People v. Pagalasan GR No.

131926 & 138991 (June 18, 2003)

FACTS:
Spouses George and Desiree Lim have 3 children; one of them is 10 year old Christopher. On
September 4, 1994, their maid was in their kitchen when someone knocked. She opened the
door thinking that it was Fernando Cortez, their security guard. Instead, 4 masked men
armed with handguns and grenades barged in. Fernando was with them with his arms tied
behind his back. The men asked the maid to knock at the bedroom where the family was.
One of the men was left in the sala while the 3 others went into the bedroom and informed
the Lims that nobody will get hurt if they are given what they want. They took money and
valuables. They gave Desiree a note and took with them George and Christopher. One of the
men asked George for the key to his Nissan car and they asked George and his son to
occupy the backseat of the car. 2 of the men sat on either side of the Lims and one occupied
the passenger seat beside the driver. After about 15 minutes at Sitio Tupi, the 3 men
alighted with Christopher and George was transferred to the front seat beside the driver. He
was told that he will be brought to Maasim.
The police were informed of what happened. They established a mobile checkpoint. When
the driver of the Nissan saw the checkpoint 30 meters ahead, he stopped removed his mask
and told George not make any false move. The police questioned them. George told them
that his name is Albert Lim for fear of the driver, Michael Pagalasan. The police noticed that
George is trembling. They got Pagalasan out of the car and George identified himself. They
saw a handgun and grenade when they searched the car. They were taken to the police
station where the security guard was being investigated.
On Sept 5, 1994, in his extrajudicial confession, Michael said that he with 3 others, Aladin,
Ferdinand (a muslim) and Bong (resident of Purok Islam) kidnapped the Lims upon the order
of Aladins brother, Ronnie Cabalo. (Note: He withdrew this confession saying he was forced
and intimidated into making it and he was not provided with counsel of his own choice
during custodial investigation). Because of this confession, farmer Hadji Aladin Malang
Cabalo, Ronie Puntuan and Fernando Quizon were arrested and detained at Camp Fermin
Lira Barracks, General Santos City.
The following day, the Lims received a letter, supposedly from the kidnappers, ordering the
release of Michael and Ronnie Puntuan, for they are said to be innocent, and asking for 3M
pesos for the release of Christopher. Three days after, the Lims received another letter
signed by Mubarak II or 2 (same sign as the note given by the masked men). It says that
they dont want the military to be involved neither to prejudice innocent people. They
demanded the release of Ronnie Putuan in 3 days or their son would not be released alive.
Then, the morning of the following day, Christopher was rescued by police without any
ransom being paid. (How and where? It didnt say)
DEFENSE
1. Fernando Cortez, the security guard, said he was washing the car when the incident took
place. The gate was surrounded by 10 foot wall and the gate was locked. He was shocked
when 4 masked men, armed with handguns, suddenly arrived. They poked their guns at him,

