THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210159. March 14, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO ACOSTA, EDWIN BOLTA, RUEL HUMAYNON, REMUEL HUMAYNON, JULIE SUMILLA, ROSALINO ARAS, AND RUDY "ODI" TAMPO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210159 (People of the Philippines vs. Fernando Acosta, Edwin Bolta, Ruel Humaynon, Remuel Humaynon, Julie Sumilla, Rosalino Aras, and Rudy "Odi" Tampo). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated August 19, 2013 and Resolution 2 dated December 3, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00569 affirming the conviction of Fernando Acosta (Fernando), Edwin Bolta (Edwin), Ruel Humaynon, Remuel Humaynon (Remuel), Julie Sumilla, Rosalino Aras and Rudy "Odi" Tampo (Rudy) (accused-appellants) of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention penalized under Article 267 3 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Factual Background
An Amended Information was filed on January 28, 2004 against the accused-appellants, Jerry Humaynon, Rogelio Paguya alias Billy, Ricky Humaynon, Lurgi Humaynon alias Ekong, Josue Sumilla and Rolando Aras charging them with the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. 4
During arraignment, the accused-appellants pleaded "not guilty". Trial on the merits, thereafter, ensued. 5
According to the evidence of the prosecution, Fernando is a spiritual cult leader of the Desperadong Magahat or Desperate Out-laws; a Community Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA) covering 972 hectares of forest land was granted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in favor of Tuminungan Pinalangga Association, Inc. (TUPA) also headed by Fernando; Cerelo Gawad (Cerelo), Roger Gawad, Tommy Gawad, Joenard Gawad and Rustan Gawad (Gawads) were privately cultivating and occupying a substantial area of the land included in the CBFMA; in the morning of March 23, 2002, the Gawads attended a barangay meeting in Linandang, Malagana, Claveria, Misamis Oriental; Fernando's ill will and vengeance in view of a land dispute resulted in the abduction of the Gawads to show that TUPA is in command of the area; that upon abduction, the Gawads were taken on foot to Mt. Balatukan, a mountain between Claveria and Gingoog about 20 to 80 kilometers away; that the Gawads were detained for three (3) days and two (2) nights and were released only when the pursuing Philippine National Police (PNP), and military soldiers caught up with them. 6
In defense, the accused-appellants denied the charge against them. According to Fernando, on March 23, 2002, he and his eleven "alimaong" (pulis-pulis-sa mga nativo) went to the old school of Sitio Linandang, Malagana, Claveria, Misamis Oriental to ask Cerelo why he called for a meeting scheduled on that day without his permission. Fernando invited the Gawads to go with him towards his residence which is also TUPA's headquarters. There, he acted as judge and inquired why Cerelo wanted to form a cooperative with a purpose similar with that for which TUPA exists. After the hearing, he imposed upon the Gawads the penalty of paying one male carabao pursuant to their tribal law. Afterwards, they all engaged in merriment and parted ways the next day. 7
Edwin testified that on March 23, 2002, he was in his house at Membaboy, Aposcahoy, Claveria, Misamis Oriental. He was about to doze off when Fernando's group arrived and asked him if they can stay. The Gawads cooked the rice and meat the group brought for dinner. Fernando's group and the Gawads left and proceeded to the farm owned by the Tampo family after dinner. He followed Fernando's group to the said farm the next day. 8 aDSIHc
Remuel testified that on March 23, 2002, he was in his farm located at the lower portion of Linandang, Malagana, Claveria, Misamis Oriental. At about 8:00 a.m., Fernando summoned him to report at TUPA's headquarters. He arrived there at 10:30 a.m. and found Cerelo and his nephews Jonard, Rustom and Roger. Fernando confronted Cerelo why the latter's cow was tethered in the land owned by TUPA where sweet potatoes and carrots were planted. Cerelo asked for forgiveness but he was ordered to pay one bull to which he complied. Thereafter, the Gawads left for Menlibas, Pambugas, Claveria, Misamis Oriental. 9
Rudy testified that on March 23, 2002, he was in his house at Membaboy, Aposcahoy, Claveria, Misamis Oriental. He was about to sleep when Fernando's group arrived and asked him if they can borrow his kettle. Then the group and the Gawads left and headed towards the farm of the Tampo family. 10
On January 2, 2007, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, rendered a Judgment 11 convicting the accused-appellants based on the following: (a) the testimonies of all witnesses for the prosecution who were found to have individually and collectively established all the elements of the kidnapping as well as positively identify the accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime; (b) that there was no motive shown for the Gawads to merely implicate the accused-appellants in the commission of the crime; (c) the accused-appellants possessed a sinister motive to harass and terrorize the Gawads in order for them to abandon the disputed land; (d) conspiracy among the accused-appellants was duly proved; (e) the testimonies of the barangay captain was sufficiently corroborated by the statement of Police Chief Inspector Reynaldo A. Padilla who filed the case and conducted a hot pursuit against the accused-appellants; and (f) that the ordeal suffered by the Gawads was tempered that they managed to escape and be rescued by the PNP officers after an exchange of bullets transpired between the accused-appellants and the latter. 12
