6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

ENBANC

G.R.No.169962

PEOPLEOFTHE

(FormerlyG.R.No.157022)
PHILIPPINES,

Appellee,
Present:

PUNO,C.J.,

QUISUMBING,

YNARESSANTIAGO,

SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,*

CARPIO,

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
versus
CORONA,

CARPIOMORALES,

AZCUNA,

TINGA,

CHICONAZARIO,

GARCIA,

VELASCO,JR.,and

NACHURA,JJ.

Promulgated:
RAULCENAHONON,

Appellant.
July12,2007
xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

[1]
Before us is the Decision dated June 3, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the
Decision

[2]
datedOctober20,2001oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofParaaqueCity,

Branch 259, in Criminal Case No. 99248, both finding accused Raul Cenahonon
(Cenahonon) and Ranilo Erdaje (Erdaje) guilty of kidnapping for ransom and imposing
uponthemthedeathpenalty.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

1/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

[3]
ThecasearosefromtheInformation datedNovember29,1999,theaccusatoryportion
ofwhichreads:

ThatonoraboutNovember25,1999inParaaqueCityandwithinthejurisdictionofthis
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helpingoneanother,didthenandthere,byforceandintimidation,andwiththeuseofa
gun, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, carry away and deprive KENNETH
MEDINA of his liberty against his will for the purpose of extorting money as in fact a
demandformoneywasmadeasaconditionforhisrelease.

CONTRARYTOLAW.

Upon arraignment, both accused pled "not guilty." Thereafter, Erdaje escaped from
detentionand,thus,wastriedinabsentia.

Thefacts,asestablishedbytheprosecutionevidence,areasfollows:

On November 25, 1999, around 9:00 a.m., Jometh Magaway (Magaway), the driver of
spousesFortunatoandDaisyMedina,wasdrivingaredHondaCRV(CRV)bearingplate
numberWPP502outoftheMedinaresidenceinBFHomes,ParaaqueCity,tobringthe
couplesfouryearoldson,Kenneth,toschool.Aman,lateridentifiedasErdaje,suddenly
approached, poked a gun at Magaway, opened the vehicle door, and told Magaway to
move over from the driver's seat. Magaway followed and sat with Kenneth at the front
passengerseat.Erdaje'scompanion,lateridentifiedasCenahonon,occupiedthebackseat.
ErdajehandedtheguntoCenahonon,whopokeditatMagawayfrombehind.Erdajethen
drovethecaraway.

[4]

ThemaidoftheMedinas,whosawtheincident,immediatelyreportedtoFortunato,then
descending from the house, what happened. Fortunato tried to intercept the CRV at the
village gate, but failed. He returned home and called Daisy at their office in Alabang,
MuntinlupaCity.HetoldherabouttheincidentandinstructedhertocallthePresidential
AntiOrganizedCrimeTaskForce(PAOCTF).He,inturn,calledtheParaaqueCityPolice
Department.

[5]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

2/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

Meanwhile, inside the CRV, both accused informed Magaway that they would call the
MedinafamilytodemandaP5millionransom.UponreachingLasPiasCity,theformer
[6]

orderedMagawaytoalight.

Magaway proceeded to Medina's office in Alabang and related to Daisy how

[7]
Daisy instructed Magaway to return to the Medina residence

Kenneth was abducted.

[8]

wheretheParaaquePoliceandthePAOCTFmenwerewaiting.

Around1:00p.m.thatday,somebodycalledtheMedinaresidenceandtalkedtoFortunato.
Aspeakerphonewasusedsoeveryoneinthehouseheardthetelephoneconversation.The
caller demanded P5,000,000.00 for Kenneth's release. A PAOCTF member instructed
Fortunatotonegotiate.Thecallermadeseveralcallsthatsameafternoontonegotiatefor
theransom.

Atabout6:00p.m.,thecalleragreedtoreducetheransomtoP100,000.00.He instructed
FortunatotoputthemoneyinablackplasticbagandgiveittoMagawaywhowouldthen
turnitoveratMonElVillagealongSucatAvenueneartheBaliwagLechonManokstall,
inexchangeforthekeysoftheCRV,withKennethinsidethecar.