maltreated him, and tied his hands behind his back. The masked men knocked at the door of
the house and when the housemaid Julita Sarno opened it, the men dragged Ferdinand
towards the entrance, to make it appear that he was the one knocking. The masked men
then barged into the sala and tied Julitas hands. Ferdinand claimed he never met any of the
kidnappers before September 4, 1994. He was puzzled why he was being implicated in the
case.
2. Michael Pagalasan, he is simply a conductor of his uncles jeepney and made his living out
of it. On the evening of September 4, 1994, at about 9:00 p.m., he was in their house. His
friend Bong arrived, and invited him for a stroll and to accompany the latter to get his
motorcycle. Michael agreed. They took a tricycle and arrived at the Villa Consuelo
Subdivision. Michael was surprised when the tricycle stopped near the gate of the Lim
residence and masked men suddenly appeared, poking their guns at him. Bong fled, leaving
Michael alone to fend for himself. The masked men ordered Michael to drive a car, and
warned him that if he refused, he would be killed. Momentarily, one of the men emerged
from the house, with George Lim in tow. George gave the key to his Nissan car to one of the
kidnappers, who in turn handed it over to Michael. The men forced George and his son
Christopher to board the car. Father and son were seated between two masked men. Afraid
for his life, Michael was forced to drive the car with one of the kidnappers pointing a gun at
him, seated to his right at the passengers side. The kidnappers ordered Michael to drive the
car towards the direction of Barangay Ligaya.
Three of the men alighted, bringing Christopher with them. Michael then pleaded to George
to bring him first to Tambler, where the jeepney of his uncle was parked. Michael wanted to
sleep there instead of going home. George agreed, and drove the car himself through
Barangay Makar. George told Michael that they had to travel along Espina road instead of
the regular road because they might encounter policemen, and Christopher might be killed
by the kidnappers. However, the car had to stop at the intersection of the national highway
when George saw the policemen and their mobile police car parked at the intersection.
Michael was then arrested by the police, blindfolded, and brought to the mobile car where he
was also beaten. His head was banged against the sides of the mobile car. And then he
made his extrajudicial confession.
INITIAL RULING OF THE RTC
On October 17, 1994, with Case No. 11062
Information is filed in RTC for violation of PD 1866 (kidnapping with ransom) against
Michael (judgment: Sept. 24, 2007- for failure of the prosecution to prove the accusation
against the accused Michael Pagalasan beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby acquitted of
the crime charged.)
On November 3, 1994, with Case No. 11098
Michael, Ronnie Cabalo, Aladin Cabalo, Ferdinand Cortez, a certain John Doe identified as
Fernando, and Peter Doe were charged with kidnapping for ransom in an Information in RTC
(judgment: the accused Michael Pagalasan is hereby found guilty of the crime of kidnapping
for ransom as defined and penalized under Article 267 as amended by Section 8 of Republic
Act 7659, and there being no modifying circumstance to consider, he is sentenced to suffer
the EXTREME PENALTY OF DEATH insofar as the case of George Lim is concerned. The same

penalty of death shall also be imposed against Michael Pagalasan in the case of Christopher
Neal Lim who was kidnapped on the same occasion and was released only on the sixth day
after his captivity.)
Issue:
1. WON Pagalasan is guilty of kidnapping George and Christopher Lim under Article 267 of
the Revised Penal Code (main issue)
2. WON there is a conspiracy committed between Pagalasan and his cohorts (Article 8 of the
RPC)

HELD:
Yes. He is guilty of kidnapping (with no ransom) under Article 267 and guilty of slight illegal
detention of George under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code.
Yes, conspiracy between the accused and his cohorts exists
RATIO:
Guilty of Kidnapping:
1. For Christopher (Article 267 Paragraph 4, kidnapping): Pagalasan and others conspired to
kidnap George and Christopher and detained them illegally but prosecution failed to prove
that they intended to extort ransom. (see the 3 letters below). Of the 3 letters only the
second letter is asking for ransom and it is not signed by MUBARAK II or. It is possible that it
did not come from the kidnappers or others are acting independently to benefit from the
situation. Even if the letter asking for ransom came from the kidnappers, Pagalasans
conspiracy with them already ended at the time of his arrest. There is no proof that what is
contained in the second and third letters is with the knowledge and concurrence of
Pagalasan.
2. For George (Article 268, slight illegal detention): George had been kidnapped and
detained illegally by the appellant and his allies, but only for less than a day. George
regained his freedom after the appellant had been arrested at the intersection of the
national highway and Espina Road. There is no evidence that the appellant and his allies
kidnapped George for the purpose of extorting ransom for his release. There is likewise no
evidence that they inflicted any serious physical injuries on George, or simulated public
authority, or threatened to kill him. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the appellant and
his allies intended to detain the victim for more than three days. The appellant is not entitled
to the privileged mitigating circumstance under the second paragraph of Article 268 of the
Revised Penal Code because he did not voluntarily release George within three days from
the kidnapping.
On conspiracy:

There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to
commit it. Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be proven separately
from and with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself. Conspiracy need not be proven
by direct evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful
conspiracy. Settled as a rule of law is that the conspiracy continues until the object is
attained, unless in the meantime the conspirator abandons the conspiracy or is arrested.
The loner a conspiracy is deemed to continue, the greater the chances that additional
persons will be found to have joined it.
Each conspirator is liable for everything that is done by his confederates which follows
incidentally in the execution of a common design as one of its probable and natural
consequence even though it was not intended as part of the original design.
In this case, the collective, concerted and synchronized sets of Pagalasan with his three
cohorts before, during and after the kidnapping constitute concrete proof that he and his
companions conspired with each other to attain a common objective; to kidnap George and
Christopher and detain them illegally. Pagalasan was a principal by his direct participation in
the kidnapping of the two victims.

