People v. Pavillare Per Curiam (2000) At about noon of Feb 12, 1996, Indian national Su!"inder Sin#! $a% on !i% $a& ba' to !i% motor'&'le pared at t!e 'orner of S'out e&e% and o'e% Ave $!en t!ree men blo'ed !i% $a& !e one dire'tl& in front of !im, $!om !e later identified a% !erein appellant Pavillare, a''u%ed !im of !avin# raped t!e $oman in%ide t!e red *ia ta+i 'ab pared nearb& Sin#! denied t!e a''u%ation, but t!e t!ree men nevert!ele%% for'ed !im in%ide t!e ta+i 'ab and brou#!t !im %ome$!ere near St o%ep!-% Co lle#e in ue/on Cit& ne of t!e abdu'tor% too t!e e& to !i% motor'&'le and drove it alon#%ide t!e 'ab. A''ordin# to Sin#!, t!e appellant and !i% 'ompanion% beat !im up and demanded P100,000 for !i% relea%e Sin#! told !im !e onl& !ad P,000 $it! !im. !ereafter, appellant Pavillare for'ed !im to #ive t!e p!on e number% of !i% relative% %o t!e& 'an mae t!eir demand from t!em Sin#! #ave t!e p!one number of !i% 'ou%in a!vir Sin#! and t!e appellant made t!e 'all. Appellant Pavillare !a##led $it! !i% 'ou%in for t!e amount of t!e ran%om until t!e amount of P2,000 $a% a#reed upon !en, t!e idnapper% too !im to t!e 'orner of Aurora 3lvd and 3o%ton St and pared t!e 'ab t!ere $!ere appellant Pavillare and t$o 'ompanion% ali#!ted $!ile t!e driver and t!eir lad& 'ompanion %ta&ed $it! t!e 'omplainant in t!e 'ar 4!en t!e 'omplainant turned to %ee $!ere Pavillare and !i% 'ompanion% $ent, !e %a$ !i% un'le and !i% 'ou%in in a motor'&'le and to#et!er $it! t!e idnapper% entered a mini5#ro'er& ater, t!e idnapper% brou#!t !im to t!e mini5#ro'er& $!ere !e met !i% relative%. !e ran%om mone& $a% !anded to Pavillare b& t!e 'omplainant-% 'ou%in, after $!i'! t!e appellant 'ounted t!e mone& and t!en, to#et!er $it! !i% 'o!ort%, immediatel& left t!e %'ene $o da&% later, t!e vi'tim $ent to t!e poli'e to formall& lod#e !i% 'omplaint a#ain%t !i% idnapper%. e #ave in'omplete de%'ription% of !i% abdu'tor% in !i% affidavit5'omplaint 7ean$!ile, !erein appellant Pavillare !ad "u%t been appre!ended b& t!e poli'e in 'onne'tion $it! anot!er 'a%e involvin# t!e idnappin# of anot!er Indian national erein 'omplainant $a% t!en %ummone d ba' to t!e poli'e %tation $!ere, in a poli'e line5up, !e identified appellant Pavillare a% one of !i% idnapper% !ereafter, an information for idnappin# for ran%om $a% filed a#ain%t !erein appellant Pavillare. 8pon arrai#nment, !e pleaded not #uilt&: In trial, Pavillare interpo%ed t!e defen%e of #eneral denial and alibi; t!i% not$it!%tandin#, t!e trial 'ourt $a% %$a&ed b& t!e pro%e'ution<% 'a%e and entered !erein a%%ailed "ud#ment 'onvi'tin# appellant =duardo Pavillare $it! t!e 'rime% '!ar#ed and %enten'in# !im $it! t!e %upreme penalt& of deat! > !en'e, t!i% automati' revie$ ISS8=? 4o@ t!e trial 'ourt erred in findin# !im #uilt& of idnappin# for ran%om be&ond rea%onable doubt $!en it relied in 'omplainant<% in5'ourt and pre5trial poli'e line5up identifi'ation of !im a% t!e abdu'tor alt!ou#! !e $a% t!en $it!out 'oun%el, in 'ontravention to !i% Con%titutional ri#!t =? @. !e de'i%ion of C C i% findin# Pavillare #uilt& be&ond rea%onable doubt of t!e 'rime of idnappin# for ran%om i% AFFI=7= in toto AI? A I? Appellant Pavillare pra&% for a'Buittal on t!e #round t!at t!e identifi'ation of !im b& t!e 'omplainant in t!e poli'e line5up i% tainted $it! pro'edural and 'on%titutional