[9]

Sr.InspectorEdgarAllanOkubo(Okubo)ofthePAOCTFandhisteamplacedtheboodle
money inside a black plastic bag and gave it to Magaway. Magaway proceeded to the
appointedplaceaboardaTamarawFXvehicle(TamarawFX)oftheMedinas,drivenbya
PAOCTF operative. Two teams were dispatched to follow the Tamaraw FX. Okubo led
[10]
oneteamwhileSr.InspectorLoretoDelelis(Delelis)ledtheother.
Bothteamsparked
theirunmarkedvehiclesinfrontoftheMcDonald'srestaurantbesideMonElVillage.The
TamarawFXwasparkedinfrontoftheBaliwagLechonManokstall.

[11]

Ataround8:00p.m.,ErdajearrivedandapproachedtheTamarawFX.Magawaygotdown
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

3/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

andgavethebagofboodlemoneytohim.Uponreceipt,Erdajeleftwithoutturningover
[12]
the keys of the CRV.
Okubo and the PAOCTF operatives saw Erdaje board a dark
grayGeminisedan(Gemini)parkedinfrontofMcDonald's.ThePAOCTFoperativesthen
followed the Gemini towards the Sucat Airport road. Meanwhile, Magaway and his
[13]
companionreturnedtotheMedinaresidence.

The PAOCTF operatives pursued the Gemini to a house in Barangay Molino, Bacoor,
Cavite.Erdajealightedfromthecarandwentinsidethehouse.Afterafewminutes,heleft
and drove away. Okubo ordered Delelis' team to tail Erdaje while his team stayed and
knocked at the door of the house. Elizabeth Alamag (Alamag) answered. The team
introducedthemselvesandaskedfortheidentityofthemanwhojustleft.Alamagreplied
thatthemanisheruncle,RaniloErdaje,whowaslookingforCenahononandachild.She
[14]

informedtheoperativesthatshetoldErdajethatbothwereinTreceMartires,Cavite.

OkuboinformedAlamagthattheyweresearchingforkidnapvictimKennethMedinawho
probably was the same child Erdaje was looking for. Okubo asked Alamag to cooperate
[15]
Alamagaccededandnarratedthatthatmorning,Erdaje

andtellthemwhatsheknew.

requested her to allow the boy to stay for some time because his friend Cenahonon,
allegedlythechild'sfather,andthelatter'swifewerefightingovertheboy'scustody.She
refusedbutadvisedErdajetobringtheboytohermother'shouseinTreceMartires.When
Erdajeaskedhertoaccompanyhim,sheobliged.OntheirwaytoCavite,shemettheboy
andCenahononinsidethecar.Theboywascryingandlookingforhismother.At Trece
Martires, Alamag sought the permission of her stepfather to allow Cenahonon and the
child to stay in their house. The stepfather agreed. Thereafter, Erdaje left. Alamag went
[16]
homealittlelater.

[17]
Alamag volunteered to accompany the PAOCTF team to her mother's house.
When
[18]
they arrived there, Delelis' team had already surrounded the area.
The Gemini was
parkedalongsidethecarnappedCRVnearby.Theoperativesthenraidedthehouse,safely
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

4/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

rescuedKenneth,andarrestedErdajeandCenahonon.Theteamtookthemtotheiroffice
in Camp Crame, Quezon City. At about 10:30 p.m. that evening, Okubo phoned his
superior, Col. Agustin, then at the Medina residence, and informed him that they had
[19]

alreadyrescuedKenneth.

The next day, November 26, 1999, Magaway and Kenneth identified Erdaje and
[20]
Cenahononastheirabductorsinapolicelineup.