THE LETTERS
1. The handwritten letter received by Desiree on September 4, 1994, first letter, reads:
Para Sa Inyo Mr. & Mrs. Lim,
Una wag na wag kayong gumawa ng hakbang na hindi namin alam o gusto, lalong-lalo na sa
pakikipag-usap sa militar o magkoordinate sa militar ay hindi namin gustong mangyari ang ganon mga
sistem. Ang pangalawa, wag na wag kayong tumanggap ng negotiator na walang palatandaan na
galing sa amin, pakiusap lang yon na dapat ninyong sundin, madidisgrasya ang aming dala kung
kayoy magkakamali ng hakbang.
Maliwanag sana sa inyo ang aming mga salaysay.
Note Palatandaan na galing sa aming hakbang ay ito
MR. MUBARAK II or 2 Sulat man o telephone

2. The letter received by George on September 6, 1994, second letter, reads:

Ronie Puntuan
Michael Pagalasan
Mr. G. Lim palayain ninyo ang suspek ninyo. Wala silang kasalanan bago natin tapusin ang usapan
tatlong milyong piso (3,000,000) katumbas ng kalayaan ng mahal ninyong anak. Paalisin ang mga
sundalo. Kailangan ang Black Out News. Huwag kang magkakamali Mr. Lim. Kunting sipyot mo patay
ang anak mo. Isang araw lamang ang tagal namin sa inyo.

3. The handwritten letter received by George on September 9, 1994, third letter, reads:
Para sayo Mr. & Mrs. Lim,
Mr. Lim, gusto ko lang ipaabot sayo ang maikli kong kataga. Unang-una, ayaw namin na mga asong
militar na makialam. Pangalawa, ayaw namin sa grupo na idamay ang tao na walang-alam. Alalahanin
mo mabuti lahat ng mga kataga na iniwan ko sayo, Mr. Lim. Ang taong dinampot ng militar sa purok

islam na si Ronie, ang taong yan walang conection (sic) sa grupo, sa madaling usapan, Mr. Lim,
alalahanin mo ang anak mo sa oras na tatlong araw na taong yan hindi makalabas. Ang isipin mo ang
anak mo hindi rin makalabas hanggat sa mabulok sa lupa (maliwanag).

Palatandaan MUBARAK II 2
Elements of Kidnapping (Article 267 of the RPC)
1. That the offender is a private individual;
2. That he detains another or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
3. That the act of detention must be illegal; and
4. That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. That the detention lasts for more than 3 days;
b. That it is committed simulating public authority;
c. That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person detained or threats to kill
him are made; or
d. That the person detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
People vs. Larraaga
Appellee: People of the Philippines
Appellants: Francisco Juan Larraaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Cao, Ariel
Balansag, Davidson Rusia, James Anthony Uy, James Andrew Uy Per curiam decision
FACTS:
On the night of July 16, 1997, victims Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong failed to come home on
the expected time. Two days after, a young woman was found dead at the foot of a cliff. Her
pants were torn, her t-shirt was raised up to her breast and her bra was pulled down. Her
face and neck were covered with masking tape and attached to her left wrist was a
handcuff. The woman was identified as Marijoy. After almost ten months, accused Davidson
Rusia surfaced and admitted before the police having participated in the abduction of the
sisters. He identified appellants Francisco Juan Larraaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan,
Alberto Cao, Ariel Balansag, James Anthony Uy, and James Andrew Uy as co-perpetrators in
the crime.
Rusia provided the following before the trial court:
1) That at 10:30 in the evening of July 16, 1997, he met Rowen and Josman and told him to
ride with them in a white car. Following them were Larraaga, James Anthony and James
Andrew who were in a red car. Josman stopped the white car in front of the waiting shed
where the sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline were standing and forced them to ride the car.
Rusia taped their mouths while Rowen handcuffed them jointly.
2) That after stopping by a safehouse, the group thereafter headed to the South Bus
Terminal where they met Alberto and Ariel, and hired the white van driven by the former.
They traveled towards south of Cebu City, leaving the red car at the South Bus Terminal.
3) That after parking their vehicles near a precipice, they drank and had a pot session. Later,

