People v. Paredes, Jr. y Reantorco

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 238745. January 30, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. CECILIO PAREDES, JR. Y REANTORCO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 30 January 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 238745 — People of the Philippines v. Cecilio Paredes, Jr. y Reantorco

The records of this case were elevated on May 16, 2018, pursuant to the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution 1 dated November 21, 2017, which gave due course to the Notice of Appeal 2 filed by Cecilio Paredes, Jr. y Reantorco (accused-appellant). The CA Decision 3 dated September 29, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07211, affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC's) ruling convicting appellant of Kidnap for Ransom with Murder.

On July 9, 2018, the Court issued a Resolution 4 requiring the parties to simultaneously file their respective supplemental briefs if they so desire, within 30 days from notice.

On October 16, 2018, accused-appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), filed its Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 5 stating that he will no longer file a supplemental brief considering that the Brief for the Accused-Appellant 6 before the CA dated March 3, 2016 had exhaustively argued all the relevant issues pertinent to his defense. On September 12, 2018, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 7 stating that it will no longer submit a supplemental brief considering that it has substantially and exhaustively responded to and refuted accused-appellant's arguments in its Brief for the Appellee 8 dated October 4, 2016.

After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court resolves to dismiss the appeal for failure of accused-appellant to sufficiently show any reversible error in the challenged decision to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction. There is no showing at all that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight which could have affected the outcome of the case.

As correctly found by the CA and the RTC, there were overwhelming pieces of evidence that point to the guilt of the accused. Firstly, aside from the extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant, the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution were simple, candid, straightforward and unflawed of any material inconsistency, thus deserving of full faith and credit. Kristine Joy Lopez and Angelica Rey, both witnesses for the prosecution, categorically stated that it was the accused-appellant, whom they saw together with the victim. This fact was corroborated by the other witnesses for the prosecution namely Melchor and Lina Dollero as well as Adolfo Aguilar.

Accused-appellant was the last person seen together with the 8-year-old victim and he was the one who drew the sketch that was used in locating the place where the dead body of Sear was found. 9

The argument of accused-appellant that he only acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force which consequently exempts him from criminal liability is of no moment and cannot be given credence by this Honorable Court. Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom. However, it was held that for such a defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. 10 We have held that in order for the circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal combat. 11

In the instant case, as correctly pointed out by the CA, it is simply contrary to human experience that those who allegedly robbed the accused would conspire with him to commit kidnapping when they just met on the day of the alleged robbery. It is contrary to human experience that the alleged robbers would entrust the immense task of kidnapping on a total stranger like the accused. In addition, even if the extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant were true, it would still not suffice to fall within the ambit of the exempting circumstance of irresistible force. In the first place, the alleged threat pertains to a future injury. Second, there was ample opportunity for the accused-appellant to escape or to report to the police. Testimonial evidence for the prosecution shows that he went around Barangays Danicop, Igang and San Isidro in Virac, Catanduanes. At that point, he had all the time to escape, but he did not. Clearly, there was no imminent danger to his life as to warrant the appreciation of exempting circumstance of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.

Finding that the penalty imposed and the damages awarded are in accord with prevailing jurisprudence, 12 we affirm in toto the CA ruling.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07211, which affirmed the December 8, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes in Criminal Case No. 5143, finding accused Cecilio Paredes, Jr. y Reantorco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and to pay the family of Sear Andrei Agripa P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest of 6% per annum on all damages from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid, is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. CA rollo, p. 149.

2.Id. at 145-146.

3. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan; id. at 122-141.

4.Rollo, pp. 28-29.

5.Id. at 40-42.

6.CA rollo, pp. 38-52.

7.Rollo, pp. 30-34.

8. CA rollo, pp. 87-102.

9.Id. at 129, 136.

10.People v. Anod, 613 Phil. 565, 571 (2009).

11.People v. Morales, 471 Phil. 792, 814 (2004).

12. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).