Assolewitnessforthedefense,Cenahonontestifiedthat,around9:00a.m.ofNovember
25,1999,hereportedforworkasacarpenterinIndang,TreceMartires,Cavite.Later, at
around 11:00 a.m., he excused himself from his employer to go to the market and buy
something.Ashewasabouttoleavethemarket,somebodytappedhisshoulder,pokeda
gunathim,andblindfoldedhim.Hewasforcedinsideavehicleandtakentoanunknown
place.Whentheyarrivedattheirdestination,theblindfoldwasremovedandCenahonon
saw three armed men in fatigue pants. The armed men brought him to a small house.
There, the men took his short pants and wallet and ordered him to take care of a child.
Thatnight,hewasarrestedwithoutawarrantbythePAOCTF.Thethreearmedmenwho
earlier took him were nowhere at the time of the arrest. The PAOCTF brought him to
[21]
CampCrameandtherehemetforthefirsttimehiscoaccusedErdaje.
[22]
dated October 20, 2001, the trial court found Cenahonon and Erdaje

In its Decision

guiltyofkidnappingforransomandmetedtothemthepenaltyofdeathbylethalinjection.
Thedispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,PREMISESCONSIDERED,findingRaulCenahononandRaniloErdaje
GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofKidnappingforRansomasdefinedand
penalizedunderArt.267oftheRevisedPenalCodeasamendedbyRA7659particularly
the penultimate paragraph thereof, with reference to Kidnapping committed for the
purposeofextortingmoneyfromthevictimoranyotherperson,bothaccusedarehereby
sentencedtothesupremepenaltyofdeathbylethalinjectionandtosuffertheaccessory
penaltiesprovidedbylawspecificallyArt.40oftheRevisedPenalCode.

TheClerkofCourtisdirectedtopreparetheMittimusfortheimmediatetransferofRaul
CenahonontotheNewBilibidPrisons,MuntinlupaCityfrom[the]ParaaqueCityJailand
toprepareanaliasWarrantofArrestforRaniloErdajewhoisnowconsideredafugitive
fromjustice.TheClerkofCourtisalsodirectedtoforwardalltherecordstotheSupreme
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

5/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

CourtforautomaticreviewinaccordancewithSection9,Rule122oftheRevisedRulesof
CourtandArt.47oftheRevisedPenalCodeasamendedbySection22ofRA7659.

[23]
SOORDERED.

ThiscasewaselevatedforautomaticreviewtothisCourtandoriginallydocketedasG.R.
No. 157022. The Public Attorney's Office (PAO) filed an appellants' brief for both
Cenahonon and Erdaje.

[24]
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the
[25]
Accusedappellants,

PeopleofthePhilippines,filedthecorrespondingappellee'sbrief.
[26]
thruthePAO,filedtheirreplybrief.

InaResolution

[27]
datedOctober12,2004,thisCourttransferredtherecordsofthecase

totheCAforappropriateactionanddispositionpursuanttoPeopleofthePhilippinesv.
EfrenMateo

[28]
whichmodifiedSections3and10ofRule122,Section13ofRule124,

andSection3ofRule125,alloftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedure,andallowed
intermediatereviewbytheCourtofAppeals.

Uponreview,theCArendereditsDecision

[29]
datedJune3,2005,affirmingintoto the

decisionofthetrialcourt,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October20,2001 of the Regional Trial Court of the
CityofParaaque, Branch 259, in Criminal Case No. 99248, finding accusedappellants
Raul Cenahonon and Ranilo Erdaje guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
kidnappingforransomandimposinguponthemthedeathpenaltyisAFFIRMED.

[30]
SOORDERED.

Upon elevation of this case back to this Court, now docketed as G.R. No. 169962, the
parties were directed to file their respective supplemental briefs within thirty (30) days
fromnotice,iftheysodesired.

[31]

ThePeople,thrutheOSG,movedthatitsbriefalready

filedbeadoptedasitssupplementalbrief.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

[32]
However,onlyCenahonon,thruthePAO,
6/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

[33]

prayedthatappellants'brieffiledearlierbeadoptedashissupplementalbrief.