they started to rape Marijoy inside the vehicle, and thereafter raped Jaqueline.
4) That Josman intructed Rowen and Ariel to bring Marijoy to the cliff and push her into the
ravine.
The claims of Rusia were supported by other witnesses. He was discharged as an accused
and became a state witness. Still, the body of Jacqueline was never found. The trial court
found the other appellants guilty of two crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalties of two (2) reclusiones perpetua. The
appellants assailed the said decision, arguing inter alia, that court erred in finding that there
was consipiracy. James Anthony was also claimed to be only 16 years old when the crimes
were committed.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not there was conspiracy.
2) Whether or not the trial court erred in characterizing the crime.
3) Whether or not the trial court erred imposing the correct penalty.
HELD:
1) Yes. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was
perpetrated, or may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves, when such point
to a joint design and community of interest. The appellants actions showed that they had
the same objective to kidnap and detain the Chiong sisters. The Court affirmed the trial
courts finding that the appellants indeed conspired in the commission of the crimes
charged.
2) Yes. The rule is that when the law provides a single penalty for two or more component
offenses, the resulting crime is called a special complex crime. Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 8 of R.A. 7659, provides that in the crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention, 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. Thus, the resulting crime will change from complex crime to special
complex crime. In the present case, the victims were raped and subjected to dehumanizing
acts. Thus, the Court held that all the appellants were guilty of the special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape in the case where Marijoy is
the victim; and simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention in the case of Jacqueline.
3) Yes. Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code provides that by reason of minority, the
imposable penalty to the offender is one degree lower than the statutory penalty. James
Anthony was only 16 years old when the crimes were committed. As penalty for the special
complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape is death,
the correct penalty to be imposed should be reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, the
penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion perpetua to death.
One degree lower from the said penalty is reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating
and mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed on him should be reclusion temporal
in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to
suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as minimum,
to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum. With
regard to the rest of the appellants, the statutory penalty as provided above should be
imposed. Therefore, trial court erred in merely imposing two (2) reclusiones perpetua.

Due process in a criminal prosecution

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.

People vs Garchitorena August 28, 2009

FACTS:
September 22, 1995 at around 9:00 in the evening. Dulce Borero along with his brother
Mauro Biay y Almarinez was selling balut as Sta. Inez Almeda Subdivision, Brgy. Dela paz,
Binan, Laguna. Dulce Borero was about seven (7) arms length away from her brother Mauro
Biay. Accused Jessie Garcia called Mauro Biay and as Mauro Biay approached Jessie, the
latter twisted the hand of Mauro and Jessies companions (co-accused) Arnold Gachitorena
and Joey Pamplona began stabbing Mauro repeatedly with a shiny blade instrument. Witness
saw her brother Mauro struggling to free himself while being stabbed by the (3) accused,
until her brother slumped face down on the ground. Arnold instructed his two co-accused to
run away. Borero claims she wanted to shout but nothing came out from her mouth. Witness
went home to call for her elder brother Teodoro Biay but when they return to the scene the
victim was no longer there as he had been brought to the Perpetual Help Hospital.
Joey Pamplona denied that he participated in the stabbing, Arnold Garchitorena claims for
insanity.

The trial court convicted the accused and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
trial court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision with modifications.
ISSUES:
WON there is a conspiracy on the case?
HELD:
Yes, accuse appelants were together in performing the concerted acts in pursuit of their
common objective. Jessie Garcia grabbed the victims hands and twisted his arms; in turn,
Joey Pamplona, together with Arnold Garchitorena strangled Mauro Biay and straddled Mauro
Biay on the ground, then stabbed him.

PEOPLE V. CARANDANG
FACTS:
According to the victims, on April 5, 2001, the drug enforcement unit of La Loma Police
Station received a request for assistance from the sister of accused Milan regarding a drug
deal about to take place in their house.
The station commander delegated tasks to interrogate the sister of Milan and to proceed to
the house in Calavite Street.

At around 4:00pm, the police went to the house and declared their presence. In the house
were the accused Henry Milan, Jackman Chua and Restituto Carandang. Upon hearing the
police arrival, Milan shut the door. PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open.
Suddenly gunshots were fired by Carandang which hit Alonzo and Red. SPO1 Monteclavo

was likewise hit but was only injured. Chua uttered to Milan, sugurin mo na!
Reinforcements came at 4:30 pm. Negotiations ensued. Milan was sent to the hospital
together with Monteclavo. Chua and Carandang remained in the house and demanded
certain persons to meet with. A paraffin test was conducted which yielded negative on Chua
while positive for Carandang.

