FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226187. June 17, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant, vs.JAIME AYOK y VERGARA @ "JIMMY" AND FERLITO AYOK y VERGARA @ "TOTO", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 17, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226187 (People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Ayok y Vergara @ "Jimmy" and Ferlito Ayok y Vergara @ "Toto"). — This appeal assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants who were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of kidnapping.
Facts of the Case
On May 30, 2002, two Informations 1 were filed against Cancio Cubillas (Cubillas), Jaime Ayok (Jaime), and Ferlito Ayok (Ferlito) (the brothers herein referred to as accused-appellants) charging them of two (2) counts of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The private complainants are cousins Elvira Madla (Elvira) and Lorna Landicho (Lorna) (herein referred to as private complainants).
The prosecution's version of the incident, as culled from the records, is as follows:
On April 22, 2002, at around 2:00 a.m., private complainants were aboard a Toyota Hi-Lux with plate number UKU 663, travelling along C-3 Road Caloocan City when a white Mitsubishi Adventure stopped right in front of them. Lorna was driving the car while Elvira was seated on the passenger's seat up front. Four (4) male persons alighted from the Mitsubishi Adventure and approached private complainants' car. Two of them went near the driver's seat while the other two went near the passenger's seat. The men knocked but private complainants did not immediately unlock the car doors for fear. However, the men continued knocking and poked their guns at them, hence, private complainants eventually unlocked the door. 2
Private complainants were ordered by the men to alight from the vehicle and to sit at the back. Cubillas took the wheel while a certain Arsenio Lacson (Lacson) sat beside the driver. Accused-appellants sat at the back with private complainants. As the vehicle moved, private complainants asked why they were being held and Cubillas answered that they will be brought to Camp Crame because they were suspected of possessing illegal drugs. Suspicious of the real motive of the men, Elvira looked at the men's faces whenever they would pass by well-lighted places and was able to do that for about 15 minutes. 3 CAIHTE
They heard Lacson uttering the word "cleaning" and soon thereafter, they were divested of their jewelry, cellphone and money. They were then handcuffed and blindfolded. Lacson asked them who to call for the demand for ransom. Elvira gave the name of her brother, Alonzo Tan, however, Lacson was not able to contact the brother and sister of Elvira using her cellphone. Lacson then called Elvira's husband and asked for P50,000,000.00. 4
Soon thereafter, they stopped and private complainants were asked to alight from the vehicle. They were made to enter a house and heard an old man who said, "mga babae pala kayo." They asked help from the old man who told them not to worry and that they were safe as long as he was there. 5
The second call made by the men demanding for ransom was done in the morning of the same day. Elvira was able to talk to her brother and asked him to fetch her. The following day, on April 23, 2002, Elvira was able to talk to her brother again who assured her that they were doing everything for her. Subsequently, they heard gun shots downstairs which lasted for about 15 minutes. When the gunfire stopped, they heard somebody going upstairs who introduced themselves as policemen. Their blindfold as well as the tape in their hands were removed. Upon descending, they were told to go back upstairs because there were still armed men at the back. There were gun shots again lasting for about 10 minutes. They went down and saw three (3) dead men who were not part of the group who took them. 6
Private complainants were brought to Camp Crame but did not see the suspects. However, they were informed that three (3) suspects were already apprehended. It was only on April 24, 2002 that they met and identified the accused-appellants through a police line-up. 7
The accused-appellants and Cubillas were arrested at about 6:00 p.m. of April 23, 2002 when a conduct apprehension and identification of the suspects were rolled out. A Tamaraw FX was flagged down after a report that the three (3) occupants thereof were heavily armed. The occupants were later known to be Cubillas and accused-appellants. 8
The prosecution also presented Cubillas who was later on discharged and utilized as a state witness. He testified that on April 22, 2002 at about 2:00 a.m., he was with Gerry Villaver, Jun-Jun Villaver, Arsenio Lacson, Ferlito Ayok, Jaime Ayok, one Bong and a certain Arman. They used two vehicles — a Mitsubishi Adventure and a white Toyota Corolla. Lacson, Jun-Jun, Bong and Jaime boarded the pick-up with private complainants. Cubillas drove the Mitsubishi Adventure. Ferlito was on board the other Toyota car with Gerry and Arman. They left private complainants in a safe house while he, Lacson and Jaime proceeded to the house of Miguel Ayok. At about noon of April 23, 2002, he, Lacson and accused-appellants drove to (EDSA) crossing Mandaluyong and proceeded to Tagaytay. While they were in a restaurant along Sumulong Highway waiting for Jerry and Jun-Jun, Miguel called Lacson informing him that the policemen raided their safe house. Then, they drove to Manila and while they were in Masinag market, they were flagged down and arrested by the police. 9
The defense presented accused-appellants and two others as their witnesses.
