Case Digest: People vs Muit GR 181043 8 Oct 2008

          Article 267: Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention | Criminal Law

Facts:

Millano Muit, Sergio Pancho, Jr., Rolando Dequillo, Romeo Pancho, Eduardo "Eddie" Hermano, and Joseph Ferraer were charged with kidnapping for ransom with homicide and carnapping in two separate informations. Only Muit, Pancho Jr., Dequillo, Romeo, and Ferraer were arrested and stood trial. However, Ferraer was discharged from the criminal cases by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and was utilized as a state witness. All appellants pleaded not guilty during their arraignments.

In the afternoon of 11 November 1997, Orestes Julaton, a relative of Ferraer, arrived at the latter’s house in Kaylaway, Nasugbu, Batangas with Sergio Pancho, Sr,  Pancho, Jr., Dequillo and four other men on board a gray Mitsubishi car with plate number PSV-818. Julaton introduced them to Ferraer and told the latter that Pancho, Sr. is also their relative. Pancho, Sr. told Ferraer that they wanted to use his house as a safehouse for their "visitor." Ferraer was hesitant at first as he thought it was risky for him and his family. Hermano told Ferraer not to worry because they are not killers; their line of work is kidnap for ransom. Ferraer was assured that the money they will get would be shared equally among them. Ferraer and Pancho, Sr. would guard their victim. Later, five other men came and they were introduced to Ferraer as Muit, Morales, alias Tony, alias David and alias Puri. They had dinner and chatted until midnight. That evening, Morales handed to Ferraer for safekeeping a folded carton wrapped with masking tape contained in a big paper bag, and a green backpack. Hermano told Ferraer that the package contained guns. Ferraer brought the package inside his room; he inspected the contents before placing them under the bed, and saw that the carton contained a shotgun and the green backpack, an Ingram folding. Morales and Udon also showed him their .45 caliber guns tucked at their waists.

At one o’clock in the afternoon of 24 November 1997, Ferraer saw Pancho, Jr., and Hermano with a companion, seated under the tree in front of his house. Pancho, Jr. introduced their companion as Romeo. They informed Ferraer that the following day, they would proceed with their plan. Romeo would be the informant since he is an insider and a trusted general foreman of the victim Earl Ong, Jr. The next day, at nine o’clock in the morning, Pancho, Sr. arrived at Ferraer’s house alone and asked Ferraer if he was already informed of the plan. Ferraer replied in the affirmative. Pancho, Sr. told him to wait for the group’s return. However, the group returned without the intended victim because the latter did not show up at the construction site. On 2 December 1997, the group received a call from Romeo informing them that the victim was already at the construction site. Hermano, Morales, Udon, Manuel, Bokbok, and Muit commuted to the construction site at Barangay Darasa, Tanauan, Batangas. Pancho, Jr. was on board the Mitsubishi car as back-up.

At around two o’clock in the afternoon of the same date, 2 December 1997, Roger Seraspe, the personal driver of the victim, drove a blue Pajero with plate number UDL-746 carrying Engr. Ruth Roldan and the victim to visit the Flexopac project site at Barangay Darasa, Tanauan, Batangas. At the site, Engr. Roldan and the victim alighted from the Pajero and, along with Engr. Ed dela Cruz, toured the construction site. Seraspe talked with Armand Chavez, the warehouseman of ILO Construction, while waiting for his boss.

After the site inspection, the three engineers walked towards the direction of the Pajero. Seraspe was surprised to see that the three engineers who stood together suddenly lay prostrate on the ground. Seraspe and Chavez saw an unidentified man standing near the three engineers. Three more armed men surrounded the Pajero. Two of them approached Seraspe and Chavez. One of the armed men, Muit, poked a gun at Seraspe and ordered him and Chavez to lay prostrate on the ground. The assailants dragged the victim towards the Pajero. They forced the victim to order Seraspe to give them the keys to the Pajero. When the victim was already on board the Pajero, Seraspe heard one of them say, "Sarge, nandito na ang ating pakay."

They then started the Pajero and drove away, passing through the Pag-asa Road gate. Two more persons who were waiting at the Pag-asa road boarded the Pajero.

At 2:30 that same afternoon, Lipa City Deputy Chief of Police, Supt. Arcadio Mission (Supt. Mission) received a radio message from the Tanauan Police Station that a kidnapping was ongoing and the kidnappers on board a Pajero with plate number UDL-746 were heading towards Lipa City. Supt. Mission immediately ordered the police posted near the Lipa City bus stop to put up a barricade. In the meantime, two teams were organized to intercept the Pajero. They proceeded to the barricade.