infirmitie%12 main# t!e %ame and t!e %ub%eBuent in5'ourt identifi'ation inadmi%%ible a% eviden'e t!i% i% 8@=@A3= Contrar& to appellant<% 'ontention, t!e 'omplainant !ad more t!an enou#! opportunit& to ob%erve t!e feature% of !i% abdu'tor% (and !en'e, re'o#ni/e !i% u#l& fa'e). !i% i% eviden'ed b& t!e 'omplainant<% un!e%itatin# and 'on%i%tent identifi'ation of !erein appellant Pavillare a% one of t!e idnapper% in 'ourt and previou%l&, durin# t!e poli'e line5up Al%o, t!e vi'tim<% identifi'ation $a% 'orroborated b& !i% 'ou%in<% te%timon&. A% !e $a% t!e one on e $!o !anded t!e ran%om to appellant Pavillare, !e $a% al%o in t!e po%ition to po%itivel& identif&, a% !e did, Pavillare a% one of t!e abdu'tor% Furt!er,
appellant<% defen%e t!at t!e identifi'ation made b& t!e 'omplainant in t!e poli'e line5up i% inadmi%%ible be'au%e t!e appellant %tood at t!e line5up $it!out t!e a%%i%tan'e of 'oun%el i% $it!out merit Se' 12(1), Art III of t!e Commi%%ion %tate% t!at An& per%on under inve%ti#ation for t!e 'ommi%%ion of an offen%e %!all !ave t!e ri#!t to remain %ilent and to !ave 'ompetent and independent 'oun%el preferabl& of !i% o$n '!o i'e. If t!e per%on 'annot afford t!e 12 Pavillera !ere 'laim% t!at t!e 'omplainant did not a'tuall& !ave an a''urate ob%ervation of !i% abdu'tor% a% eviden'ed b& !i% poor de%'ription of t!em in !i% 'omplaint5affidavit. Furt!er, !e impute% irre#ularit& in t!e identifi'ation made b& Sin#! of !im durin# t!e poli'e line5up b& 'r&in# undueDimproper %u##e%tion: on t!e part of t!e poli'e $!en t!e& taled $it! Sin#! and told !im (or pinpointed to !im) t!at !e $a% a %u%pe't in ot!er idnappin#% of ot!er Indian national%. Finall&, !e 'laim% t!at !e $a% denied !i% 'u%todial ri#!t to 'oun% el %in'e !e !ad not been afforded t!e %ervi'e% of one durin# t!e line5up CrimPro (Arre%t) A E Amin E C!a E an/ E ulio E ien 6G %ervi'e% of 'oun%el, !e mu%t be provided $it! one. !e%e ri#!t% 'annot be $aived e+'ept in $ritin# and in t!e pre%en'e of 'oun%el. !en'e t!e pro!ibition for 'u%todial inve%ti#ation 'ondu'ted $it!out t!e a%%i%tan'e of 'oun%el An& eviden'e obtained in violation of t!e 'on%titutional mandate i% inadmi%%ible in eviden'e !e pro!ibition !o$ever, doe% not e+tend to a per%on in a poli'e line5up be'au%e t!at %ta#e of an inve%ti#ation i% not &et a part of 'u%todial inve%ti#ation It !a% been repeatedl& !eld t!at 'u%todial inve%ti#ation 'ommen'e% $!en a per%on i% taen into 'u%tod& and i% %in#led out a% a %u%pe't in t!e 'ommi%%ion of t!e 'rime under inve%ti#ation and t!e poli'e offi'er% be#in to a% Bue%tion% on t!e %u%pe't-% parti'ipation t!erein and $!i'! tend to eli'it an admi%%ion Contrari$i%e, t!e %ta#e of an inve%ti#ation $!erein a per%on i% a%ed to %tand in a poli'e line5up !a% been !eld to be out%ide t!e mantle of prote'tion of t!e ri#!t to 'oun%el be'au%e it involve% merel& a #eneral inBuir& into an un%olved 'rime and i% purel& inve%ti#ator&5informative in nature Perfor'e, an un'oun%eled identifi'ation at t!e poli'e line5up i% admi%%ible, and $it! mu'! for'e, i% an in5 'ourt identifi'ation admi%%ible t!i% onl& mean% t!at t!e identifi'ation made b& t!e 'omplainant in t!e poli'e line5up pointin# to Pavillare a% one of !i% abdu'tor% i% admi%%ible in eviden'e even t!ou#! t!e appellant Pavillare at t!at time $a% not a%%i%ted b& 'oun%el It i% %i#nifi'ant to note t!at, durin# trial, t!e private 'omplainant !a% repeatedl& identified !erein appellant Pavillare a% on of !i% abdu'tor%. oo, ot!er $itne%% (e.#. vi'tim<% 'ou%in $!o !anded over t!e
