People v. Enummeng y Ayong

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 239141. November 15, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JHUN ENUMMENG y AYONG AND ELPIDIO GONZALES y LUPOS, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 November 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 239141 (People of the Philippines v. Jhun Enummeng y Ayong and Elpidio Gonzales y Lupos). — Accused-appellants Jhun Enummeng y Ayong (Enummeng) and Elpidio Gonzales y Lupos (Gonzales) appeal 1 the September 20, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06504. The CA affirmed with modifications the November 12, 2013 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 111, finding Enummeng and Gonzales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.

Antecedents:

Enummeng and Gonzales were charged with Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention as follows:

That on or about November 1, 2009, in the City of Pasay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and deprive JAYSON ORDINARIO y CATBAGAN of his liberty against his will, by means of threat and intimidation, by taking him forcibly, then bring[ing] him to a place somewhere in Manila. That the abduction of the said victim was for the purpose of using him as a drug courier, by swallowing 34 capsules containing heroin and transporting them to China for delivery, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

The evidence as summarized by the trial court is as follows:

The prosecution's version of the incident is as follows:

On 29 September 2009, Jayson met Tita Cacayan in Rizal, Isabela. She gave to Jason Elpidio Gonzales' number and [told him] that [Gonzales] can help him find a job abroad. Jayson sent a text message to [Gonzales] who called and asked [sic] him if he has a passport, and wait for his call. [Gonzales] called Jason to proceed to WinLuck Travel Agency in Manila and bring his passport and photograph to facilitate his departure. At the agency, Jason sent a text message to [Gonzales] who informed him to submit some documents to the agency. Thereafter, [Gonzales] advised Jason not to go back to Isabela as he will be leaving soon. Jayson stayed at his live-in partner's house in Manila.

On 01 November 2009, Jayson received a call from [Gonzales] about his flight and to meet him immediately at the agency. Jason told [Gonzales] that he and his live-in partner have to go to Quiapo Church first and he will just meet him at the airport. [Gonzales] insisted to meet him at the agency, but Jayson declined. [Gonzales] then asked when and where Jayson will attend mass.

While Jayson with his live-in partner and child were waiting along G. Tuazon Street in Manila for a jeep to Quiapo, a taxicab stopped. Two male persons alighted and approached him. The two held his hand and whispered to go with them so as to spare his partner and two-year old child from harm. Jason asked who they were, to which the two men replied they are from the travel agency which processed his papers. He was forced to board the cab in between the two and was blindfolded. Jason identified the two as [Gonzales] and Jhun Enummeng.

After 30 to 45 minutes, Jason's blindfold was removed. Jayson was instructed to act normally and go along with them. The two accused brought [him] to a room in a lodge. Inside, [Gonzales] told Jason to sit and cooperate with whatever they asked him to do, otherwise they will kill him or his family as they are members of an international syndicate and their bosses are blacks. [Gonzales] brought out a yellow plastic bag containing something wrapped in cloth. When unwrapped, it contained several taped yellow capsules, each as big as Jason's thumb. [Gonzales] told Jason to swallow them. Jason refused. [Gonzales] got mad and told Jason that if he will not follow something will happen to his family. Jason still refused. [Gonzales] took an ice pick, pointed it at Jason's neck and instructed him to get and swallow one. Jason tried to swallow one but failed. To do it faster, Enummeng told Jason to dip it in a Sprite, put the capsule near his throat and swallow while drinking Sprite.

As the flight to Macau was cancelled, Jason was made to vomit and discharge the yellow capsules. After a while, Enummeng instructed Jason to swallow again the same capsules. [Gonzales] went out of the room to get the plane [ticket], while [Gonzales] and another person continued to have him swallow the rest of the capsules. After Jason was able to swallow thirty-four (34) capsules, he was brought out to board a taxicab going to the airport. He was told that [Gonzales] will accompany him to Macau, and that he has to follow all the instructions in order to earn money and save his life and family.

Jason was able to convince the accused to allow him to send a text message to his girlfriend for her not to worry and report the matter to the police. Instead, he sent a message to his parents informing them of the taxi's plate number.