ItmustberememberedthatErdajeescapedfromjailafterhisarraignment.Thetrialcourt
triedhiminabsentia,foundhimguiltyofthecrimechargedtogetherwithCenahonon,and
likewisesentencedhimtodeath.WhileitappearsthatCenahononistheloneappellantin
[34]
this case, this Court, in line with its ruling in People v. Esparas
and in subsequent
[35]
similarcases,
ismandatedbylawtoautomaticallyreviewtheconvictionandthedeath
sentence imposed on both Cenahonon and Erdaje, and promulgate the appropriate
judgment.AsthebriefdraftedbythePAOwasinitiallyfiledforbothaccused,theCourt
will also consider the same with respect to Erdaje. Further, as the entire case is thrown
openforscrutiny,itisthedutyofthisCourttocorrectanyerror,ifany,thatmaybefound
in the judgment under review, whether or not an appeal brief is filed, and if there is,
whetherornotsucherrorisassigned.

Thus,forreviewisthefollowingassignmentoferrors:

I.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED

APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTIONTOPROVETHEIRGUILTBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.

II.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS

CONSPIRACYINTHECASEATBAR.

Cenahonon assails the credibility of prosecution witnesses Jometh Magaway and

ElizabethAlamag.Hepointstocertaininconsistencieswhich,accordingtohim,discredit
theirtestimony.

Firstly, Cenahonon claims that Magaway, on direct examination pointed to him as the
personwhoapproachedhim,pokedagunathim,demandedthathetransfertothefront
passenger seat, and drove the CRV away from the Medina residence but, on cross
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

7/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

examination, testified that it was Erdaje, the person who collected the money from him,
whopokedthegunathim,demandedhistransfer,anddrovethevehiclewiththeboy.

Secondly, Cenahonon points out that Alamag testified that she voluntarily accompanied
himandtheboytohermother'shouseandwasnotthreatenedbyheruncle,Erdaje,butshe
alsoaffirmedthecontentsofheraffidavitwhereinshestatedthatherunclethreatenedher.

Theargumentdoesnotpersuade.

AscorrectlyobservedbytheOSGandasfoundbytheCA,theallegedinconsistenciesin
the testimony of Magaway are more apparent than real. Indeed, Magaway committed a
mistakeinidentifyingthepersonwhopokedthegunathimanddrovetheCRVawaywith
thechild.Noteworthyisthat,onredirectexamination,hewasabletoexplaintheapparent
inconsistency,andcorrectthemistakeinthiswise:

Q:Mr.witness,inyouranswerinthistranscriptofstenographicnotesdatedJune8,2000
onpage8thereof,yousaidthattheonewhodirectedyoutotransfertotheright
portionofthecar,inthefrontside,andalsotheonewhodrovethecarwasoneof
the accused named Raul Cenahonon. In the transcript, you said that. Now when
you were asked by the defense counsel who directed you to transfer to the right
portionofthefrontseatofthecarandtheonewhodrovethecar,youranswerwas
thepersonwhoisnotpresenthereincourt,orthatitwasnotRaulCenahonon.My
questionis,whydidyousayinyourstatementheremadeonJune8,2000thatit
was Raul Cenahonon who drove the car and the one who also ordered you to
transfertotherightportionofthecar?

A:Because Fiscal Macapagal mentioned the name, sir.I only knew them by their faces
kayanalilitopoako.

Q:Andyousaidalsothattheonewhoisnotpresenthereincourtwastheonewhopoked
agunatyouandtheonewhodrovethecar.Now,whilethatpersonwasdrivingthe
car,didyoucometoknowwhereheplacedthegunthatwaspokedonyou?

A:Hehandedittohisothercompanion,sir.

Q:Andthatcompanionorthatpersonisnotpresentincourt,ishepresentinthisoffice?

ATTY.OCTAVA:

Your Honor please, matters that have to be taken by during redirect examination are
matters that have been taken up during the crossexamination.And these matters
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

8/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

werenottakenupduringthecrossexamination,yourHonor.