Right after Supt. Mission and the teams arrived at the barricade, the Pajero was spotted. When policemen flagged down the Pajero, the driver stopped the vehicle. While two policemen approached the Pajero, the driver and front passenger opened their car doors and started firing at the policemen. At this point, all the policemen present at the scene fired back. The cross-fire lasted for around four minutes. All the occupants of the Pajero, except the driver and the front passenger who managed to escape, died. SPO1 Rolando Cariaga apprehended one of the escapees who turned out to be Muit, the driver of the Pajero, at Barangay San Carlos, Batangas, about 200 meters from the place of the shootout.

On the other hand, after the assailants carried their plan into action, Pancho, Jr. proceeded to their agreed meeting place but did not find Hermano’s group there. Pancho, Jr. waited along the highway in front of the construction site. He thought that he had been left behind when he did not see the group, so he left. When Pancho, Jr. returned to Ferraer’s house, he told Ferraer what happened to their operation. Worried that something bad might have happened to the group, Pancho, Jr. went back and looked for the rest of his group. Pancho, Jr. came back alone.

At around 5:30 in the morning of 3 December 1997, Ferraer saw Pancho, Sr. and Pancho, Jr. watching the TV program "Alas Singko y Medya." He joined them and saw on the news the Pajero riddled with bullets. Pancho, Sr. and Pancho, Jr. left Ferraer’s house at around 9:00 in the morning and they also left behind the Mitsubishi car they used. That night, Ferraer saw on the news program TV Patrol a footage showing the cadavers of Udon, Morales, Manuel, Bokbok and the victim, and the Pajero riddled with bullets. Ferraer also saw Muit in handcuffs.

Defense:

Muit claimed that on 2 December 1997 he was in Lipa City, near the place of the shootout. He had just attended a gathering of the Rizalistas and was waiting for his uncle Bonifacio when the police arrested him. He denied having any knowledge of the crime. He denied knowing the people whose name appeared in his two extra judicial confessions. He claimed that the names were supplied by the police and that he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation.

RTC: Muit, Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Romeo guilty.

The RTC did not give credence to the claims of appellants that their extra judicial confessions were procured through torture as these were belied by the testimony of Atty. Mallare and appellants’ medical certificates which were issued during their incarceration and after the execution of their statements. And the RTC noted that even without appellants’ extra judicial confessions, there was still sufficient evidence on record to hold them guilty.

CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Appellants executed extra judicial confessions, duly assisted by their counsels, detailing their participation in the kidnapping. As for Muit, other than his extra judicial confession, he was also positively identified during the kidnapping by eyewitnesses Seraspe and Chavez. Appellants filed their notices of appeal with the Court of Appeals.

Issues:

(i) WoN the RTC erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges against them; 

(ii) WoN the RTC erred in its finding that they acted in conspiracy in the commission of the crimes charged against them; and 

(iii) WoN  the RTC erred in giving credence to the extra-judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr. and Dequillo, and to the sworn statement and testimony of Ferraer in convicting them.

Held:

The elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention are the following: 

(a) the accused is a private individual; 

(b) the accused kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and 

(d) in the commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances mentioned in Article 267 is present. 

The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect the same. The totality of the prosecution’s evidence in this case established the commission of kidnapping for ransom with homicide.

On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act, as amended, defines "carnapping" as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. The crime was committed in this case when the victim’s Pajero was forcibly taken away from him contemporaneously with his kidnapping at the construction site.

(i) The kidnapping for ransom with homicide and the carnapping were established by the direct testimony of Ferraer, Seraspe and Chavez. Ferraer testified on how the group approached and convinced him to let them use his house to keep the victim they planned to kidnap. They planned the crime in Ferraer’s house and waited for the call from Romeo to inform them when the victim would be at the construction site. The group received a call from Romeo on 2 December 1997 informing them that the victim was already at the construction site, and so they went there to carry out their plan. At the construction site, as testified to by Seraspe and Chavez, Muit and the other members of the group pointed their guns at the victim and his companion and ordered them to lie prostrate on the ground. After getting the keys to the Pajero from Seraspe, they forced the victim to board the vehicle with Muit driving it. They immediately reported the kidnapping of the victim to the police and the kidnappers were intercepted by the group led by Supt. Mission. Supt. Mission testified that the kidnappers refused to surrender and engaged the police in a shoot out in which the victim was among the casualties. Muit was one of the two persons who survived the shoot out, but was apprehended by the police. Pancho, Jr. returned to the house of Ferraer alone when the group did not arrive at their meeting place. Ferraer, Pancho, Jr., and Pancho, Sr. learned from the news that the group engaged the police in a shoot out and most of them were killed, and that Muit was arrested by the police.