According to the accused, he (Carandang) claims that he had no firearm. He was only in the
house of Milan to talk about his cellphones SIM card. And that successive gunshots erupted
while they remained hidden under the bed.
ISSUE: Whether or not Carandang, Milan, and Chua are guilty of two counts of murder and
one count of frustrated murder with conspiracy as a qualifying circumstance.
RULING: On April 22, 2003, the trial court rendered its Decision finding Carandang, Milan
and Chua guilty of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder. They were
found guilty for the killing of SPO2 Wilfredo Pilar Red and PO2 Dionisio Alonzo qualified by
treachery and acting in conspiracy with each other. Also the trial court found the accused
Restituto Carandang, Henry Milan and Jackman Chua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of frustrated murder, described and penalized under Article 249 in relation to Article 6,
paragraph 2, having acted in conspiracy with each other.
The Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court as to their costs and their
sentence.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification.
The appellants alleged that there is lack of direct evidence showing that they conspired with
Carandang during the latters act of shooting the policemen. Conspiracy exists when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. Evidence need not establish the actual agreement among the conspirators
showing a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the crime, which demonstrates
their unity of design and objective, is sufficient. When conspiracy is established, the act of
one is the act of all regardless of the degree of participation of each.
The act of closing the door by Milan gave Carandang ample time to move into a more
strategic position for gunfire. Chua likewise urged Milan to attack Monteclavo. The
circumstantial evidence supports the unity of purpose of the minds of the three. Appellants
further alleged that the incident occurred so rapidly that conspiracy is impossible to commit.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no requirement for conspiracy to exist that
there be sufficient period of time to elapse. Conspiracy arises from the very moment the
plotters agree to commit a felony.
G.R. No. 201860 January 22, 2014 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff -Appellee, vs.
MARCELINO DADAO, ANTONIO SULINDAO, EDDIE MALOGSI (deceased) and ALFEMIO
MALOGSI,* Accused-Appellants.
FACTS : Prosecutions first witness, Ronie Dacion, a 14-year old stepson of the victim, Pionio
Yacapin, testified that on July 11, 1993 at about 7:30 in the evening he saw accused
Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi and [A]lfemio Malogsi helping each other

and with the use of firearms and bolos, shot to death the victim, Pionio Yacapin in their
house at Barangay Salucot, Talakag, Bukidnon. The testimony of the second witness for the
prosecution, Edgar Dacion, a 12-year old stepson of the victim, corroborates the testimony
of his older brother Ronie Dacion. Prosecutions third witness, Nenita Yacapin, the widow of
the victim, also corroborates the testimony of the prosecutions first and second witness.
The said witness further testified that she suffered civil and moral damages [due to] the
death of her husband. After trial was concluded, a guilty verdict was handed down by the
trial court finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murdering Pionio Yacapin.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANTS OF THE
CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
HELD: NO [T]he issue raised by accused-appellant involves the credibility of [the] witness,
which is best addressed by the trial court, it being in a better position to decide such
question, having heard the witness and observed his demeanor, conduct, and attitude under
grueling examination. These are the most significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of
witnesses and in unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Given
the natural frailties of the human mind and its capacity to assimilate all material details of a
given incident, slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness hardly
weaken their probative value. It is well-settled that immaterial and insignificant details do
not discredit a testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on the very act
of accused-appellants. As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another
on material points, minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility.
Inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness.

Alibi It is a time honored principle in jurisprudence that positive identification prevails over
alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable.
Conspiracy: act of one is the act of all.
Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true.
Treachery Time and again, the Supreme Court has declared that treachery is present when
the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
Death of the Accused The death of the accused during the pendency of the case
extinguishes the criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto following Article 89(1) of the
Revised Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated May 16, 2011 of the Court of Appeals
in CAG.R. CR.H. C. No. 00364 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS

People v. Estanly Octa

Facts: 4 armed men stopped and boarded a Honda Civic car being driven by Johnny Corpuz
who was with his brother Mike Adrian Batuigas. Johnny was then forced to the backseat and
was blindfolded and handcuffed. The armed men first contacted Johnny's mother-in-law and
informed her that they were just on a trip. The victims were later brought to a safe house
where one of the kidnappers contacted Johnny's wife, Ana Marie Corpuz. Upon confirmation
that his husband was kidnapped, Ana Marie sought the assistance of the PACER where
several communications were had. The kidnappers demanded for a ransom of P20M but was
reduced to P538K. She was then instructed to meet a man with a red cap who would ask her
"saan yung padala ni boss". She saw the man but first asked for confirmation from one of
the kidnappers by talking to the man. The man with the red cap turned out to be the
accused and was described by Ana Marie as good looking, lightly built, in his early 20s
around 5'4" in height and with dimples. After the ransom was given, the victims were
released. The accused invoked the defense of denial and alibi and that he was a victim of
the kidnapping as well. On appeal, he argued that he was not a co-conspirator since he
cannot be considered as a conspirator to the kidnapping in the absence of concrete proof
that he actually participated in the execution of the essential elements of the crime by overt
acts indispensable to its accomplishment. His receipt of the ransom money transpired only
after the kidnapping had been consummated and was not an essential element of the crime.
Crime charged: Kidnapping for ransom
RTC: Guilty as charged
CA: Affirmed the RTC
Issue: Is the accused liable for the felony charged as a co-conspiratorz.
Held: Yes. As held in People v. Bautista: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Where all
the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense, and it is shown
by such acts that they had the same purpose or common design and were united in its
execution, conspiracy is sufficiently established. It must be shown that all participants
performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common
purpose or design to commit the felony. Evidently, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal
by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with
a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Taking these facts in
conjunction with the testimony of Dexter, who testified that accused-appellant was the one
who received the ransom money then the commonality of purpose of the acts of accusedappellant together with the other accused can no longer be denied. Such acts have the
common design or purpose to commit the felony of kidnapping for ransom.
Moreover, the CA is correct in its observation that at the time accused-appellant received
the ransom money, the crime of kidnapping was still continuing, since both victims were still
being illegally detained by the kidnappers. While his receipt of the ransom money was not a
material element of the crime, it was nevertheless part of the grand plan and was in fact the
main reason for kidnapping the victims. Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for the redemption of a captured person or persons; or payment that releases
from captivity. Without ransom money, the freedom of the detained victims cannot be
achieved.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
in C.A.G.R. CRH.C. No. 03490 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused appellant is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay P538,000 as actual
damages, P100,000 as moral damages, and P100,000 as exemplary damages.

People vs. Feliciano, Jr. (Not a digest)

Sigma Rho
In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like nighttime, it allows
the accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes.

As a general rule, a witness can testify only to the facts he knows of his personal knowledge
that is, which are derived from his own perception.

The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or escape.

members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to

1:00 p.m., they were having lunch at Beach House Canteen, located at the back of the Main
Library of the University of the Philippines

During the attack, he recognized one of the attackers as Robert Michael Beltran Alvir
because his mask fell off

res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact
and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the
main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.G. R. CR No. 01158 dated
November 26, 2010 is AFFIRMED

People V Morilla (Not a digest)

Act Illegal Transportation of Shabu The very act of transporting methamphetamine
hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law.
Trial court, sentencing them2 to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P10,000,000.00 each.

The court ruled that Dequillas and Yangs mere presence inside the vehicle as passengers
was inadequate to prove that they were also conspirators of Mayor Mitra, incumbent mayor
of the Municipality of Panukulan, Quezon Province, and Morilla.12

The Court of Appeals Decision On 13 July 2009, the appellate court affirmed the ruling of the
trial court

Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict
becomes eligible for pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual

special disqualification, etc. Life imprisonment, on the other hand, does not appear to have
any definite extent or duration and carries no accessory penalties.29 And, since reclusion
perpetua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment, and considering the rule that criminal
statutes with a favorable effect to the accused, have, as to him, a retroactive effect,

AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION

People v Bokingco
Evident Premeditation
(a) the time when the offender was determined to commit the crime
(b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination and
(c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
Issues:
Whether or not the crime perpetuated by Appellants was done with conspiracy.
Whether or not, Renante Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator.
Held:
The crime, according to the SC, was not performed with conspiracy. Though Bokingco
admitted thru uncounselled admission that they conspired to kill Passion, absence of
quantum of proof to prove the same on the part of the prosecution will not make the case
prosper. Moreover, the uncounselled admission is inadmissible as proof or evidence against
the appellants.