Jaime testified that on April 3, 2002, he was asked by Cubillas to go with him to Liloan, Leyte then to Manila. Cubillas told him that he has a friend in Liloan named Gerry who would rent his car. All along, he thought that he would be employed for a treasure hunting job. Cubillas did not tell him that he was involved in a kidnapping group. On April 21, 2002, Cubillas asked Jaime to accompany him to Navotas, but he was surprised to see that Cubillas and his companions changed into police uniforms. The following day they blocked the vehicle boarded by private complainants and Cubillas, Lacson and two others boarded the same. The next day, Cubillas asked Jaime to call his brother Ferlito because they were going to SM Megamall. They then proceeded to Sumulong Highway where they were blocked and arrested by the police officers. He, Ferlito and Cubillas were brought to Camp Crame where they were detained. He did not know the whereabouts of Lacson. Accused-appellants asked Cubillas why there were implicated and the latter apologized and prepared a letter explaining that accused-appellants are not part of the Villaver Kidnap for Ransom Group. 10 DETACa
For his part, Ferlito testified that on April 22, 2002 at about 11:30 p.m., he was at Cogeo Gate II and was about to go to Navotas Fish Port together with Jonathan Rallang and other vendors and boarded a jeepney driven by Antonio Danao. They arrived at the fish port at about 12:30 a.m. of April 23, 2002. They left the fish port at around 4:00 a.m. They reached Cogeo between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. At about 10:00 a.m., Jaime called and invited him for lunch at SM Megamall. He went to SM Megamall with Cubillas, Jaime and Lacson. He was with them when they were flagged down and arrested along Masinag. 11
On February 24, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt for kidnapping. 12 It was held that the evidence presented by the prosecution established not only the guilt of the accused-appellants but also the fact that they connived with each other in committing the crime. The Court was convinced that private complainants were able to provide a positive identification of the accused-appellants as the ones who sat beside them in the Toyota Hi-Lux and divested them of jewelry, money and cell phones. Against the positive identification by the private complainants and that of denial and alibi of accused-appellants, the court was more convinced of the former. 13
Jaime's defense that he was not aware that his companions planned to kidnap private complainants is not convincing because his testimony and the evidence established not only his presence during the kidnapping and his acquiescence thereto but also his cooperation in the commission of the crime. Ferlito's alibi does not also hold water because although he accounted for his whereabouts on the evening of April 22, 2002 and the morning of April 23, 2002, he was not able to establish where he was in the morning of April 22, 2002 when the kidnapping occurred. 14
Aggrieved, accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal 15 before the RTC and contended in the brief that: (1) the RTC, in convicting them, relied solely on the testimonies of private complainants disregarding that of Cubillas who turned as state witness. The testimonies of private complainants are inconsistent with that of Cubillas primarily because private complainants categorically identified Cubillas and accused-appellants as the ones who were with them in the Toyota Hi-Lux but Cubillas testified that it was only Jaime who was with accused-appellants in the Hi-Lux with three (3) other persons; 16 and (2) the testimonies of private complainants are not in accordance with human experience because how can they positively identify the accused-appellants and remember their faces when they were in such a stressful situation. 17
The Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision 18 dated July 31, 2014 affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants. The CA was convinced that the prosecution proved the existence of all the elements constituting the crime of kidnapping. 19 Moreover, the testimonies of private complainants corroborated each other. It was held that private complainants testified categorically, spontaneously, frankly and consistently, making them credible witnesses. Cubillas' testimony also affirmed the veracity of private complainants' testimonies. 20
The CA was convinced that the identification of accused-appellants was possible because private complainants were given the chance to look at the latter's faces before they were blindfolded. The alibi and denial of accused-appellants were not given weight by the CA. 21
Accused-appellants moved for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution 22 dated March 6, 2015.