After investigation, the police were able to apprehend appellants Pancho, Jr., Romeo, and Dequillo who all took part in the botched criminal conspiracy to kidnap the victim. During the investigation, Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit, with the assistance of their counsels and family members, executed extra judical confessions divulging their respective roles in the planning and execution of the crimes.

(ii) Even though Pancho, Jr., Dequillo and Romeo did not participate in the actual abduction of the victim, they should still be held liable, as the courts below did, because of the existence of conspiracy. Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime. Where conspiracy is established, the precise modality or extent of participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all.27 The degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial.

The conspiracy to kidnap the victim was proven through circumstantial evidence. The group thoroughly planned the kidnapping in Ferraer’s house and patiently waited for the day when the victim would be at the construction site. Then on 2 December 1997, the group received a call from Romeo so they proceeded to the construction site and carried out their plan.

All the appellants took active part in the criminal conspiracy and performed different roles to consummate their common plan. The roles which Muit and his other companions played in the actual abduction were described earlier. As for Dequillo, he was the one who procured the guns used by the group. Pancho, Jr. served as the driver of the back-up vehicle, and Romeo was the group’s informant.

Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence states that circumstantial evidence is sufficient if: 

(a) there is more than one circumstance; 

(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 

(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

(iii) The extra judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit strengthened the case against them. There is nothing on record to support appellants’ claim that they were coerced and tortured into executing their extra judicial confessions. One of the indicia of voluntariness in the execution of appellants’ extra judicial statements is that each contains many details and facts which the investigating officers could not have known and could not have supplied, without the knowledge and information given by appellants. Moreover, the appellants were assisted by their lawyers when they executed their statements. Atty. Mallare testified that Pancho, Jr. and Dequillo executed their statements voluntarily and affixed their signatures after he talked with them alone and informed them of their constitutional rights. Muit, on the other hand, was assisted by counsels in each instance when he executed his two extra judicial confessions; his second statement was even witnessed by his uncle, Bonifacio, and his brother, Dominador. Muit cannot just conveniently disclaim any knowledge of the contents of his extra judicial confession. Nevertheless, in Muit’s case, he was also positively identified by Seraspe and Chavez as the one who pointed a gun at them during the kidnapping and ordered them to lay prostrate on the ground.

Appellants’ claims of torture are not supported by medical certificates from the physical examinations done on them. These claims of torture were mere afterthoughts as they were raised for the first time during trial; appellants did not even inform their family members who visited them while they were imprisoned about the alleged tortures. Dequillo, for his part, also had the opportunity to complain of the alleged torture done to him to the Department of Justice when he was brought there. Claims of torture are easily concocted, and cannot be given credence unless substantiated by competent and independent corroborating evidence.

The extra judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit also strengthened the prosecution’s case against Romeo. The rule that an extra judicial confession is evidence only against the person making it recognizes various exceptions. One such exception is where several extra judicial statements had been made by several persons charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said several confessions, the fact that the statements are in all material respects identical is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein. They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated therein to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as corroborative evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime charged and proved. These are known as "interlocking confessions." Nonetheless, the RTC, in convicting Romeo, relied not only on the aforesaid extra judicial statements but also on Ferraer’s testimony that Romeo was introduced to him in his house as the informant when they were planning the kidnapping.

As for the penalty, the RTC did not err in imposing the penalty of death since the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person. Neither actual demand for nor payment of ransom is necessary for the consummation of the felony. It is sufficient that the deprivation of liberty was for the purpose of extorting ransom even if none of the four circumstances mentioned in Article 267 were present in its perpetration.

The death of the victim as a result of the kidnapping only serves as a generic aggravating circumstance for the rule is that when more than one qualifying circumstances are proven, the others must be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.