STATEPROS.MACAPAGAL:

It is material, your Honor, because there was a mistake committed by the witness on
identifying who poked the gun and drove the car because I mentioned, this
representation happened to mention the name of the accused which he did not
know.Now, I'm clarifying the matter by making the witness point to that person
who was then the companion of the one who is not present in court, for the
clarificationoftheHonorableCourt.

ATTY.OCTAVA:

Bytheway,yourHonor,Ihavevividlyaskedthewitnessawhileagothatifthatstatement
hemadebeforewasnottrueandheaffirmed,yourHonor.Heaffirmedthathewas
lying.

STATEPROS.MACAPAGAL:

No. There was no affirmation that he was lying. It is just that he committed a mistake
becausethisrepresentationmentionedthenamewhichhedidnotknow.

COURT:

Mayanswer.

A:Yes,ma'am.Heishere.

STATEPROS.MACAPAGAL:

Q:Willyoupleasepointtohim?

A: Siya po. (Witness pointed to a person who, when asked his name, answered Raul
Cenahonon).

Q:Andwhatdidthatpersonwhomyoupointeddotothegun?

A:Hepokedthegunattheleftportionofmywaist,sir.

Q:Sotheonewhopokedthegunonyouwhileyouwerealreadyonboardthecarandthat
theonewhoisnotpresentwasdrivingthecarawayisthepersonwhomyoujust
identifiedhereincourt?

[36]
A:Yes,ma'am.

What Magaway made was an honest mistake that does not destroy his credibility as a
witness.Eventhemosttruthfulwitnesscancommiterrors,butsuchinnocentlapsesdonot
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

9/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

necessarilyaffecthiscredibility.Thetestimoniesofwitnessesmustbecalibratedintheir
entirety,notmerelybytheirtruncatedportionsorisolatedpassages.

[37]

Similarly, the truthfulness of Alamag's testimony is not affected by the alleged

inconsistency as to whether she was threatened or not by her uncle (Erdaje). The
discrepancyisofsuchaminornaturethatitdoesnotbelietheoccurrenceoftheabduction
of Kenneth Medina by Cenahonon and Erdaje. In fact, such trivial inconsistencies even
serve to strengthen the case of the prosecution as they erase suspicion of a rehearsed or
[38]
perjuredtestimony.

In this case, both Magaway and Alamag proved to be credible witnesses as there was
nothingtoshowthattheywereactuatedbyanyillmotivetotestifyagainstCenahononand
Erdaje.Hence,thepresumptionthatthesewitnesseswerenotmovedbyimpropermotive
orbias,andthus,entitledtofullfaithandcredit,holds.

[39]

Ontheotherhand,Cenahononinterposedthedefensesofalibianddenial,statingthathe
was merely coerced to take care of Kenneth and that he met Erdaje for the first time at
Camp Crame. Ranged against this lame excuse is the positive identification of both
accusedbyMagawayandbyKennethhimself.

MagawayandKennethidentifiedbothCenahononandErdajeasthekidnappersina
policelineupthedayfollowingthekidnapping.

[40]
Followingthe"totalitytestrule"laid

down in People of the Philippines v. Teehankee,

[41]
this outofcourt identification is

admissibleandreliable.Indeed,Magawayhadsufficienttimetofamiliarizehimselfwith
CenahononandErdajewhenheandKennethweretakenonboardtheCRV,andmoreso
with Erdaje when the latter collected the boodle money from him. There was a short
interval of time between the abduction on November 25, 1999 and the police lineup
identificationonNovember26,1999.KennethMedina,thekidnapvictimhimself,andat
his young age, reinforced Magaways identification of Cenahonon and Erdaje as the
abductors.Itisnaturalforvictimstostrivetorecallthefacesoftheculpritsandhowthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

10/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

[42]
crimewascommittedagainstthem.

During trial, however, only Cenahonon was positively identified by Magaway, as

Erdajehadalreadyescapedfromprison.