Jayson's parents coordinated with PNP CIDG to rescue him. A group of policemen led by Supt. Jonel Estomo was charged lo conduct the operation. After a briefing, the group together with Jason's parents proceeded to Park and Fly and waited. When the group saw the taxicab that fits Jason's description, they cut the cab's way and positioned the Tamaraw FX vehicle, they were on, in front. PO1 Ramil Consencino and PO2 Lhuis Coronel halted the cab. Inside were the driver and three male persons. When PO2 Coronel asked who Jayson is, the person seated beside the driver raised his right hand and identified himself as Jason. When asked who kidnapped him, Jason pointed to the two (2) male persons seated at the back. The two, identified as accused [Gonzales] and Enummeng, were apprehended. PO2 Coronel conducted body search and found three (3) pieces of yellow capsules from [Gonzales'] right pocket.

For his part, PO2 Ringo Medalla testified that on 03 November 2009, while he was at CIDG-PNP, the group led by Supt. Estomo arrived together with arrested persons. An investigation was conducted. His immediate superior asked him to provide a camera to document the excretion of the yellow capsules from Jason's body. Jayson was directed to take a medicine to help him excrete the 34 pieces of yellow capsules. Based on the crime laboratory report, the yellow capsules contain heroin.

On 08 February 2012, the defense admitted the existence of PNP Crime Laboratory's 04 November 2008 Initial Laboratory Report and Chemistry Report number D-97-09 concerning the examination of the yellow capsules content. Thus, the prosecution dispensed with the presentation of the signatories thereon.

On 21 March 2012, the prosecution formally offered its exhibits, which were admitted on 10 May 2012 except the photographs of the yellow capsules for lack of proper identification.

During the initial presentation of defense' evidence, accused filed a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, which was denied on 14 June 2012.

Evidence for the defense consisted of the testimonies of both accused.

Accused Elpidio Gonzales testified that on 01 November 2009, he was at the cemetery in his province in Sablan, Benguet paying respect to his deceased father. He proceeded on foot to La Trinidad, Benguet where his family resides and stayed therein until 6:00 in the morning of 02 November 2009. His mother and daughter accompanied him in going to Victory Bus Terminal in Baguio City. The bus left at around 7:00 in the morning and reached Pasay City Terminal at around 3:00 in the afternoon of the same day. He took a cab in going to NAIA Terminal 3 on his way to Macau to work as security guard in MGM Grand Hotel and Casino. After he alighted, he checked his documents and realized that he left his trolley bag in the taxicab. He shouted and ran after the cab and retrieved his bag.

After the taxicab left, three men in civilian clothes, one with a weapon tucked in his waist, approached and asked him why he was shouting and running. He told them about his trolley bag and that he is bound for Macau. He was invited for verification. He obediently went with them. While in transit, he was instructed to bend down.

Upon reaching a big house, all his belongings were taken including his money. He was asked to take off his clothes, except his brief, and was kept inside a room. He does not know how long he was detained. At around 4:30 in the morning of the following day, they left and boarded a vehicle. They entered the gate of the Philippine National Police Camp Crame when he was brought inside a cell. Thereafter, he was brought inside an office with round objects on the table. The round objects were identified as drugs. The police officers were forcing him to confess [that] the drugs belong to him. He refused, and he was brought again to a cell where men in civilian clothes strangled, kicked, and electrocuted him. On 04 November 2009 he found out that he was accused of kidnapping Jayson Ordinario. He met Jayson and his co-accused only when his photograph was taken on said date.

For his part, Jhun Enummeng testified that on 01 November 2009, he was in Baguio selling flowers at the market. At around 12:00 in the afternoon, he went to Manila and arrived at Victory Liner Bus Terminal in Pasay City at 6:00 in the evening. He boarded a taxicab going to NAIA Terminal 1 to wait for the arrival of his Aunt Raymonda Pooten from Canada.

While waiting at the arrival area, two male, in civilian clothes, approached and asked him to go with them. He was accused of pick-pocketing in the airport. He was handcuffed and brought inside a black closed van. When the van left NAIA parking area, he was not able to shout for help from the guards because he knew it will be useless as he could not be heard.

The van travelled for about six (6) hours. It made a stop over to buy cigarettes and his food. He was brought to a big house and placed inside a room where he was stripped off his belongings. The men frisked and told him that they recovered drugs from his possession.

