People v. Bandoquillo

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 221466. June 20, 2016.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCIS BANDOQUILLO @ POPEYE, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 20 June 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 221466 — People of the Philippines v. Francis Bandoquillo @ Popeye.

Before the Court is an appeal from the November 27, 2014 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 06287, which affirmed the July 12, 2013 Decision 2 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 535-V-11, finding accused-appellant Francis Bandoquillo @ Popeye (Bandoquillo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six (6) counts of kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for ransom.

Bandoquillo and Timoteo Villaver y Liboriz (Villaver) were indicted for six (6) counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7659 (R.A. No. 7659) in an Information, dated June 6, 2011, which reads:

That on or about October 14, 2010, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, without any justifiable cause or legal ground, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and detain one Hung Yee Chua, and minors Janelle Tabuzo, 14 years old, Jerome Tabuzo, 12 years old, Kathleen Camille Chua, 13 years old, Keith Carlson Chua, 16 years old, and Kyle Carlvin Chua, 14 years old, thereby subjecting said minors to psychological and physical abuse, cruelty and emotional maltreatment.

Contrary to Law. 3

When arraigned, Bandoquillo pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. During pre-trial, the prosecution and defense stipulated: 1) on the identity of the accused; and 2) on the territorial jurisdiction of the court. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits followed. Accused Villaver remained at large.

Version of the Prosecution

As summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the Appellee's Brief, 4 the People's version of the event is as follows:

At around 6:40 o'clock in the morning of October 14, 2010, Hung Yee Chua (Yee) was driving his Starex van along Lagdameo St., Fortune Village 4, Paseo de Blas, Valenzuela City. Aboard the said Starex van were seven (7) children, namely: (a) Keith, Kyle, and Kathleen (Yee's children); and (b) Jerome, Jerald, Janini, and Janelle (Eduardo Tabuzo's children, Yee's brother-in-law).

While travelling to the children's school, the Starex van was blocked by a white Mitsubishi Adventure. More than five (5) men, including accused-appellant, armed with guns and wearing Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) uniforms, alighted from the Mitsubishi Adventure and approached the van. One of the kidnappers pointed a gun at Yee and ordered him to unlock the doors.

After unlocking the doors, the kidnappers rushed inside. One of them hit Yee on the forehead and ordered him to move to the back seat. Another kidnapper told Yee that they would be taken to the PDEA headquarters for his alleged involvement in illegal drug trade. The kidnappers then commandeered the Starex van and travelled for more than an hour before stopping. The kidnappers took Yee and the children to a house guarded by three (3) men for four (4) days.

At around 9:30 o'clock in the morning of the same day, one of the kidnappers called Jeanie O. Tabuzo (Jeanie), wife of Eduardo Tabuzo, and told her that they have her children. He demanded Twenty Million Pesos (Php20,000,000.00) as ransom for the release of Yee and the 7 children. Jeanie told the kidnapper that she could only pay them One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00). The kidnapper told Jeanie to produce the money for the sake of Yee and the 7 children.

Two days later, the kidnapper called Jeanie again who agreed to pay Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (Php880,000.00) for the release of Yee and the 7 children. ITAaHc

The next day, the kidnappers instructed Jeanie to place the money in a bag and wait in a shed along Silang, Cavite.

Jeanie and Eduardo followed the instructions and proceeded to the waiting shed at Silang, Cavite. SPO4 Roberto Villaluz (SPO4 Villaluz), one of the police officers who assisted in the pay-off operation, followed Jeanie to the drop-off point. Upon reaching Silang, Cavite, SPO4 Villaluz went ahead of Jeanie because there were other vehicles following Jeanie, which appeared to be those of the kidnappers. The police officers then parked their vehicles across the waiting shed and waited. Shortly thereafter, accused-appellant approached Jeanie's vehicle. Jeanie opened the window of her car and handed the bag filled with money to accused-appellant.

After taking the bag, accused-appellant crossed the street and passed in front of the vehicle of SPO4 Villaluz. Accused-appellant passed the bag to his other companions who were waiting at a nearby junk shop. Afterwards, the kidnappers dispersed without incident. The police officers did not arrest the kidnappers because they did not want to endanger the victims as they were still in the custody of the kidnappers.

