PEOPLE V GUEVARRA cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
It should have been raised in TC in a
(Padilla|1989)
Jaime Guevarra, along with Poncing Abergas, Dan Tolentino, Baldo de
Jesus, Roming Longhair, Boy Tae, Boy Pogi, Vergel Bustamante “Dan Saksak”
and Chotse Doe alias Bernabe Sulaybar were accused of kidnapping with firearms
Priscilla Cruz. The accused entered her and her husband’s house and robbed
them of P3,000, their jewelry and their car after which they boarded her into
another car and told her that they would hold her for ransom of P50,000. However,
their engine broke down and the men hired a truck. They left her in a hotel,
thinking that the crime of kidnapping would not have materialized. The truck driver
brought her home, reported to the police and identified them.
The TC could only summon Poncing and Vergel Bustamante alias “Dan
Saksak” (the others could not be found/died) guilty of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention, death penalty and indemnity of P5,000. Poncing was acquitted.
Automatic review—butthe 1987 Constitution disallowed the death penalty, RP
instead.
 Counsel for the defendant contends that TC erred in ordering the
amendment of the information to include, as [party defendant, Vergel
Bustamante “Dan Saksak” despite lack of proof they are the same person.
 Counsel for the defendant-appellant also contends that there was no
reinvestigation conducted after 14 March 1983 to justify the filing and
having failed to do so, he is deemed to have waived his objection to the
information. of the amended information on 15 March 1983. As ground
therefor, counsel claims that Atty. Romano, counsel for the defendant-
appellant in the court below, did not know of any such investigation.
 Improbable and contradictory eyewitness accounts
 Extrajudicial confession inadmissible
Issue:
1. W/N the Trial Court’s decision is invalid for incorrectly amending the Information
that Vergel Bustamante and “Dan Saksak” were the same person
2. W/N the lack of knowledge of the counsel of the reinvestigation of fiscal of the
grounds is fatal.
3. W/N he was guilty of kidnapping of ransom beyond reasonable doubt.
4. W/N his alleged extrajudicial admission is admissible
Held:
1. NO. The TC thought they were one and the same person for valid reasons such
as “Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak” appearing on: subpoena issued by MC
Nueva Ecija, Return of Service of one subpoena made by the Warden of the City
Jail, order issued by MC Nueva Ecija finding a prima facie case, and the letter of
transmittal of records of the cases to the RTC Nueva Ecija. Moreover, the issue
Motion to Quash the information since it is an issue which affects jurisdiction.
Atty. Romano (defendant-appellant’s counsel) said he would file a motion
to quash but it did not materialize. Thus he was deemed satisfied of the legality of
the information.
2. NO. There was indeed a reinvestigation as to grounds to believe a crime has
been committed as certified by the Fiscal. Lack of knowledge by counsel because
of assignment as counsel de oficio after arraignment is a poor excuse. Atty.
Romano may not have learned of the re-investigation conducted by the Fiscal
inasmuch as his appointment as counsel de oficio for the defendant-appellant was
made only after the arraignment of the accused-appellant, where appellant was
assisted by Atty. Joventino Cornista.11 According to Atty. Romano, he entered his
appearance in the case only on 3 May 1983. At the hearing on the next day, he
asked for an extension of 3 days to file their MR. This was denied by the trial court.
3. NO. Flaws of testimonies referred to minor details and TC has highest respect
regarding factual matters.
4. YES if it was true. However there is enough proof to support a finding of guilt
even without. They were positively identified by the victim.
5. NO. He cannot be convicted of kidnapping for ransom because the element of
demand for ransom was not sufficiently proven. No ransom note was presented
nor demand for money aside from Priscilla’s verbal testimony. Besides the
Amended Information filed merely alleges the accused kidnapped her but no
allegation of for the purpose of extorting ransom. The settled rule is "that an
accused person cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he is
charged with or is necessarily included in the crime charged in the complaint or
information on which he is tried. He has a right to be informed of the nature of the
offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial, and to convict him of a
higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information on which he is
tried would be an authorized denial of that right.
DISPOSITIVE: Kidnapping of a female (Art. 267) + AC of motor vehicle and aid of
armed men. Reclusion perpetua appropriate.