ran%om) al%o repeatedl& identified Pavillare a% o ne of t!e idnapper% Appellant Pavillare<% 'ontention t!at t!e poli'e improperl& %u##e%ted: to t!e 'omplainant t!at !e mi#!t be t!e abdu'tor i% %elf5%ervin# and un%ub%tantiated, even $!en t!e defen%e !ad ample opportunit& to addu'e eviden'e to %upport t!i% potentiall& e+'ulpator& ar#ument A% borne b& t!e re'ord%, t!e defen%e, upon 'ro%%5e+amination of t!e inve%ti#atin# poli'e offi'er, pointed out po%%ible irre#ularitie% tantamount to %ubtle pre"udi'e% t!at 'ould !urt Pavillare<% ri#!t to a fair trial but t!e& never pur%ued t!e %ame t!e& !inted %ome irre#ularit& a% to t!e non5 involvement of t!e abdu'tor <% p!&%i'al de%'ription in t!e 'omplainant<% affidavit, $!i'! t!e poli'e te%tified to !ave been lo##ed in a %eparate poli'e lo#boo. Sadl&, for t!e defen%e, t!e&
never a%ed t!at %u'! poli'e lo#boo be pre%ented a% eviden'e pre'i%el& to proffer t!eir alle#ation of improper %u##e%tion: durin# t!e poli'e line5up. !erefore, t!i% 'ontention mu%t fail for in%uffi'ien'& of eviden'e Finall&, t!e appellant 'ontend% t!at, in t!e alternative for a'Buittal, !e %!ould, at t!e ver& lea%t be 'onvi'ted for t!e le%%er 'rime of %imple robber& and not idnappin# for ran%om o %upport !i% 'laim, !e ar#ue% t!at t!e eviden'e on re'ord prove% t!at t!e prime motive of t!e appellant and !i% 'ompanion% $a% to obtain mone& and not to deprive t!e 'omplainant of !i% libert& t!i% i% 8@=@A3= Suffi'e it to %a& t!at t!e reBui%ite% of t!e 'rime of idnappin# for ran%om under Art 26H, PC are all met b& t!e a't% of t!e appellant
55oo0oo55
.. @o. 1299H0
April , 2000
P=P= F = PIIPPI@=S, plaintiff-appellee, vs. =8A PAIA= & A@A and S= SA@S & C8J, a''u%ed, =8A PAIA= & A@A, accused-appellant. P= C8IA7? Before us is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 21 in Criminal Case no. Q!-!"21# entitled People vs. Eduardo Pavillare y Varona, a prosecution for $idnapping for ransom. %n &arch 1#, 1! the accused-appellant and his co-accused 'ere criminally charged as follo's( )*+%R&T)%* The undersigned accuses /R% 0)R 3 R%* and 4%TR% 4*T%4 3 CR/5 of the crime of $idnapping for Ransom, committed as follo's( That on or a6out the 12th day of +e6ruary, 1!, in Quezon City, 0hilippines, the a6ovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating 'ith another person, 'hose true name, identity and 'herea6outs had not as yet 6een ascertained and mutually helping one another, 6y means of force, violence and7or intimidation did then and there, 'illfully, unla'fully and feloniously $idnap one 4/89:)*R 4)*;9 at the corner of 4cout Reyes and Roces venue, this City, and thereafter 6rought him at the corner of urora Boulevard and Boston street, this City, for the purpose of e
udice of the said offended party. %n pril 2, 1! 6oth accused 'ere arraigned and 6oth pleaded ?not guilty?. The accused 4otero 4antos y Cruz filed a &otion to ismiss the charge against him for failure of the private complainant to identify him as one of the malefactors. %n +e6ruary 2@, 1A the trial court