Thereafter, Yee and the 7 children boarded a vehicle and travelled for a few minutes. After they were dropped along a highway, they walked to a nearby gas station and called Jeanie to pick them up. 5

Version of the Defense

Bandoquillo denied the accusation against him and gave his version in his Appellants' Brief 6 to substantiate his claim of innocence:

Accused Francis Bandoquillo is a cigarette vendor and a construction worker. On October 14, 2010, he was in his house located at San Miguel Street, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City, arranging his cigarette boxes. He had been vending cigarettes for almost two (2) years, usually at EDSA and/or SM Fairview mall in Quezon City. He would sell usually from 7:30 o'clock or 8:00 o'clock in the morning, after leaving his house, until nighttime. On October 17, 2010, he was at home taking care of his three (3) children. He knows nothing about the kidnapping cases imputed against him. On October 22, 2012 at around 7:30 o'clock in the evening, after coming from his work, he was arrested in a store near his house. His photograph was taken in 2007 when a complaint for Robbery was filed against him before RTC, Quezon City, Branch 95, but he was acquitted in that case. 7

The Ruling of the RTC

After all the documentary and testimonial evidence offered by both parties were meticulously evaluated, the RTC concluded that all the elements of the offense charged were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution. The RTC debunked the twin defenses of denial and alibi interposed by Bandoquillo in the light of his positive identification by the prosecution witnesses as one the culprits in the kidnapping and serious illegal detention. It added that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom for the release of the victims but in view of the prohibition in the imposition of death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, should instead be imposed for each count of the crime committed. The fallo of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused, FRANCIS BANDOQUILLO alias POPOYE alias Francis Bardoquillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal for six (6) counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count without eligibility for parole.

The accused is likewise ordered to pay Jeannie Tabuzo actual damages in the amount of P880,000.00 and to pay the victims the amounts of P200,000.00 each for moral damages; P100,000.00 each for exemplary damages.

The City Jail Warden of Quezon City is hereby ordered to commit the accused to the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City immediately upon receipt of this order and submit a report five (5) days from compliance.

Let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against accused Timoteo Villaver y Liboriz.

SO ORDERED. 8

Not in conformity, Bandoquillo appealed the RTC decision before the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

In its assailed November 27, 2014 Decision, the CA found no palpable error in the judgment of conviction rendered by the RTC against Bandoquillo. It held that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime of kidnapping for ransom as well as his identification as one of the perpetrators thereof. The CA concluded that the RTC was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of the crime committed. The CA, however, modified the award of damages in conformity with the ruling in People v. Gambao. 9 In the end, the CA decreed:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of the Valenzuela City, Branch 172, in Criminal Case No. 535-V-11, is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in that, in addition to the actual damages awarded to Jeanie Tabuzo, accused-appellant is ordered to pay each victim P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages and that interests at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the finality of the judgment until fully paid. The assailed decision is affirmed in all other respects. CHTAIc

SO ORDERED. 10

The Issues

Insisting on his innocence, Bandoquillo filed the present appeal and posited the same lone assignment of error that he previously raised before the CA, to wit:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 11

The charge against Bandoquillo is the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention as defined in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which reads:

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.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the 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.

Accordingly, for the accused to be convicted of kidnapping, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the following elements of the crime: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of kidnapping or detention must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (2) it is committed by simulating public authority; (3) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (4) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is immaterial. 12 cHDAIS

All of the above elements are attendant and duly proven in the case at bench. Bandoquillo is a private individual who, along with his cohorts, kidnapped the Hung Yee Chua (Yee) and the minors, Janelle Tabuzo, Jerome Tabuzo, Kathleen Chua, Keith Carlson Chua and Kyle Carlvin Chua in the morning of October 14, 2010 while on their way to the school, by taking, control of their Starex van. The abductors simulated public authority by mispresenting themselves as PDEA agents when they forcibly took the victims. The victims were detained in a secluded place guarded by three (3) men for four (4) days, Except for Yee, the five other kidnap victims were minors. The kidnappers demanded payment of ransom initially in the amount of P20,000,000.00 for the release of the victims. Upon the plea of Jeanie Tabuzo (Jeanie), the said amount was reduced to P880,000.00. This amount was actually delivered by Jeanie to the abductors in Silang, Cavite, on October 17, 2010 at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

Yet, Bandoquillo would have the Court undo his conviction contending that the contradictions in the testimonies of Yee and Jerald Tabuzo (Jerald) pertaining to his identification as one of the supposed abductors strengthened his defenses of denial and alibi. Said inconsistencies refer to the discrepancies in the description of his height and his body built. On the basis of this argument, Bandoquillo claims that he is entitled to an acquittal of the offense charged against him.

Bandoquillo is mistaken.

Yee and Jerald, respectively gave clear and detailed narrations of the abduction along Lagdameo Street, Fortune Village 4, Paseo de Blas, Valenzuela City at around 6:30 o'clock in the morning of October 14, 2010. Their testimonies were not only consistent but also corroborative of each other on material points. They positively identified Bandoquillo as one of the abductors. In particular, Jerald categorically testified that he was the person who hit Yee on the forehead with a gun while inside the Starex van. On the other hand, Yee, without any hesitation, pointed to Bandoquillo as the one who hit him with a firearm and, thereafter, ordered him to transfer to the back seat of the starex van. All throughout their testimonies, Yee and Jerald never vacillated about the identity of Bandoquillo and his participation in the commission of the crime.

