CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. BALDOGO [G.R. No.

12910607 (2003)]
November 10, 2010 Nature: Automatic Review of a Decision of the RTC of Palawan ? Gonzalo Baldogo alias Baguio & Edgar Bermas alias Bunso were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the Camacho family who resides w/in the Penal Colony ? On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge (14 y.o.) & abducted Julie (12 y.o.). They brought Julie up to the mountains. ? During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to retrieve their clothing & belongings from a trunk which was located under a Tamarind tree. ? Feb. 28, 1996 Baguio left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands & there she asked for help from Nicodemus ? Baguio/Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. Baguio contends that while he was preparing for sleep he was approached by Bunso who was armed with a bloodied bolo. Bunso warned him not to shout, otherwise he will also be killed. ? Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that during the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. Accused-appellant asserted that he wanted to bring Julie back to her parents after Bermas had left them and to surrender but accused-appellant was afraid that Julio Sr. might kill him. ? The trial court convicted Bunso of o Murder appreciating against him the specific aggravating circumstance of taking advantage and use of superior strength, w/o any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, & pursuant to the provisions of the 2nd par., No. 1, of A63 of the RPC, he is hereby sentenced to death o Kidnapping no modifying circumstance appreciated and pursuant to the provisions of the 2nd par., No. 2, of A63 of the RPC, & not being entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua, w/ the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life, & of perpetual absolute disqualification; Issues: 1. WON the accused is guilty of murder and kidnapping. YES ? Baldogo claims that he was acting under duress because he was threatened by Bermas with death unless he did what Bermas ordered him to do. He claims that he was even protective of Julie. He insists that Julie was not a credible witness and her testimony is not entitled to probative weight because she was merely coached into implicating him for the death of Jorge and her kidnapping and detention by Bermas. ? Julies testimony is credible findings of facts of the TC, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, its assessment of the probative weight of the collective evidence of the parties & its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court great respect, if not conclusive effect. The raison detre of this principle is that this Court has to contend itself w/ the mute pages of the original records in resolving the issues posed by the parties; The TC has the unique advantage of monitoring & observing at close range the attitude, conduct & deportment of witnesses as they narrate their respective testimonies before said court ? Exceptions: a. when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court; b. when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence; c. when the TC ignored, misunderstood, misinterpreted and/or misconstrued facts & circumstances of substance which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case ? Its incumbent on the prosecution to prove the corpus delicti, more specifically, that the crimes charged had been committed & that accused-appellant precisely committed the same. Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence & not on the weakness of accuseds evidence ? The prosecution adduced indubitable proof that accused-appellant conspired w/ Bermas not only in killing Jorge but also in kidnapping & detaining Julie. There is conspiracy if 2 or more persons agree to commit a felony &

decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused, before, during & after the commission of a felony pointing to a joint purpose & design & community of intent. As long as all the conspirators performed specific acts w/ such closeness & coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design in bringing about the death of the victim, all the conspirators are criminally liable for the death of said victim. 2. WON the qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength can be appreciated. ? To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the ff. requisites a. Time when offender determined to commit the crime; b. An act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and c. Sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. ? Evident premeditation must be proved with certainty as the crime itself ? It cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he actually commits it. ? The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his determination to commit the crime. The law doesnt prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it. ? Barefaced fact that accused-appellant and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located about a kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute clear evidence that they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is possible that they hid their clothing therein preparatory to escaping from the colony. insufficient evidence for evident premeditation. ? Baldogo & Bermas were armed w/ bolos, theres no evidence that they took advantage of their numerical superiority & weapons to kill Jorge. Hence, abuse of superior strength cant be deemed to have attended the killing of Jorge. ? Dwelling aggravating because there is no evidence that Jorge was killed in their house or taken from their house and killed outside the said house ? Killing was qualified w/ treachery Court has previously held that the killing of minor children who by reason of their tender years could not be expected to put up a defense is attended by treachery. Since treachery attended the killing, abuse of superior strength is absorbed by said circumstance.

BALEROS, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Case Digest

FACTS: At about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December 1991 in Manila, the accused, by forcefully covering the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects, tried to rape the victim by lying on top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, said acts being committed against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

Renato Baleros, Jr. moved for a partial reconsideration of a SC decision acquitting him of the crime of attempted rape but adjudging him guilty of light coercion. It is Baleros' submission that his

conviction for light coercion under an Information for attempted rape, runs counter to the en banc ruling in People v. Contreras where the Court held: The SOLGEN contends that Contreras should be held liable for unjust vexation under Art. 287(2) of the RPC. However, the elements of unjust vexation do not form part of the crime of rape as defined in Art. 335. Moreover, the circumstances stated in the information do not constitute the elements of the said crime. Contreras, therefore, cannot be convicted of unjust vexation.

ISSUE: Whether Renato Baleros, Jr. is guilty of unjust vexation.

HELD: Yes. He argues that the Information against him does not allege that the act of covering the face of the victim with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical caused her annoyance, irritation, torment, distress and disturbance. The SC wish to stress that malice, compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in an Information for unjust vexation. Unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the term is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person.

The paramount question in a prosecution for unjust vexation is whether the offender's act causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed. That the victim, after the incident cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed, if not distressed, by the acts of the Baleros. G.R. No. 110097; December 22, 1997 FACTS: Appellant Arnulfo Astorga appealed the courts decision on Criminal Case No. 8243 wherein appellant was charged with violation of Article 267, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code or the kidnap and detention of a minor. Astorga insisted that the inconsistencies and the contradictions of the prosecutions witnesses should be deemed incredible and that the delay in the filing of the accusation weakened the case. Furthermore, Astorga claimed that he had no motive to kidnap the 8-year-old Yvonne Traya which shouldve been apparent and proven upon conviction. Ultimately, Astorga claimed that the court erred in convicting him despite the fact that he had not detained nor locked Yvonne up which is an important element in kidnapping. ISSUES: 1.) Whether or not the prosecutions witnesses were credible. 2.) Whether or not the lack of motive by the appellant is significant in the courts decision.

3.) Whether or not it was kidnapping or coercion. RULING: 1.) The delay in the making of the criminal accusation does not necessarily weaken the credibility of the witnesses especially if it had been satisfactorily explained. In the case, one week was reasonable since the victim was a resident in Binaungan and that the case was filed in Tagum, Davao. 2.) The court found it irrelevant to identify the motive since motive is not an element of the crime. Motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Besides, the appellant himself admitted having taken Yvonne to Maco Central Elementary School. 3.) The court agreed with the appellants contention. The evidence does not show that appellant wanted to detain Yvonne; much less, that he actually detained her. Appellants forcible dragging of Yvonne to a place only he knew cannot be said to be an actual confinement or restriction on the person of Yvonne. There was no lock up. Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Rather, the felony committed was grave coercion under Article 286 of the same code.