granted the motion and acuitted accused 4otero 4antos. The trial of the case proceeded only as against the accused-appellant 0avillare. The private complainant, an )ndian national named 4u$h>inder 4ingh testified in court that at a6out noon of +e6ruary 12, 1! 'hile he 'as on his 'ay 6ac$ to his motorcycle par$ed at the corner of 4cout Reyes and Roces venue, three men 6loc$ed his 'ay. The one directly in front of him, 'hom he later identified as herein accused-appellant, accused him of having raped the 'oman inside the red 8ia tainder, raped their companion and threatened that unless a$hvir pays one hundred thousand pesos for 4u$h>inders release ?tutuluyan namin ito?. a$hvir told the $idnappers he does not have that much money and after some haggling the $idnappers settled for t'enty five thousand pesos.G The $idnappers also gave instructions to deliver the money outside the urora Boulevard 6ranch of the and Ban$ near the old rcegas movie house. a$hvir stated in court that he did as instructed. Fhen he and another relative reached the designated place three men approached h im and one of them, 'hom he identified in court as the accused-appellant herein, as$ed him ?no dala mo ang peraH? a$hvir said ?yes? 6ut he refused to give the money until he sa' his cousin. %ne of the $idnappers told him to follo' them and they proceeded to a mini-grocery near6y. fe' minutes later one of the $idnappers came 'ith his cousin. a$hvir handed the money to the accusedappellant 'ho counted it 6efore leaving 'ith his companions. # 40%1 duardo +rias testified for the prosecution that he 'as the police officer 'ho too$ the s'orn statement of the private complainant on +e6ruary 1#, 1 ! pertaining to the +e6ruary 12, 1! incident." Fhen the accused-appellant 'as apprehended in connection 'ith another case involving the $idnapping of another )ndian national the private complainant herein again sho'ed up at the police station on &arch 11, 1! and identified the accused-appellant as one of his $idnappers. nother s'orn statement 'as e
+or the defense, the accused-appellant testified that on the 'hole day of +e6ruary 12, 1!, the alleged date of the incident, he 'as at the >o6 site in *ovaliches 'here he had contracted to 6uild the house of a client and that he could not have 6een any'here near Roces venue at the time the complainant 'as allegedly $idnapped.A %ne of his employees, an electrician, testified that the accused-appellant 'as indeed at the >o6 site in *ovaliches the 'hole day of +e6ruary 12, 1!. @ %n :uly 1", 1A the trial court rendered >udgment as follo's( F9R+%R, finding /R% 0)R guilty 6eyond reasona6le dou6t of having committed the crime of $idnapping for the purpose of ransom, the Court here6y sentences him to suffer the penalty of eathI to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of 02=,===.==, as actual damages, 'ith interest at !J percent per annum from +e6ruary 12, 1!I to pay him the amount of 0"=,===.