After five (5) hours, they again boarded the van and he was brought to CIDG in Camp Crame. He did not ask for help from policemen in Camp Crame because the persons who took him were also policemen. He was placed in a room and forced to admit the accusation against him. He was threatened to be buried alive if he will deny the accusation. He met [Gonzales] on 03 November 2009 at Camp Crame [while] Jayson Ordinario was introduced to him on 04 November 2009 and identified him as one of his kidnappers.

Both accused testified that they were also victims of kidnapping but did not file any criminal charge because they were in jail and the kidnappers were also policemen.

After the accused' documentary evidence were admitted on 28 May 2013, the case was set for presentation of rebuttal evidence.

On rebuttal, the prosecution and defense stipulated on the existence of the 30 July 2013 Certification by the Bureau of Immigration that Raymonda Pooten, Enummeng's alleged Aunt, did not arrive in the Philippines on 01 November 2009.

On sur-rebuttal, Enummeng testified that it was her aunt who personally called him through his cellphone that she will be arriving at NAIA Terminal 1 on the eve of 01 November 2009, and maintained that while he was waiting for his aunt, two men arrested and accused him of kidnapping. While detained at Camp Crame, a relative visited him but he was not informed of whether his aunt arrived from Canada. 5 (Citations omitted)

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

The trial court found Enummeng and Gonzales guilty as charged. 6 The RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention based on the testimonies of Jayson Ordinario (Jayson) and police officers Ringo Medalla (Medalla) and Ramil Consencino (Consencino), all pointing to the fact that accused-appellants indeed deprived Jayson of his liberty. The RTC further found that such restraint was attended with serious threats to Jayson's life and family. 7

The fallo of the trial court's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, this court finds accused Elpidio Gonzales y Lupos and Jhun Enummeng y Ayong guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 and, accordingly sentences them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

SO ORDERED. 8

Thus, Enummeng and Gonzales appealed 9 before the appellate court raising the lone assignment of error, to wit:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF KIDNAPPING, DESPITE THE MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES AND IMPROBABILITIES IN THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE. 10

The People likewise filed its Brief, raising the following arguments:

I

ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE.

II

THE VICTIM WAS A CREDIBLE WITNESS, AND HIS SOLE TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT APPELLANTS.

III

APPELLANTS' DEFENSES OF DENIAL AND ALIBI DESERVE SCANT CONSIDERATION.

IV

THE VICTIM IS ENTITLED TO CIVIL INDEMNITY, MORAL DAMAGES, AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. 11

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

The appellate court affirmed Enummeng and Gonzales' conviction with modifications to the damages awarded. 12 The CA sustained the RTC's finding that Jayson was restrained of his liberty and that such restraint was attended with serious threats to his life and family. 13 The appellate court also found no compelling reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of the prosecution witnesses' credibility. 14

The fallo of the assailed CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City Br. 111 dated November 12, 2013 in Criminal Case No. 10-01609-CR finding accused-appellants Jhun Enummeng y Ayong and Elpidio Gonzales y Lupos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.Accused-appellants are ordered to pay private complainant Jayson Ordinario P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.15

Thus, this appeal. 16 Both parties adopt their arguments in their respective appellants' and appellee's briefs in lieu of supplemental briefs. 17 In addition, accused-appellant Gonzales filed his own supplemental brief. 18

Our Ruling

The appeal has no merit. This Court finds no convincing reason to reverse the appellate court's ruling.

Minor inconsistencies do not

In their brief, Enummeng and Gonzales assert that there are material inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's evidence that warrant their acquittal. 19

First, they argue that Jayson's testimony did not clearly show the alleged restraint of liberty considering that he can freely move and do whatever he wanted to do. They add that Jayson's claim of kidnapping is unbelievable because Enummeng and Gonzales had no weapon when they allegedly forced Jayson to board the cab, and because there were many times that Jayson could have asked for help, but did not. 20

However, a reading of Jayson's testimony shows that the reason why he followed the orders of Enummeng and Gonzales, including getting on the cab and not raising any commotion, is his fear for the safety of his two-year old child and his partner, which fear was brought about by the repeated threats of Enummeng and Gonzales:

Q: What happened next when you saw a taxicab passed by and stopped beside you?

A: Two (2) persons alighted from the taxi.

Q: What did these two (2) persons do when they alighted from the taxicab?

A: They approached me, sir.

Q: What did they do when they approached you?

A: They held my hand and whispered to me.

Q: What was whispered to you by one of the persons?

