was made against
them.26 In a Resolution dated April 13, 2009, 27 this Court accepted the appeal interposed by Siongco
and Bonsol.

We deny the appeal.

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, defines and
penalizes kidnapping and serious illegal detention as follows:

Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death:

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.

2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been made.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of
the parents, female, or a public officer.

The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-
mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.

When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.

In the recent People of the Philippines v. Christopher Bringas y Garcia, Bryan Bringas y Garcia,
John Robert Navarro y Cruz, Erickson Pajarillo y Baser (deceased), and Eden Sy Chung, 28 we
reiterated the following elements that must be established by the prosecution to obtain a conviction
for kidnapping, viz.: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in
any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
and (d) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (2) it is committed by simulating public
authority; (3) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or
threats to kill him are made; or (4) the person kidnapped or detained, is a minor, a female, or a
public officer. If the victim is a minor, or is kidnapped or detained for the purpose of extorting
ransom, the duration of detention becomes immaterial.

The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with indubitable
proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. 29

As correctly held by the RTC and the CA, the prosecution indubitably proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention obtain in the case at bar.
Accused-appellants are private individuals who, together with their cohorts, took 11-year-old Nikko
out of his hometown in Balanga, Bataan on December 27, 1998. They brought him to Manila on
December 28, 1998, where demands for a ₱400,000.00 ransom were made to his mother.
Appellants contend that the essential element of detention or deprivation of liberty was absent
because Nikko voluntarily went with them and that he was free to move around and play with other
children. We disagree.

The deprivation required by Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code means not only the imprisonment
of a person, but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. It
includes a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention or is
restricted or impeded in his liberty to move.30 In this case, although Nikko was free to move around,
he was at all times under the alternate watch of appellants and their cohorts. He was in their physical
custody and complete control as he was kept in places strange and unfamiliar to him. While he was
allowed to play in the houses where he was kept, the fact remains that he was under the control of
his captors who left him there, as he could not leave the house until they shall have returned for him.
Because of his tender age and the fact that he did not know the way back home, he was then and
there deprived of his liberty.
1avvphi1

As to the contention of appellant Siongco that there was no force or intimidation involved in the
taking, this Court held in People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Cruz, Jr. y Concepcion and Reynaldo
Agustin y Ramos31 that the fact that the victim voluntarily went with the accused did not remove the
element of deprivation of liberty, because the victim went with the accused on a false inducement,
without which the victim would not have done so. In the present case, when Nikko boarded the bus
bound for Pilar, Bataan, he was under the impression that Bonsol and Enriquez were to be trusted
as he was assured by Siongco that the two would accompany him to get his much desired
"Gameboy." Without such assurance, Nikko would not have boarded the said vehicle. In kidnapping,
the victim need not be taken by the accused forcibly or against his will. What is controlling is the act
of the accused in detaining the victim against his or her will after the offender is able to take the
victim in his custody. In short, the carrying away of the victim in the crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention can either be made forcibly or, as in the instant case, fraudulently. 32ten.lihpwal

Equally significant is the fact that, in kidnapping, the victim’s lack of consent is also a fundamental
element.33 The general rule is that the prosecution is burdened to prove lack of consent on the part of
the victim. However, where the victim is a minor, lack of consent is presumed. In this case, Nikko
was only 11 years old when he was kidnapped; thus incapable of giving consent, and incompetent to
assent to his seizure and illegal detention. The consent of the boy could place appellants in no better
position than if the act had been done against his will. A kidnapper should not be rewarded with an
acquittal simply because he is ingenious enough to conceal his true motive from his victim until he is
able to transport the latter to another place. 34

The identical factual findings of both the trial and appellate courts likewise show that the actuations
and roles played by appellants Siongco and Bonsol undoubtedly demonstrate that they conspired
with Hayco and Enriquez in kidnapping and illegally detaining Nikko. Being sufficiently supported by
evidence on record, we find no reason to disturb the same.

