GR 203961 People of the Philippines vs Roderick Licayan, Roberto Lara and a nd Rogelio elos Reyes !or "idnapping for Ranso# !$%&'( Roderick Licayan and Roberto Lara )ere convicted of the cri#e of "idnapping for Ranso# and )ere sentenced to death by the R&% of *ariki *arikina na %ity %ity+ &he decisi decision on )as ar#e ar#ed d by the '-pre '-pre#e #e %o-rt %o-rt on $-g-st 1., 2001+ /t beca#e nal and eec-tor on ove#ber 9, 2001, and a rit rit of 4ec-tion )as iss-ed on ove#ber 15, 2003 ordering the acc-sed to be eec-ted on an-ary 30, 2007 at 3(00 P*+ eeks before Licayan and Lara )ere sched-led to be eec-ted, t)o of their their co8accco8acc-sed sed in the origin original al /nfor /nfor#at #ation ion )ere )ere arre arreste sted d Pedr Pedro o *abans *abansag ag and Rogelio ogelio elos elos Reyes+ eyes+ &he P$: led led )ith )ith the '-pre#e %o-rt on an-ary 1., 2007 an ;rgent *otion to Reopen the %ase )ith Leave of %o-rt+ &he %o-rt iss-ed a Resol-tion ordering the te#porary s-spension of the eec-tion of Licayan and Lara for a period of 30 calendar days+ :n !ebr-ary 1<, 2007, the '-pre#e %o-rt granted the the ;rge ;rgent nt *oti *otion on to Re8ope e8open n the the %ase %ase )ith )ith Leav Leave e of %o-r %o-rtt and and re#anded the case to the lo)er co-rt for f-rther reception of evidence+ -ring -ring their their arrai arraign# gn#ent ent,, *abans *abansag ag and elos elos Reyes eyes pleade pleaded d not g-ilty to the cri#es charged in the /nfro#ations -nder )hich their co8 acc-sed )ere previo-sly indicted+ :n ove#b ove#ber er 1., 200., 200., *abans *abansay ay dies dies )hile )hile detain detained ed at the *arikina %ity ail+ :n !ebr-ary 1<, 2009, the R&% rendered its decision ndi nding ng Lica Licay yan, an, Lara Lara,, and and el elos Reyes yes g-i g-ilty lty of the cri cri#e of "idnapping for Ranso# and sentenced the# to recl-sion perpet-a+ &he decision )as appealed to the %o-rt of $ppeals )hich ar#ed in toto the lo)er co-rt=s decision on -ly 7, 2012+ $cc-s cc-sed ed8a 8app ppel ella lant nt elo elos s Reyes eyes reite eitera rate tes s his his defe defens nse e of ee#pting circ-#stance of -ncontrollable fear as to )hy he did not report the cri#e to the police beca-se he )as being threatened by his other other co8accco8acc-sed sed++ *oreov *oreover, er, other other acc-se acc-sed8a d8appe ppella llants nts Licaya Licayan n and Lara seek to overt-rn their conviction on the basis of ne)ly discovered evidence presented d-ring their retrial+ /'';4'( >1?hether or not the ee#pting circ-#stance of -ncontrollable dear sho-ld be considered in favor of elos Reyes@ Reyes@ >2?hether or not Licayan and Lara sho-ld be acA-itted based on p-rportedly ne)ly discovered evidence@ R;L/G( >1? $cc-sed8a $cc-sed8appell ppellant ant elos Reyes did not ref-te the testi#ony testi#ony of private private co#p co#pla lain inan antt %o that that he >el >elos os Reyes eyes?? )as )as one one of the the abdabd-ct ctor ors+ s+
/nstead he ad#itted going to the ho-se of Pedro *abansag, &ata Placio and oBo >t)o of the co8acc-sed )ho )ere not apprehended? poked a g-n at hi# and threatened hi# that they )o-ld kill hi# if he reports the #atter to the police+ Ce ad#itted that he sa) 2ersons inside the ho-se near the kitchen+ $fter he left the safe ho-se, elos Reyes ad#itted that he no longer felt being threatened b-t still he did not report )hat he )itnessed to the police a-thorities+ &he %o-rt ar#ed the ndings of the R&%, adding that the testi#ony of elos Reyes )as self8serving and co-ld not stand on its o)n to prove the ele#ents of the ee#pting circ-#stances relied -pon+ &he %o-rt held that a person invoking the ee#pting circ-#stance of co#p-lsion d-e to irresistible force ad#its in eDect the co##ission of a p-nishable act, and #-st therefor prove the ee#pting