A: He told me to go with them so that my companion will not be harmed.

Q: Who is your companion, by the way?

A: My child, sir, and my live-in partner.

Q: So, your live-in partner and your child.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How old is your child, by the way?

A: At that time, my child was already two years old.

Q: What was your reaction when the two men came out of the taxicab, grabbed you and whispered to you that harm will happen to your live-in partner and your child, what was your reaction to that?

A: I was surprised and I asked who they were and they replied that they were from the agency and they replied that we will be reporting to the agency and they were the persons who processed my papers.

Q: When you were answered in that manner that they were the persons in the agency, what was your reaction to that?

A: I was surprised of what they did because I was about to report to the agency, so I was surprised why they did that.

Q: What did you do when they threatened you and they forced you to board the taxi?

A: I went with them so nothing will happen to my wife and daughter.

Q: What was the reaction of your wife when these men arrived?

A: She was also surprised, sir. I told her that it's okay and I will return later to her house.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: When you entered the room accompanied by these accused, what happened next?

A: [Gonzales] talked to me, sir.

Q: And what did he tell you?

A: He asked me to sit down and told me to just cooperate and do everything that they will instruct me to do because if I will not follow their instructions, they will kill me or my family and that they are members of an international syndicate. Their bosses are blacks.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Going back, Mr. Witness, when you were seated and Mr. Elpidio Gonzales told you to cooperate, otherwise, harm will come to your family and he also told you that he is part of international syndicate, what happened next, Mr. Witness? By the way, what was your reaction to that? To those threats made to you?

A: I felt afraid and he also introduced himself as a member of the army.

Q: What happened next, Mr. Witness, after you felt afraid of the threat made to you?

A: I thought of steps that I can do to be able to escape.

Q: So, it lingered in your mind to escape? Is that what you are telling this Court?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what was the result of your act in finding a way?

A: I thought that if I escaped from that situation, something might happen to my family.

Q: So what did you decide, Mr. Witness?

A: I decided to just follow whatever instruction they will instruct me.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: And when you reacted that you do not want to swallow those capsules, what was the reaction of Elpidio Gonzales, if any?

A: He got mad and he told me "I told you to just follow our instructions because if you will not, something will happen to your family."

Q: What was your reaction to that when he reminded you to just follow instruction otherwise, something will happen to your family?

A: I still did not want to swallow the capsules.

Q: What happened next Mr. Witness, when you again told them that you do not want to swallow the capsules because you could not?

A: Elpidio Gonzales took out an ice pick and Jhun Enummeng also came near us.

Q: What did accused Elpidio Gonzales do with the ice pick which he took out?

A: They let me stand and pointed the ice pick at my neck.

Q: And what did Elpidio Gonzales tell you when he pointed that ice pick at your neck?

A: He instructed me to get one piece.

Q: One piece of what?

A: Of the capsules.

Q: What did he ask you to do with that capsule?

A: He instructed me to swallow it.

Q: And what did you do when you were instructed by Elpidio Gonzales to swallow those capsules while being pointed to by an ice pick?

A: Because of fear, I swallowed it. x x x 21 (Emphasis supplied)

Given such threats, We do not find "unbelievable" Jayson's acquiescence to the orders of Enummeng and Gonzales. From his point of view, it was clearly imperative to obey them.

Second, Enummeng and Gonzales claim that Jayson's accusation of being abducted is strange since they did not know of his location on the day of the alleged abduction, and because his live-in partner did not shout or report the alleged abduction to the police. 22

We disagree.

As Jayson stated, he informed Enummeng and Gonzales on the day of his abduction that he was going to hear the morning mass at Quiapo Church with his partner. 23 Given this fact, and considering that the agency had Jayson's photos, 24 We do not find it "strange" that Enummeng and Gonzales were able to locate Jayson. They evidently had the necessary information to locate Jayson that morning.

As to his partner's failure to shout, Jayson already explained that when Enummeng and Gonzales approached him, he assured her that nothing was wrong and that he would return to their house later that day. 25

Third, Enummeng and Gonzales argue that Jayson's partner, who was not presented in court, was in the best position to testify on the alleged abduction since she was with him in Quiapo. Further, they assert that the cab driver who drove the vehicle from Quiapo to the lodge, as well as the driver intercepted by the police officers during the rescue, should have been presented to corroborate Jayson's testimony. Enummeng and Gonzales add that the seized travel bags, plane tickets, and passport should have been submitted in court. 26

This Court is not persuaded.