In order for the accused to be convicted as conspirators beyond reasonable doubt of Murder,
according to SC, it is necessary that conspiracy between Col and Bokingco must be proven.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit an unlawful
act. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the
commission of the crime. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which
the offense was perpetuated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or
common purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest
In the case under consideration, the testimony of Elsa is not sufficient to prove that the
accused conspired to kill Pasion. At most, Cols actuation can be equated to attempted
robbery. Furthermore, the testimony of Elsa that she heard Bokingco called out for Col that
Pasion had been killed and that they had to leave the place does not prove that they acted
in concert towards the consummation of the crime. It only proves, at best, that there were
two crimes committed simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to escape from
the crime they simultaneously committed. Also there was no unity in their acts since
Bokingco had already killed Pasion while Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop.
With these, Renante Col was acquitted of the co-conspirator in the crime of murder on the
ground of reasonable doubt.
Nota Bene:
RTC- Appellants guilty of Murder, Death Penalty (December 16, 2004)
CA- Affirmed the decision of the RTC but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua (July 24,
2008) See amount of damages
SC- Bokingco guilty of Homicide, Col Acquitted, See penalty and damages

PEOPLE VS. CASTILLO, G.R. NO. 132895, March 10, 2004

FACTS:
Who:
Appellant - Elizabeth Castillo (principal), Evangeline Padayhag (co-principal) and Imelda
Castillo Wenceslao (accessory)
Appellee - Solicitor General
o Kidnapped- "Rocky" or Horacio Cebrero IV (6 years old)
o Parents - Luis Cabrero and Sandra Cabrero
Where: Paranaque, Manila
Appellant Elizabeth Castillo

Castillo asserts that the victims parents did not pay her wages when she worked as a maid
of the victims family. She claims that it was this injustice, her educational level and her
ignorance of the law, which impelled her to take Rocky. Castillo insists that she took Rocky
simply because she missed him, and wanted to spend time with him. Castillo also points out
that Rocky came along freely with them, was not harmed, and was even cared for during his
detention.
Appellant Evangeline Padayhag
Padayhag asserts that she doesnt have knowlege of Castillos plans. She met Castillo only
because Castillo told her that her boyfriend is sick. When Castillo asked her to fetch Rocky,
she did so believing that Castillo misses the boy, as the former told her.
Appellee
March 1, 1995, Rosanna Baria (victim's yaya) and Femie(another housemaid), bathed and
prepared Rocky (victim). The parents advised Baria that someone would fetch Rocky. At 8:00
am, a tricycle arrived and on-board was Evangeline Padayhag (accused co-principal). They
went to a nearby Mcdonald's and joined by Elizabeth Castillo (principal). At 5:30 PM, Luis
Cabrero arrived home from work. DJ (other son) informed him that Rocky did not attend
school. Baria said that Rocky was fetched by a woman to attend a birthday party. Mr.
Cabrero went to police station and report his missing son.At 7:30 PM, a woman called asking
for the ATM in exchange of his son. March 2, 1995 - A woman called asking for 1 million
pesos. Mr. Cabrero said he doesn't have that money. On March 3, 1995 - No call. Mr. Cabrero
as his wife to raise money and was able to withdrew P800,000. The bank provided the serial
nos. of the money.
March 4, 1995 - 9:30 PM - The woman called again and asked for the ransom. Mr. Cabrero
said he only has half. The woman agreed and instructed them to be in Paco, Obando,
Bulacan at 2AM. A stakeout operations by Major Ronnie Eleazar was organized. At 11PM, in
front of the Sabadista chapel, a car arrived. A man alighted, left the bag in front of the
chapel and immediately left. About 40 mins after, two woman collected the bag and
disappeared. The policie lost the suspects but have identified Castillo and Padayhag.
March 5, 1995 at 9PM, tricycle stopped in front of Mr. Cabreros house and found that is
was his son who knocked. On March 12, 1995 Police found Padayhag, who surrendered
herself to clear her name. On March 18, 1995 Police captured Castillo in Mitimos, Rizal,
Zamboanga City and found the ransom money, matching the serial numbers provided by the
bank.
ISSUE:
WON Padayahags actions is considered conspiracy for the kidnapping and illegal detention
of the victim?
HELD:
RTC: Qualified Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, sentencing them with death penalty
Supreme Court:

 On Castillo - Affirmed with Modification. Appellant Elizabeth Castillo is sentenced to suffer

the penalty of DEATH and to pay the victim P100,000 as moral damages. The award for
exemplary damages is deleted for lack of legal basis.
On Padayhag Reversed and Acquitted.
Padayhags sole involvement in this entire episode is her act of fetching Rocky and bringing
him to where Castillo was waiting for them. Padayhag then went strolling with the two, went
to the house of Castillos sister together with Castillo and Rocky, and then later left the
house. From this fact alone, the prosecution would have us rule that Padayhag acted in
conspiracy with Castillo. The prosecution contends that without Padayhags help, Castillo
could not have abducted Rocky. Padayhags acts before, during and after the crime all point
to the conclusion that she was no more than an unwitting tool of Castillo. Castillo misled her
into a meeting. Castillo again misled her into fetching Rocky. Castillo never met or contacted
her after the day of Rockys abduction. Castillo also testified that she did not bring Padayhag
along with her when she went to Obando on the day that coincided with the pay-off. The
only circumstance linking Padayhag to that event is the shaky account of two police officers
who admitted that their quarry inexplicably disappeared before their very eyes. Even the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, by itself, cannot prevail over
the constitutional presumption of innocence.Nothing links Padayhag to the demand for
ransom. She never received any part of the ransom, precisely because she did not even
know it existed.
There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag acted in concert with Castillo
to commit the same criminal act. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy,
there must be a sufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly and definitely links the
accused to the commission of the crime without any space for baseless suppositions or
frenzied theories to filter through.
Conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors: (1) singularity of intent; and (2)
unity in execution of an unlawful objective. The two must concur. Performance of an act that
contributes to the goal of another is not enough. The act must be motivated by the same
unlawful intent. Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient indicium of
conspiracy, unless proved to have been motivated by a common design
In the absence of conspiracy, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two
or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty
and is not sufficient to support a conviction.
A criminal conviction must stand on the strength of the evidence presented by the
prosecution, and not on the weakness of the defense of the accused. The prosecution should
have done more to establish Padayhags guilt. Instead, the prosecution left a lot of room for
other possible scenarios besides her guilt.
The presumption of innocence can be overborne only by proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, which means proof, to the satisfaction of the court and keeping in mind the
presumption of innocence, as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it is
given to support. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though
strong, that the fact charged is more likely true than the contrary. It must establish the truth

of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty- a certainty that convinces and satisfies the
reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it.

Fernan, Jr. vs. People (not really a digest)

For estafa
Deceit: Deceit is a specie of fraud. It is actual fraud, and consists in any false representation
or contrivance whereby one person overreaches and misleads another, to his hurt. There is
deceit when one is misled, either by guile or trickery or by other means, to believe to be true
what is really false.24
Damage: Damage may consist in the offended party being deprived of his money or
property as a result of the defraudation, disturbance in property right, or temporary
prejudice.25
For falsification
That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;
That he takes advantage of his official position;
That he falsifies a document by committing any of the acts defined under Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code.26
The State is not tasked to adduce direct proof of the agreement by petitioners with the other
accused, for such requirement, in many cases, would border on near impossibility. The State
needs to adduce proof only when the accused committed acts that constitute a vital
connection to the chain of conspiracy or in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy.
Thus, it is clear that without the tally sheets and delivery receipts, the general voucher
cannot be prepared and completed. Without the general voucher, the check for the payment
of the supply cannot be made and issued to the supplier. Without the check payment, the
defraudation cannot be committed and successfully consummated. Thus, petitioners acts in
signing the false tally sheets and/or delivery receipts are indispensable to the consummation
of the crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the December 4, 1997 Decision of the SB in
the consolidated criminal cases subject of this petition.

GoTan vs. Tan (not a digest)

Friday, 16 September 2016
7:57 PM

While Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 provides that the offender be related or connected to the
victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude
the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. The crime of violence against
women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:
xxx
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that
alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child
SEC. 8. Protection Orders.x x x The protection orders that may be issued under this Act
shall include any, some or all of the following reliefs:
(a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing, personally or
through another, any of the acts mentioned in Section 5 of this Act;
(b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or
otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly; x x x (Emphasis
supplied)

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated March 7, 2005
and July 11, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q0554536 are hereby PARTLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the dismissal of the petition
against respondents is concerned.
SO ORDERED.