circ-#stance by clear and convincing evidence+ &he appellate co-rt did not err )hen it relied on the doctrine that the #atter of assigning val-es to declarations on the )itness stand is best and #ost co#petently perfor#ed by the trial B-dge, )ho had the -n#atched opport-nity to observe the )itnesses to assess their credibility by the vario-s indicia available b-t not reEected on the record+ &he %o-rt nds it hard to believe that a person )ho accidentally discovers kidnap victi#s )o-ld be held at g-npoint by the kidnappers to g-ard said victi#sF or that a #aster#ind of a kidnapping syndicate, instead of cond-cting his ghting cock selling activities in the reg-lar #eeting place, )o-ld invite a recent aliate to the place )here he is holding prisonersF or that elos Reyes d-d not nd it -n-s-al to see a )o#an )ith her hands tied+ >2? &he pro hac vice resol-tion of the '-pre#e %o-rt on an-ary 1., 2007 allo)s the %o-rt an -n-s-al task to revisit its o)n nal and eec-tor decision+ /t sho-ld be stressed that a ne) trial based on ne)ly discovered evidence #ay only be granted by the co-rt on #otion of the acc-sed or #ot- proprio )ith the consent of the acc-sed at any ti#e before a B-dg#ent of conviction beco#es nalH+ !-rther#ore, the adavits of *abansag and elos Reyes cannot be considered ne)ly discovered in that the aants are the #ovants= co8acc-sed )ho )ere already identied as s-ch d-ring the trial+ &o p-t things in perspective, the pro hac vice Resol-tion epressly granted the eDects of R-le 121, 'ection 6 >b? of the R-les of %o-rt+ /n general, the ne)H evidence add-ced in the second trial consists in >1? allegations that the identication of Licayan and Lara by %o and *anaysay )as -nreliableF >2? testi#onies and adavits of the recently apprehended *abansag and elos Reyes, both of )ho# allege that Licayas and Lara )ere not involved in the cri#eF and >3? testi#onies p-rporting to establish Lara )as a t )ork in $ntipolo d-ring the kidnapping incident+
&he second trial )as #eant to give Licayan and Lara the opport-nity to present ne) evidence that )ere not available d-ring the rst trial+ Co)ever, the foc-s of their defense )as to sho) that the identication #ade by the victi#s )as -nreliable+ &he %o-rt held that discrepancies in testi#onies concerning #inor details and not act-ally to-ching -pon the central fact of the cri#e do not i#pair their credibility+ /nstead of )eakening the testi#onies, these inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility, beca-se they disco-nt the probability of their being rehearsed+ &he ne) evidence all-ded to by the '-pre#e %o-rt in its pro hac vice resol-tion to grant a ne) trial )as s-pposed to be the testi#onies of the then recently capt-red *abansag and elos Reyes, )ho both denied that Licayan and Lara participated in the cri#e+ &he state#ents of *abansag and elos Reyes )o-ld have been given #ore )eight had they personally ad#itted their o)n involve#ent in the cri#e+ *oreover, the %o-rt has repeatedly held that for alibi to prosper, it is not eno-gh to prove that the acc-sed )as so#e)here else )hen the cri#e )as co##ittedF he #-st also de#onstrate that it )as physically i#possible for hi# to have been at the scene of the cri#e at the ti#e of its co##ission+ &he ne) evidence presented by Licayan and Lara not only aled to prove that iehter of the# )as in another place d-ring their alleged participation in the kidnapping of %o and *anaysay, b-t like)ise failed to discredit the positive identication #ade by both %o and *anaysay+ C4R4!:R4, the ecision of the %o-rt of $ppeals in %$8G+R+ %R8 C+%+ o+ 03<9< dated -ly 7, 2012, )hich ar#ed in toto the disposition of the Regional &rial %o-rt of*arikina in %ri#inal %ase o+ 958260.8*" and 95826068*" dated !ebr-ary 1<, 2009, is hereby $!!/R*4 )ith *:/!/%$&/:'+