Anaffirmativetestimonymeritsgreaterweightthananegativeone,especiallywhenthe
former comes from a credible witness. Categorical and positive identification of an
accused, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the witness testifying on the
matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and selfserving evidence
undeservingofrealweightinlawunlesssubstantiatedbyclearandconvincingevidence.
[43]

In this case, Cenahonon's version that he was forced to take care of the kidnap
victimissimplyunbelievable.Fortestimonytobebelieved,itshouldnotonlycomefrom
[44]
a credible witness but must also be credible in itself.
It would be inconceivable that
kidnapperswouldentrusttheperformanceofanessentialandsensitivephaseoftheirwell
planned scheme to people not in collaboration with them, and who had no knowledge
[45]
whatsoever of the details of their reprehensible plan.
Cenahonons narrative even
strengthens the prosecutions case, as it partakes of an admission that he participated in
deprivingthechildofhisliberty.

Cenahonon also points out in the reply brief that it was incredulous for him and
Erdaje to release Magaway after the latter had seen their faces. According to him, it is
[46]

unnaturalforcriminalstorisktheiridentification.

The contention lacks merit. Following this line, if they were careful not to risk
identification,thentheyshouldhavewornmasksinthefirstplace.Whatoccurred,andas
wasprovenduringtrial,wasnotimprobableorunnatural.

It should also be remembered that Erdaje escaped from prison after he was duly
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

11/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

arraigned.Hisflightcanonlybeindicativeofhisguilt.Flightmeanstheactofevadingthe
naturalcourseofjusticebyvoluntarilywithdrawingoneselftoavoidarrest,detention,or
theinstitutionorcontinuanceofcriminalproceedings.Injurisprudence,ithasalwaysbeen
a strong indication of guilt betraying a desire to evade responsibility.
consistentwithaclaimofinnocence.

[47]
It is hardly

[48]

In fine, there is no showing that the lower court has overlooked, misunderstood, or
misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would warrant the
reversal of the conviction. Further, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the
trialcourtisbindingandconclusiveonappealbecausethetrialcourthadtheopportunity
to evaluate conflicting testimonies and observe the demeanor of witnesses while on the
[49]
stand.

Asregardstheissueofconspiracy,theprosecutionhasprofferedsufficientevidencethat
Cenahonon and Erdaje had unity of purpose in the perpetration of the kidnapping for
ransom of Kenneth Medina. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreementconcerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitit.

[50]
Whileitis

mandatory to prove it by competent evidence, direct proof is not essential to show

conspiracyitmaybededucedfromthemode,method,andmannerbywhichtheoffense
wasperpetrated,orinferredfromtheactsoftheaccusedthemselveswhensuchactspoint
toajointpurposeanddesign,concertedactionandcommunityofinterest.

[51]

CenahononandErdajewereshowntohaveclearlyactedtowardsacommongoaltoabduct
KennethMedinaandtoextortransomfromhisfamily.ItwasErdajewhodrovetheCRV
while Cenahonon poked a gun at Magaway from the back seat. They took Kenneth to
AlamaginMolino,Bacoor,Cavite,whereCenahononposedasthefatheroftheboy,and
then proceeded to the house Alamag's mother in Trece Martires, Cavite. Erdaje left
CenahononandKennethtocollecttheransomfromtheMedinaspousesandlaterreturned
tothathouseinTreceMartires.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

12/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

TheelementsofkidnappingforransomunderArticle267

[52]
oftheRevisedPenalCode

(RPC),asamendedbyRepublicAct(R.A.)7659warrantingtheimpositionofthedeath
penalty, are as follows: (a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his
liberty(b)actualdeprivationofthevictimofhislibertyand(c)motiveoftheaccused,
[53]
whichisextortingransomforthereleaseofthevictim.
Neitheractualdemandfornor
paymentofransomisnecessaryfortheconsummationofthefelony.Itissufficientthatthe
deprivation of liberty was for extorting ransom even if none of the four circumstances
mentionedinArticle267werepresentinitsperpetration.