Siongco was the one who promised Nikko a "Gameboy." He told the boy to go with Bonsol and
Enriquez and get the toy in Pilar, Bataan. On December 28, 1998, he arrived in Dinalupihan, Bataan
to fetch Nikko. From there, he, Enriquez and Nikko left for Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila in a bus.
The following day, Siongco, Nikko, Enriquez, and the latter’s friend went to the marketplace and
called Nikko’s mother. Siongco demanded from her payment of ₱400,000.00 as a condition for the
boy’s release. Siongco repeatedly telephoned Elvira with the same demand and threats over the
next couple of days. On December 31, 1998, he instructed Enriquez to meet Elvira at the Genesis
Bus Station to get the ransom money.
It is immaterial whether appellant Bonsol acted as a principal or as an accomplice because the
conspiracy and his participation therein have been established. In conspiracy, the act of one is the
act of all and the conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime. 35 On the pretext of getting
Nikko’s much desired "Gameboy," Bonsol and Enriquez were able to conveniently whisk Nikko out of
Balanga and bring him to Pilar, then to Mariveles, and eventually to Dinalupihan, where Siongco
fetched him. Thus, Enriquez and Siongco’s plan of bringing Nikko to Metro Manila, a terrain
unfamiliar to the boy and where the two could enjoy anonymity to carry out their ultimate goal of
extorting ransom money from Nikko’s mother, was accomplished. As shown by the evidence, without
the participation of appellant Bonsol, the commission of the offense would not have come to fruition.

Finally, appellants bewail that they were deprived of their right to an independent and competent
counsel when the RTC appointed Atty. Michael Moralde (Atty. Moralde) as their counsel de oficio
during the pre-trial conference, direct examination and cross-examination of the prosecution’s
principal witness, Nikko. This was so, despite Atty. Moralde’s manifestation during Nikko’s cross-
examination that the defense of his actual client, accused Boton, conflicts with that of the other
accused.36

A scrutiny of the records shows that Atty. Moralde was appointed as appellants’ counsel de oficio in
six (6) hearings, because their regular counsel de oficio, Atty. Antoniano from the Public Attorney’s
Office P AO), was inexplicably absent. There is no denial of the right to counsel where a
counsel de oficio is appointed during the absence of the accused's counsel de parte, or in this case
the regular counsel de oficio, pursuant to the court's desire to finish the case as early as practicable
under the continuous trial system.37 The choice of counsel by the accused in a criminal prosecution
is not a plenary one. If the chosen counsel deliberately makes himself scarce, the court is not
precluded from appointing a de oficio counsel, which it considers competent and independent, to
enable the trial to proceed until the counsel of choice enters his appearance. Otherwise, the pace of
a criminal prosecution will be entirely dictated by the accused, to the detriment of the eventual
resolution of the case.38

The fact that Boton’s defense conflicts with that of appellants is immaterial because, as borne out by
records, Atty. Moralde expressly declared that the questions he propounded to Nikko were only for
his client Boton. Thereafter, Atty. Antoniano was furnished with copies of the transcript of
stenographic notes of the proceedings she missed and was given ample opportunity to conduct her
own cross-examination during the subsequent hearings. Eventually, she adopted the cross-
examination conducted by the other defense counsels. 39 1avvphi1

The CA correctly modified the penalty imposed by the RTC to reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole. The penalty for kidnapping for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any
other person under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code 40 is death. However, R.A. No. 934641 has
banned the imposition of death penalty and reduced all death sentences to reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole.42 In line with prevailing jurisprudence, 43 an award of ₱50,000.00
as civil indemnity is proper. The award of ₱100,000.00 moral damages is increased to ₱200,000.00
considering the minority of Nikko.44 As the crime was attended by a demand for ransom, and by way
of example or correction, Nikko is entitled to ₱100,000.00 exemplary damages as correctly awarded
by the CA.45

WHEREFORE, the September 20, 2007 Decision..of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
00774, finding appellants Antonio Siongco y dela Cruz and Allan Bonsol y Paz guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of KIDNAPPING and SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION, is AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that a ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity is awarded and the amount of moral damages
is increased to ₱200, 000.00.
Costs against appellants.

SO ORDERED.