== as moral damagesI and to pay the costs. The Branch cler$ of Court is here6y directed to immediately transmit the entire records of the case to the 4upreme Court for automatic revie'. This case is 6efore us on automatic revie'. The accused-appellant 0avillare prays for an acuittal 6ased on reasona6le dou6t. %n &arch 1=, 1! the accused-appellant 'as apprehended in connection 'ith the $idnapping of another )ndian national. Fhile under police custody the appellant 'as reuired to stand in a police line-up 'here he 'as supposedly identified 6y the private complainant as one of his a6ductors. +ive separate charges arising from five separate incidents of $idnapping, all of 'hom 'ere )ndian nationals, 'ere filed against him. 9e claims that he 'as identified 6y the private complainant as o ne of his a6ductors 6ecause the )ndians needed a ?scapegoat? for the other four cases of $idnapping of )ndian nationals then pending. The appellant argues that the private complainant could not identify his captors 6y h imself 'hich is sho'n 6y the inconsistencies in his testimony and 6y the improper suggestion made 6y the investigating police officer pointing to the accused-appellant as one of the malefactors. )n court the private complainant stated that he descri6ed his a6ductors to the police investigator 'hile the latter typed his s'orn statement. 9e said that t'o of the a6ductors loo$ li$e policemen, the third one 'as ?tall, a little 6it aged? and the other one 'as the driver. Their female companion 'as pretty. 0avillare points out ho'ever, that the s'orn statement given 6y the private complainant does not contain a physical description of the $idnappers and that 40%1 +rias, 'ho too$ the complainants statement, testified in court that the complainant descri6ed one of his a6ductors as short, 6e>e'eled and 'ith a poc$ mar$ed face. The different descriptions allegedly given 6y the private complainant and the a6sence of a physical description of the $idnappers in his s'orn statement supports the accusedappellants contention that the complainant could not descri6e his a6ductors. 0avillare contends that his arrest in connection 'ith a different case for the $idnapping of another )ndian national provided the complainant an improper suggestion that he 'as indeed one of the culprits in this case. The appellant claims that 40%1 +rias pointed to him and conversed 'ith the private complainant 6efore the latter 'as as$ed to identify the $id nappers. The time interval from the date of the inci dent on +e6ruary 12, 1! up to the day the accused-appellant 'as identified at the police line-up on &arch 11, 1! further 'ea$ened the complainants vague recognition of the culprits. 0avillare finally argues that he should not have 6een convicted of $idnapping for ransom 6ut only of simple ro66ery as it is 6orne 6y the undisputed facts that the offenders 'ere motivated 6y an intent to gain and not
to deprive the complainant of his li6erty. The money demanded 6y the offenders 'as not ransom money 6ut one in the nature of a 6ri6e to drop the accusation for rape of their lady companion. The 4olicitor-;eneral filed 6rief praying for the affirmance in toto of the appealed decision. The appellee contends that in court the private complainant unhesitatingly and consistently identified the accused-appellant 0avillare as one of the $id nappers. Throughout his narration of the incident in court the complainant referred to 0avillare as one of the $idnappers 6ecause he 'as the one 'ho made the phone call and the one 'ho received the ransom money. The complainant had more than adeuate opportunity to o6serve his a6ductors and h e testified in court that 0avillare is o ne of them. s a sign of the complainants candor, he admitted in court that he does not recognize the other