[54]

Based on the evidence proven during trial and as above discussed, the elements of the
crimewerepresent.Necessarily,theassaileddecisionsshouldbeaffirmed.However,with
[55]
prohibitingtheimpositionofthedeathpenalty,Cenahonon

theadventofR.A.9346,

and Erdaje should be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory
[56]
penaltiesandwithouteligibilityforparoleunderAct4103,
asamended.

WHEREFORE,theDecisiondatedOctober20,2001inCriminalCaseNo.99248ofthe
RTC, Branch 259, Paraaque City, finding Raul Cenahonon and Ranilo Erdaje guilty of
kidnapping for ransom of Kenneth Medina, and the Decision dated June 3, 2005 of the
CA, affirming in toto the Decision of the RTC, are AFFIRMED. On Cenahonon and
Erdajeisimposed,inlieuofthedeathpenaltybylethalinjection,thepenaltyofreclusion
perpetuawithallitsappurtenantaccessorypenaltiesandwithouteligibilityforparole.

PursuanttoSection4ofR.A.9346,inrelationtoArticle83oftheRPC,lettherecordsof
this case be forwarded to the President of the Philippines for the possible grant of
executiveclemency.

[57]

CostsagainstappellantCenahonon.

SOORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

13/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

(OnLeave)
ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ
AssociateJustice

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

14/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsinthe
abovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriter
oftheopinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*Onleave.
[1]

PennedbyAssociateJusticeAuroraSantiagoLagman,withAssociateJusticesConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.andRebeccade
GuiaSalvador,concurringrollo,pp.319.
[2]
Rollo(G.R.No.157022),pp.1519.
[3]
Records,pp.12.
[4]
TSN,June8,2000,pp.47,813TSN,August23,2000,pp.716.
[5]
TSN,July11,2000,p.7TSN,August23,2000,pp.3137.
[6]
TSN,June8,2000,pp.1417.
[7]
Id.at1824.
[8]
TSN,July11,2000,p.3.

[9]
Id.at411TSN,August23,2000,pp.2123,3742.
[10]
TSN,October12,2000,pp.1521.
[11]
Id.at2021TSN,December6,2000,p.20.
[12]
TSN,July11,2000,pp.13,17id.at2125.
[13]
Id.at16TSN,October12,2000,pp.2325.
[14]
TSN,April18,2000,p.16id.at2629.
[15]
TSN,October12,2000,p.30.
[16]
TSN,April18,2001,pp.614.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