Obviously, it is Jayson — not his partner or the cab drivers — who is in the best position to testify in this case, being the kidnap victim himself. Further, the failure of his partner and the cab drivers to testify is not fatal to the prosecution's case as the testimony of a single witness, when credible, is sufficient to convict. 27 Here, We find Jayson's testimony, which was even corroborated by two other witnesses, credible and sufficient to support Enummeng and Gonzales' conviction.

Fourth, Enummeng and Gonzales claim that it is strange for Jayson to not have suspected any irregularity in the processing of his employment application by Gonzales, whom he seems to have excessively relied on. 28

We disagree.

It should be noted that Jayson obtained Gonzales' number from Tita Cacayan, who was instrumental in helping Jayson's sister get a job in China as a cellular phone dealer. 29 Jayson was thus under the impression that this person, through Gonzales, can process his application.

Fifth, Enummeng and Gonzales opine that since Jayson himself stated that he was rescued at the airport, and not near Park 'N' Fly (which was in the vicinity of the airport), credence must be given to Enummeng and Gonzales' defense that they were unlawfully arrested and kidnapped at the airport. 30 But this conclusion hardly follows. In any event, the alleged inconsistency as to the exact place of rescue (whether at the airport or near Park 'N' Fly close to the airport) is too trivial to discredit Jayson's testimony.

Last, Gonzales insists in his supplemental brief that Jayson's testimony is full of lies and is therefore not credible. 31 However, when it comes to credibility, this Court ordinarily defers to the assessment and evaluation by the trial court especially when it is affirmed by the appellate court. 32 Here, after carefully examining Jayson's testimony, We find no reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of his credibility.

In short, We are not persuaded by any of the arguments raised by Enummeng and Gonzales in their brief and those raised by Gonzales in his supplemental brief. The records show that the prosecution was able to establish the following elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention:

1. The offender is a private individual[;]

2. That individual kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of liberty[;]

3. The act of detention or kidnapping is illegal[;]

4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:

a. The kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days.

b. It is committed by one who simulates public authority.

c. Any serious physical injury is inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or any threat to kill that person is made.

d. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, a female or a public officer. 33

Here, Enummeng and Gonzales, the offenders, are private individuals. They intentionally deprived Jayson of his liberty when, after threatening him to go with them, they detained him in a lodge where he was later forced to swallow the 34 yellow capsules. Their act was not permitted by any law or ordered by a competent authority. Hence, the appellate court correctly affirmed their conviction. The CA also correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua34 and properly modified the award of damages pursuant to the prevailing jurisprudence. 35

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The September 20, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06504 is AFFIRMED. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED." (S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 14.

2.Id. at 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Rafael Antonio M. Santos.

3. CA rollo, pp. 46-58. Penned by Presiding Judge Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan.

4. Records, pp. 2-3.

5. CA rollo, pp. 47-51.

6.Id. at 58.

7.Id. at 52-57.

8.Id. at 58.

9. Records, pp. 412-413.

10. CA rollo, p. 35.

11.Id. at 70.

12.Rollo, p. 12.

13.Id. at 10.

14.Id. at 11.

15.Id. at 12.

16.Id. at 14.

17.Id. at 25, 30.

18.Id. at 35-42.

19. CA rollo, p. 40.

20.Id. at 40-41.

21. TSN, December 15, 2010, pp. 38-48.

22. CA rollo, p. 41.

23. TSN, December 15, 2010, pp. 36-37.

24.Id. at 24.

25.Id. at 39-40.

26. CA rollo, p. 41.

27.People v. Ponsaran, 426 Phil. 836, 847 (2002).

28. CA rollo, p. 42.

29. Records, p. 21.

30. CA rollo, p. 42.

31.Rollo, p. 39.

32.Galan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 273 (2017), citing People v. Regaspi, 768 Phil. 593, 598 (2015).

33.People v. Borja, 815 Phil. 327, 337-338 (2017), citing People v. Obeso, 460 Phil. 625, 633 (2003).

34. Under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended, the penalty for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention is reclusion perpetua to death. Without any mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed pursuant to Article 63 of the RPC.

35.People v. Chan, G.R. No. 226836, December 5, 2018, citing People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).