There is no reason to disbelieve Yee and Jerald's claim that they saw the faces of their abductors, particularly that of Bandoquillo, considering that the kidnappers brazenly perpetrated the crime in broad daylight without even bothering to hide their faces by donning masks. Moreover, there was clearly ample opportunity for Yee and Jerald to see the faces of their abductors from the time they (abductors) alighted from the white Mitshubishi Adventure van until they approached and forced their way inside the Starex van. Yee and Jerald's description of Bandoquillo was based on visual estimates, which could not be expected to be perfect. Their recollection of his description might suffer from imperfection but it does not destroy their credibility. Here, what is important is that Yee and Jerald identified him as one of the perpetrators of the kidnapping without any suggestion from the police or the court at the trial.

Besides, this Court fails to discern any improper motive which could have impelled Yee and Jerald to maliciously impute to Bandoquillo such a serious crime as kidnapping. Hence, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credence. The absence of evidence as to an improper motive which actuated the principal witnesses for the prosecution to testify in the manner they did against the Bandoquillo strongly sustains the conclusion that no such improper motive existed, and that their testimonies are worthy of evidentiary weight. Further, as actual victims of the frightful and terrifying crime of kidnapping, Yee and Jerald are naturally interested in vindicating the outrageous wrong done to their persons. Their natural interest in securing the conviction of the perpetrators would strongly deter them from implicating persons other than the real culprits. Otherwise, the latter could escape with impunity the strong and just arm of the law.

Moreover, it must be stressed that a third witness, SPO4 Roberto Villaluz (SPO4 Villaluz), positively identified Bandoquillo. He testified that he saw Jeanie hand the bag containing the ransom money to Bandoquillo at the waiting shed in Silang, Cavite. He claimed that Bandoquillo even passed in front of his vehicle and because it was daytime then, he was able to have a good look at his face. This was never refuted by Bandoquillo.

In light of this positive identification by Yee, Jerald and SPO4 Villaluz, the defenses of alibi and denial of Bandoquillo must fail. Indeed, alibi is the weakest defense, being easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. A positive identification of the accused, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over the alibi and denial. 13 Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They are considered with suspicion and always received with caution. 14 ISHCcT

The RTC and the CA are one in ruling that the crime committed by Bandoquillo is kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom. We disagree.

To warrant the conviction for the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt: (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 ransom for the victim or other person for the release of the victim. 15 In kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom, the purpose of extorting ransom is a qualifying circumstance which must be alleged in the Information and proved by the prosecution as the crime itself by words and overt acts of the accused before, during and after the kidnapping and detention of the victim. 16 In the case at bench, the Information did not contain an allegation that Bandoquillo and his cohorts intended to extort ransom to obtain the release of the victims. Accordingly, Bandoquillo should be convicted only of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

The crime committed by Bandoquillo was aggravated by the use of motor vehicle as the victims had been transported to a secluded place with the use of the Starex van; and by a band, since the crime was committed by Bandoquillo and four co-conspirators. The Court, however, cannot consider these aggravating circumstances in determining the proper penalties for the said crimes, because these were not alleged in the Information as mandated by Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The prescribed penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659 is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no aggravating circumstance or modifying circumstance in the commission of the crime, the proper penalty for the said crime is reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. DHITCc

As to damages, the Court finds it necessary to award each of the victims P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages in line with the case of People v. Jugueta, 17 the prevailing jurisprudence. The RTC and the CA are correct in holding that Bandoquillo is liable to pay Jeanie Tabuzo actual damages of P880,000.00 representing the amount of the ransom money. Also, in line with the Court's recent pronouncements, an interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid. 18

WHEREFORE, the November 27, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 06287 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: 1) that Francis Bandoquillo @ Popeye is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six (6) counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count; 2) Bandoquillo is ordered to pay each of the victims P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and 3) Bandoquillo is ordered to pay interest on all damages at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment.

SO ORDERED.(Del Castillo, J., on official leave)"

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and Associate Justice Carmelita S. Manahan, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-12.

2. Penned by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones; CA rollo pp. 22-30.

3. Id. at 65.

4. Id. at 84-93.

5. Id. at 87-89.

6. Id. at 48-62.

7. Id. at 56.

8. Id. at 30.

9. 718 Phil. 507 (2013).

10. Rollo, p. 12.

11. Id. at 50.

12. People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 214502, November 25, 2015.

13. People v. Garalde, 401 Phil. 174, 208 (2000).

14. People v. Anticamara, 666 Phil. 484, 507 (2011).

15. People v. Ejandra, 473 Phil. 381, 403, 4040 (2004).

16. People v. Pagalasan, 452 Phil. 341, 369 (2003).

17. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.

18. People v. Maglente, 711 SCRA 142, 161 (2013).