coaccused, 4otero 4antos, as one of his a6ductors and for 'hich reason the case 'as dismissed against him. The complainants failure to state an accurate description of the $idnappers in his s'orn statement does not 6elie his identification of 0avillare in court as it is the general rule that affidavits are often inaccurate and incomplete. The argument of the accused-appellant that his identification in the police line-up 'as made 'ith improper motive either from the other )ndian nationals 'ho 'ere at the police station or from 40%1 +rias is 'ithout evidentiary 6asis. &oreover, the complainants testimony is corro6orated 6y the testimony of his cousin 'ho met the $idnappers and handed over the ransom money to them. The trial court did not err in giving credence to the complainants identification of 0avillare as one of the a6ductors. The 4olicitor-;eneral further contends that the accused-appellants ali6i that he in *ovaliches 'hen the crime 'as committed cannot stand against the positive id entification of t'o 'itnesses and that his ali6i does not ma$e it physically impossi6le for him to 6e at the crime scene at the time it happened. s regards accused-appellants plea to 6e convicted instead of simple ro66ery is 'ithout legal nor factual 6asis. The complainant 'as restrained of his li6erty even if only for a fe' hours and his captors demanded money for his release 'hich in fact they did after the ransom money 'as paid. Fhether or not the $idnappers only 'anted money from the complainant the manner 6y 'hich they compelled him to give money, i .e. 6y restraining his li6erty until the ransom money 'as paid, constitutes $idnapping for ransom. +inally, the su6mission that the offenders demanded a 6ri6e and not ransom money is li$e'ise unfounded. There is no evidence that any one of the $idnappers 'as a pu6lic officer in the performance of his duties 'hen they demanded money from the complainant in e
The accused-appellants defense that the identification made 6y the private complainant in the police line-up is inadmissi6le 6ecause the a ppellant stood at the line-up 'ithout the assistance of counsel is 'ithout merit. 4ec. 12 D1E rt ))) of the Constitution states that ?ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel prefera6ly of his o'n choice. )f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must 6e provided 'ith one. These rights cannot 6e 'aived e
Q( Tell us ho' 'ere you a6ducted 6y the accused 0avillare and his companions in that particular date in the afternoon of +e6ruary 12, 1!H ( Fhile ) 'as returning to my motorcycle, they 6loc$ed my 'ay and as$ed for my name, sir. TT3. CR/5( Q( Fho 6loc$ed your 'ay and as$ed for your nameH ( 9e 'as infront of his companions, sir. )*TR0RTR( Fitness referring to accused earlier identified as duardo 0avillare. <<<
<<<
<<<
TT3. CR/5( Q( )f you $no', &r. 4ingh, 'here 'ere you ta$en 6y the accused after they a6ducted you at the corner of Roces venue and 4cout Reyes 4t., Quezon CityH ( )t 'as a deserted street some'here in 4t. :oseph College, Quezon City, sir. Q( fter you reached that deserted place, 'hat happened ne
<<<
<<<
TT3. CR/5( Q( Could you tell us 'hat did your a6ductors tell to a$hvir 'hile they are tal$ing over the telephoneH ( They told him that they should pay the amount of money for my release, sir.