The defense of denial interposed by the accused-appellants was further brushed aside for being in direct contradiction to the statements of their other co-accused.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision because it was undeniably found that the Gawads were kidnapped contrary to the claim of the accused-appellants that the former voluntarily went with them. Also, the individual participation of the accused-appellants in the conspiracy were duly proved such as (a) when they appeared at the meeting hall in Sitio Linandang at the same time; (b) they surprised Cerelo at the meeting hall by immediately chasing the members who got shocked and scampered away; (c) they were all armed with bolos and knives at the time of the incident; (d) Billy Paguia poked the shot gun on Cerelo's neck; (e) Fernando's group caught the rest of the Gawads other than Cerelo and tied each one of them; and (f) the Gawads were ordered to march towards the Kabulig River. 13
Hence, this appeal. ATICcS
There is no cogent reason found to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
Article 267 of the RPC provides for the following elements of the crime of kidnapping, to wit: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; or (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 officer. 14
The Court is fully convinced that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have amply established the case for the prosecution. Not only was there any ill motive affecting their credibility proved against them but the victims' positive identification of the accused-appellants as perpetrators of the crime rendered the defense of denial and alibi unworthy of credit.
Also, the RTC's finding of the existence of conspiracy among the accused-appellants, as affirmed by the CA, is well-taken. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and when conspiracy is established, the responsibility of the conspirators is collective, not individual, rendering all of them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participations. 15 Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, as it can be presumed from and proven by the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose, design, concerted action, and community of interests. 16 Here the factual circumstances clearly reveal that the accused-appellants acted in concert at the time of the commission of the crime and that their acts emanated from the same purpose or common design, showing unity in its execution. Thus, the CA, affirming the RTC, correctly ruled that there was conspiracy among them.
Considering that the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants conspired to kidnap the Gawads and illegally detained them until they were released by the accused-appellants, the imposable penalty is death as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 267 of the RPC. And, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of the death penalty.
The Court further finds it proper that each victim be paid P75,000.00 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime warrants the imposition of the death penalty; P75,000.00 as moral damages because each victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, without need of proof, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good. 17
However, in view of Rule 122, Section 11 (a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that "an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter," only the accused who appealed the instant case before the Court shall be liable to pay the aforesaid civil indemnity and damages in favor of each of the victims.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated August 19, 2013 and Resolution dated December 3, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00569 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that accused-appellants Fernando Acosta, Edwin Bolta, Ruel Humaynon, Remuel Humaynon, Julie Sumilla, Rosalino Aras and Rudy "Odi" Tampo are ordered to pay each of the victims P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages awarded shall earn an interest of six percent (6%) per annum to be computed from the finality of this Resolution until full payment thereof." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 29, 2016.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, with Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Edward B. Contreras concurring; CA rollo, pp. 160-168.
2. Id. at 8-9.
3. 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[; and]
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of then 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.
4. CA rollo, pp. 126-127.
5. Id. at 162.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 162-163.
8. Id. at 163.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Issued by Judge Noli T. Catli; id. at 126-132.
12. Id. at 130-131.
13. Id. at 166.
14. People v. Madsali, et al., 625 Phil. 431, 452-453 (2010).
15. People of the Philippines v. Castro, 434 Phil. 206, 221 (2002).
16. People v. Buntag, 471 Phil. 82, 93 (2004).
17. People v. Tadah, 680 Phil. 763, 766-767 (2012).