Undaunted, accused-appellants filed a notice of appeal. In their supplemental brief, accused-appellants reiterated that private complainants are not credible witnesses and that accused-appellants' alibi and denial should be given weight. 23
Ruling of the Court
After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to DENY the appeal. aDSIHc
In every criminal conviction, the prosecution is required to prove two things beyond reasonable doubt: first, the fact of the commission of the crime charged, or the presence of all the elements of the offense; and second, the fact that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. 24
In People v. Pepino, et al., 25 the Court held that:
The elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, are as follows: (a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and (c) motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom for the release of the victim. 26 (Citations omitted)
The above-mentioned elements were clearly proven through the testimonies of private complainants and their witnesses. It was undisputed that accused-appellants were the ones who blocked the Toyota Hi-Lux boarded by private complainants and brought them to their safe house and asked for ransom for their liberty.
The identities of the accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime were sufficiently proved by private complainants. Contrary to what the accused-appellants alleged, it is more in accord with human experience that private complainants were able to see the faces of the accused-appellants when their vehicle was blocked and they were told to sit at the back of the pick-up with them. The manner of stopping them in the highway and telling them that they were suspected of possessing illegal drugs would alert them that something was off and enable them to see the faces of their captors and retain as much information about their appearance as they could.
Private complainants were able to do this because of the added fact that accused-appellants were not wearing anything to cover their faces. Additionally, private complainants were blindfolded only after about 15 minutes from the time their vehicle was blocked, giving them ample time to identify their captors.
As to the inconsistency between the testimonies of private complainants to that of accused turned state witness Cubillas, suffice it to say that there is no legal basis in saying that the testimony of the state witness should be given greater weight than the testimonies of the other witnesses who saw how the case transpired. The trial court is given the discretion as to whose credibility it will sustain. Jurisprudence states that the factual conclusions of trial courts are respected and should not be disturbed because the trial courts are the ones who saw the demeanor and manner of testifying of the witnesses.
Moreover, the testimony of Cubillas directly implicating Jaime by saying that he was one of those who boarded the pick-up with private complainants did not weaken the prosecution's theory, on the contrary, it strengthened the case against accused-appellants.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. We ADOPT the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The assailed July 31, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03866 finding accused-appellants Jaime Ayok y Vergara and Ferlito Ayok y Vergara GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Kidnapping for Ransom penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole for each count is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that accused-appellants are ordered to pay jointly and severally the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; the award of moral damages amounting to P100,000.00; and the award of exemplary damages amounting to P100,000.00. Furthermore, an interest of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all the damages awarded from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 11 and 15.
2.Id. at 55-57.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 55-58.
5.Id. at 58.
6.Id. at 58-59.
7.Id. at 60.
8.Id. at 67.
9.Id. at 74-76.
10.Id. at 78-80.
11.Id. at 83-84.
12.Id. at 55-87.
13.Id. at 84-87.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 88-89.
16.Id. at 146-148.
17.Id. at 144-145.
18.Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring; id. at 274-307.
19.Id. at 296-297.
20.Id. at 303.
21.Id. at 304.
22.Id. at 331-332.
23.Rollo, pp. 44-47.
24.Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 43 (2016).
25.636 Phil. 297 (2010).
26.Id. at 308-309.