Q( )ncidentally, can you tell us 'ho among your a6ductors 'ho actually tal$ed to a$vir over the telephoneH ( 9e is the one, sir. )*TR0RTR( gain, 'itness is referring to accused earlier identified as 0avillare. TT3. CR/5( Q( Fhy do you $no' that it 'as the accused 0avillare 'ho 'as tal$ing to a$hvir over the telephoneH ( Because ) 'as near him and ) sa' him tal$ing to a$hvir, sir. <<<
<<<
<<<
TT3. CR/5( Q( Fhere did the t'o of you goH ( )nside the mini-grocery, sir. Q( fter you 'ent inside this mini-grocery, 'hat happened ne
( Because they counted the money and they complained a6out it, sir. Q( Fho counted the moneyH ( 9e 'as the one 'ho counted the money, sir. )*TR0RTR( Fitness pointing to accused 0avillare earlier identified. TT3. CR/5( Q( Fere you present 'hen 0avillare counted the moneyH ( 3es, sir. Q( fter 0avillare got the 02=,===.==, 'hat happened ne
1"
%n cross-e
Fitness pointing to accused duardo 0avillare 'hich 'as earlier identified. TT3. &B%( Q( Fhat a6out the t'o D2E other personsH F)T*44( ( They 'ere 6ehind me, sir. TT3. &B%( Q( Fhat 'as the distance if you can tell usH ( lmost together and then 'hen they as$ed me my name ) replied and they hold my arms, sir. Q( Fho hold your armsH ( 9e 'as the first, sir. )*TR0RTR( Fitness pointed to accused duardo 0avillare 'hich 'as identified earlier. <<<
<<<
<<<
TT3. &B%( Q( 3ou said that there 'ere " persons 'ho a6ducted youH ( 3es, sir. # male and one female. Q( %n &arch 11, 1! your cousin informed you or your friend informed you that there 'ere persons apprehended 6ecause also of $idnapping incidentH ( 3es, sir. There 'ere # of them arrested and 'hen ) 'ent to see them ) only recognized one of them, sir. TT3. &B%( Q( Fho 'as that personH ( 9e is the one, sir. )*TR0RTR( Fitness pointing to accused duardo 0avillare.
TT3. &B%( That 'ould 6e all for the 'itness, your 9onor. C%/RT( ny redirectH TT3. CR/5( +e' redirect, your 9onor. TT3. CR/5( Q( &r. Fitness, 6efore you 'ent to the police station on &arch 11, 1! you 'ere a'are of ho' many suspects 'ere in custody of $idnapping of ;ormel, is it notH ( 3es, sir they 'ere # of them. Q( 3ou 'ere a'are that # persons 'ere arrested for the $idnapping of your friend ;ormelH ( 3es, sir. Q( These # people 'ere sho'n to you, 'ere they notH ( 3es, sir. TT3. CR/5( Q( But 'hen you 'ere as$ed to identify 'ho among them 'ere involved in your $idnapping you only pointed one of themH ( 3es, sir. Q( 3ou did not point to the other accusedH ( *o, sir. Q( The only one 'hom you pointed as 6eing involved in your $idnapping 'as none other than the person of the accused 0avillareH ( 3es, sir.
1!
&oreover, the complainants cousin a$hvir 4ingh 'ho met the $idnappers to pay the ransom money corro6orated the complainants identification of the accused-appellant 0avillare. a$hvir 4ingh testified as follo's(
Q( fter reaching the designated area some'here along urora Boulevard, 'hat happened neinder 4ingh.? Q( Fhat 'as the response of the accused 0avillare after you told him that 4u$h>inder 4ingh 6e first sho'n to you 6efore you turn over the moneyH ( %ne of them told us to follo' him and they 'ould 6ring 4u$h>inder 4ingh, sir. Q( +rom that place, 'here did you go if you can still recallH ( Fe proceeded to a small grocery store near and Ban$, sir. Q( fter going inside this grocery store near and Ban$, tell us 'hat happened neinder 4ingh, sir.