15/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

[17]
TSN,October12,2000,pp.2132.
[18]
TSN,April18,2001,p.21.
[19]
TSN,October12,2000,pp.3340.
[20]
TSN,August23,2000,pp.4749.
[21]
TSN,July12,2001,pp.415.
[22]
Rollo(G.R.No.157022),pp.1519.
[23]
Id.at19.
[24]
Id.at3849.
[25]
Id.at70107.
[26]
Id.at116120.
[27]
Rollo(G.R.No.169962),p.2.
[28]
G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640.
[29]
Rollo(G.R.No.169962),pp.319.
[30]
Id.at1819.
[31]
OrderdatedDecember6,2005,id.at20.
[32]
OSG'sManifestationandMotionforLeavetoAdoptBriefasSupplementalBrief,id.at2123.
[33]
Manifestation(InLieuofSupplementalBrief),id.at2527.
[34]
329 Phil. 339, 347 (1996) (Resolution) 354 Phil. 342 (1998) (Decision). Citing U.S. v. Laguna, et al. (17 Phil. 533
[1910]),theCourtheldthatthepowertoreviewadecisionimposingthedeathpenaltyremainsautomaticandmandatoryand
cannotbewaivedeitherbytheaccusedorbythecourts.Inthiscase,theaccusedhasabsconded.
[35]
PleaseseePeoplev.Latayada,467Phil.682(2004)People v. Abes, 465Phil.165,180(2004)People v. Ferrer, 454
Phil.431,451(2003)Peoplev.Oranza,434Phil.417,424(2002)Peoplev.Palabrica,409Phil.618,627(2001)Peoplev.
Aquino, 385 Phil. 887, 899 (2000)Peoplev.Raquio,374 Phil. 283, 292 (1999) and People v. Prades, 355 Phil. 150, 160
(1998).
[36]
TSN,August23,2000,pp.2430.
[37]
Yuchengcov.Sandiganbayan,G.R.Nos.149802,150320,150367,153207&153459,January20,2006,479SCRA1,39
Peoplev.Castillano,Sr.,448Phil.482,506507(2003).
[38]
Peoplev.Salimbago,373Phil.56,65(1999).
[39]
Peoplev.Mamarion,459Phil.51,87(2003).
[40]
TSN,August23,2000,pp.4749.
[41]
319Phil.128,180(1995).SeealsoPeoplev.Arellano,397Phil.307,322(2000)."Inresolvingtheadmissibilityofand
relyingonoutofcourtidentificationofsuspects,courtshaveadoptedthetotalityofcircumstancestestwheretheyconsiderthe
following factors, viz.: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime (2) the witness' degree of
attentionatthattime(3)theaccuracyofanypriordescriptiongivenbythewitness(4)thelevelofcertaintydemonstratedby
thewitnessattheidentification(5)thelengthoftimebetweenthecrimeandtheidentificationand(6)thesuggestivenessof
theidentificationprocedure."
[42]
Peoplev.Bacungay,428Phil.798,811(2002).
[43]
Peoplev.Suarez,G.R.Nos.15357376,April15,2005,456SCRA333,349.
[44]
Peoplev.Garin,G.R.No.139069,June17,2004,432SCRA394,407Peoplev.Giganto,Sr.,391Phil.169,183(2000).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

16/17

6/30/2015

G.R. No. 169962

[45]
Peoplev.Bacungay,supranote42,at814815.
[46]
Rollo(G.R.No.157022),pp.116117.
[47]
Peoplev.Otayde,462Phil.309,323(2003)Peoplev.Cueto,443Phil.425,436(2003)Peoplev.Prades,supranote35,
at164165.
[48]
Peoplev.Raquio,supranote35,at298.
[49]
Peoplev.Andales,466Phil.873,887(2004).
[50]
RevisedPenalCode,Article8,2ndparagraph.
[51]
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.159556,May26,2005,459SCRA236,258Peoplev.Felipe,463
Phil.518,553554(2003)Peoplev.Pangilinan,443Phil.198,238(2003).

[52]
Art.267.KidnappingandSeriousIllegalDetentionAnyprivateindividualwhoshallkidnapordetainanotherorinany
mannerdeprivehimofhislibertyshallsufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeath
1.Ifthekidnappingordetentionshallhavelastedformorethanthreedays
2.Ifitshallhavebeencommittedsimulatingpublicauthority
3.Ifanyseriousphysicalinjuriesshallhavebeeninflicteduponthepersonkidnappedordetainedorifthreatstokillhimshall
havebeenmade
4. If the person detained or kidnapped shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female, or public
officer.
Thepenaltyofdeathwherethekidnappingordetentionwascommittedforthepurposeofextortingransomfromthevictimor
anyotherperson,evenifnoneofthecircumstancesabovementionedwerepresentinthecommissionoftheoffense.xxx
[53]
Peoplev.Bisda,454Phil.194,234(2003).
[54]
Peoplev.Salimbago,supranote38,at75.
[55]
AnActProhibitingDeathPenaltyinthePhilippines.
[56]
IndeterminateSentenceLaw.
[57]
Sec.4.TheBoardofPardonsandParoleshallcausethepublicationofatleastonceaweek,forthreeconsecutiveweeks,
inanewspaperofgeneralcirculationofthenamesofpersonsconvictedofoffensespunishedwithreclusionperpetuaorlife
imprisonment by reason of this Act who are being considered or recommended for communication or pardon: Provided,
however, That nothing herein shall limit the power of the President to grant executive clemency under Section 19,
ArticleVIIoftheConstitution.(emphasissupplied)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm

17/17