The imposition of death penalty is also proper in the carnapping of the victim’s Pajero because it was committed by a band, which serves as a generic aggravating circumstance, without any mitigating circumstance. There is band whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of the offense. As planned, Muit and three other armed men kidnapped the victim and drove away with the latter’s Pajero while two more persons waiting near the Pag-asa road boarded the Pajero.

However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalties imposed are commuted to reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties and without eligibility for parole under Act No. 4103.

Penalty:

Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. 

₱25,000.00 temperate damages,

₱75,000.00 civil indemnity, 

₱500,000.00 moral damages, and 

₱100,000.00 exemplary damages

The civil indemnity and damages shall earn interest at 6% per annum.

Recit Version:

Facts:  

Millano Muit, Sergio Pancho, Jr., Rolando Dequillo, Romeo Pancho, and Joseph Ferraer were charged with Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, and Carnapping. 

1. Muit was part of the kidnapping team; 
2. Pancho Jr. was the driver of the back-up vehicle; 
3. Dequillo was the one who procured the guns used by the group;
4. Romeo was the informant and trusted general foreman of the victim Engr. Earl Ong, Jr.; 
5. Ferraer was approached to use his house as safehouse who was discharged from the criminal cases and was utilized as a state witness. He did not participate in the actual execution of the kidnapping.

After the site inspection, Roger Seraspe, the victim's driver, and Armand Chavez saw the engineers suddenly lie on the ground while armed men surrounded them. After getting the keys to the Pajero from Seraspe, they forced the victim to board the vehicle with Muit driving it.   

Lipa City Deputy Chief of Police received a report and organized teams to intercept the Pajero, setting up a barricade near the Lipa City bus stop. When the police spotted the Pajero, they signaled it to stop. However, a shootout that lasted approximately four minutes ensued. The occupants of the Pajero, except for the driver and front passenger who escaped, were killed. One of the escapees, identified as Muit, the Pajero's driver, was later apprehended around 200 meters away from the shootout location. 

Defense: 

Muit claimed he had just attended a gathering of the Rizalistas and was waiting for his uncle Bonifacio when the police arrested him. He denied having any knowledge of the crime. He denied knowing the people whose name appeared in his two extra judicial confessions. He claimed that the names were supplied by the police and that he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation. 

RTC: Muit, Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Romeo guilty.

CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC. 

Issues: 

(i) WoN the RTC erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges against them;  

(ii) WoN the RTC erred in its finding that they acted in conspiracy in the commission of the crimes charged against them; and 

(iii) WoN  the RTC erred in giving credence to the extra-judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr. and Dequillo, and to the sworn statement and testimony of Ferraer in convicting them. 

Held: Guilty of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and carnapping. 

Generic aggravating circumstance: Death of the victim, Committed by a band

(i) Neither actual demand for nor payment of ransom is necessary for the consummation of the felony. It is sufficient that the deprivation of liberty was for the purpose of extorting ransom even if none of the four circumstances mentioned in Article 267 were present in its perpetration. The crime of carnapping was committed in this case when the victim’s Pajero was forcibly taken away from him contemporaneously with his kidnapping at the construction site. 

Ferraer testified on how the group approached and convinced him to let them use his house to keep the victim they planned to kidnap. Seraspe and Chavez, testified on the events that occurred at the site. 

During the investigation, Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit, with the assistance of their counsels and family members, executed extra judical confessions divulging their respective roles in the planning and execution of the crimes. 

(ii) Even though Pancho, Jr., Dequillo and Romeo did not participate in the actual abduction of the victim, they should still be held liable, as the courts below did, because of the existence of conspiracy. Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime.  

All the appellants took active part in the criminal conspiracy and performed different roles to consummate their common plan. The roles which Muit and his other companions played in the actual abduction were described earlier. As for Dequillo, he was the one who procured the guns used by the group. Pancho, Jr. served as the driver of the back-up vehicle, and Romeo was the group’s informant. 

(iii) The rule that an extra judicial confession is evidence only against the person making it recognizes various exceptions. One such exception is where several extra judicial statements had been made by several persons charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said several confessions, the fact that the statements are in all material respects identical is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein. 

They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated therein to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as corroborative evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime charged and proved. These are known as "interlocking confessions. 

Penalty: 
Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.  
₱25,000.00 temperate damages, 
₱75,000.00 civil indemnity, 
₱500,000.00 moral damages, and 
₱100,000.00 exemplary damages 
The civil indemnity and damages shall earn interest at 6% per annum.