TT3. CR/5( Q( fter you sa' 4u$h>inder 4ingh together 'ith one of his $idnappers, 'hat did you do neinder 4ingh and ) as$ed him if he 'as hurt 6y the $idnappers and he said ?yes 6ut ) am no' o$ey.? Q( fter 4u$h>inder confirmed to you that he 'as previously 6eaten and that he 'as already o$ey at that time, 'hat did you do ne
<<<
<<<
<<<
Fe find that the trial court did not err in giving due 'eight and credence to the identification in open court of the accused-appellant 6y the private complainant and his cousin as one of the $idnappers. Both 'itnesses had ample opportunity to o6serve the $idnappers and to remem6er their faces. The complainant had close contact 'ith the $idnappers 'hen he 'as a6ducted and 6eaten up, and later 'hen the $idnappers haggled on the amount of the ransom money. 9is cousin met 0avillare face to face and actually dealt 'ith him 'hen he paid the ransom money. The t'o-hour period that the complainant 'as in close contact 'ith his a6ductors 'as sufficient for him to have a recollection of their physical appearance. Complainant admitted in court that he 'ould recognize his a6ductors if h e sees them again and upon seeing 0avillare he immediately recognized him as one of the malefactors as he remem6ers him as the one 'ho 6loc$ed his 'ay, 6eat him up, haggled 'ith the complainants cousin and received the ransom money. s an indicium of candor the private complainant admitted that he does not recognize the co-accused, 4otero 4antos for 'hich reason the case 'as dismissed against him. )t 6ears re peating that the finding of the trial court as to the credi6ility of 'itnesses is given utmost respect and as a rule 'ill not 6e distur6ed on appeal 6ecause it had the opportunity to closely o 6serve the demeanor of the 'itness in court. s regards the ali6i for'arded 6y the appellant, 'e find that the positive identification made 6y t'o eye'itnesses for the prosecution pointing to the appellant as one of the $idnappers prevails over it. The appellants employee 'ho testified to corro6orate his ali6i only stated that in the month of +e6ruary 1! the accused-appellant 'as at the *ovaliches >o6 site everyday. 1@ The trial court properly too$ >udicial notice that it 'il l ta$e only a fe' hours drive from *ovaliches, 'here the accused-appellant claimed to 6e on the day of the incident, to Roces ve., in Quezon City, 'here the complainant 'as $idnapped. 1 6sent any competent proof that 0avillare could not have 6een at the scene of the crime at the time and day it 'as committed, the trial court correctly denied 'eight and credence to the appellants ali6i. 0avillares argument that the complainant could not have identified his a6ductors 'ere it not for the improper suggestion made 6y the police investigator is 6ased on the 6are and uncorro6orated allegation of the accused-appellant himself. The police investigator 'as not confronted 'ith this accusation 2= and the defense did not present any evidence to support it. )t is on record that 'hen 0avillares counsel made an attempt to uestion the police investigator, 40%1 +rias, on a matter not covered 6y the direct e
description of the $idnappers is stated in the affidavit. %n the other hand, the police investigator testified that the said description 'as entered in the police log6oo$. The defense never reuired 40%1 +rias to produce the log6oo$ in court to ascertain 'hether such a description 'as given during the investigation. s a rule, variance 6et'een the private complainants affidavit and his testimony in court, as long as it does not deviate from the nature of the crime as stated in the )nformation, does not 'ea$en the credi6ility of the testimony in court. 2G +inally, the accused-appellants argument that he should have 6een convicted of simple ro66ery and not $idnapping 'ith ransom 6ecause the evidence proves that the prime motive of the accusedappellant and his companions is to o6tain money and that the complainant 'as detained only for t'o hours, are 6oth unmeritorious. rt. 2!A of the Revised 0enal Code states( rt. 2!A. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. K any private individual 'ho shall $idnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of li6erty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to deathI 1. )f the $idnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days. 2 )f it shall have 6een committed simulating pu6lic authority. G. )f any serious physical in>uries shall have 6een inflicted upon the person $idnapped or detainedI or if threats to $ill him shall have 6een made. #. )f the person $idnapped or detained shall 6e a minor, eected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the ma
+our &em6ers of the court maintain their position that R A!" is unconstitutional insofar as it prescri6es the death penalty. *onetheless they su6mit to the ruling of the ma>ority of this Court i .e., that the la' is constitutional and the death penalty should 6e imposed in this case. F9R+%R, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case *o. Q!!"21# finding the accused-appellant duardo 0avillare y arona guilty of $idnapping for ransom and imposing the T9 penalty and the a'ards for actual and moral damages is ++)R& in toto. 4% %RR.
1âwphi1.nt
