People v. Dionaldo
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731
VOL. 731, JULY 23, 2014 69
People vs. Dionaldo
accused-appellants acted in concert at the time of the commission
of the crime and that their acts emanated from the same purpose
G.R. No. 207949. July 23, 2014.* or common design, showing unity in its execution, the CA,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. affirming the trial court, correctly ruled that there was conspiracy
ARMANDO DIONALDO y EBRON, RENATO DIONALDO among them.
y EBRON, MARIANO GARIGUEZ, JR. y RAMOS, and Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; In a criminal
RODOLFO LARIDO y EBRON, accused-appellants. case, an appeal throws open the entire case wide open for review,
and the appellate court can correct errors, though unassigned, that
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Well-settled is the rule may be found in the appealed judgment.—The Court is, however,
that the question of credibility of witnesses is primarily for the constrained to modify the ruling of the RTC and the CA, as the
trial court to determine.—Well-settled is the rule that the crime the accused-appellants have committed does not, as the
question of credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trial court records obviously bear, merely constitute Kidnapping and Serious
to determine. Its assessment of the credibility of a witness is Illegal Detention, but that of the special complex crime of
entitled to great weight, and it is conclusive and binding unless Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide. This is in view of the
shown to be tainted with arbitrariness or unless, through victim’s (i.e., Edwin’s) death, which was (a) specifically charged in
oversight, some fact or circumstance of weight and influence has the Information, and (b) clearly established during the trial of
not been considered. Absent any showing that the trial judge this case. Notably, while this matter was not among the issues
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or raised before the Court, the same should nonetheless be
circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, considered in accordance with the settled rule that in a criminal
or that the judge acted arbitrarily, his assessment of the case, an appeal, as in this case, throws open the entire case
credibility of witnesses deserves high respect by the appellate wide open for review, and the appellate court can correct
court. errors, though unassigned, that may be found in the
Criminal Law; Conspiracy; Conspiracy exists when two or appealed judgment.
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of Criminal Law; Penalties; Death Penalty; The enactment of
a felony and decide to commit it, and when conspiracy is Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 had suspended the imposition of the
established, the responsibility of the conspirators is collective, not death penalty.—Further taking into account the fact that the
individual, rendering all of them equally liable regardless of the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting
extent of their respective participations.—Anent the finding that ransom, accused-appellants’ conviction must be modified
conspiracy attended the commission of the crime, the Court from Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention to the
likewise finds the conclusion of the RTC in this regard, as special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with
affirmed by the CA, to be well-taken. Conspiracy exists when two Homicide, which carries the penalty of death. As earlier
or more person s come to an agreement concerning the intimated, the enactment of RA 9346 had suspended the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and when imposition of the death penalty. This means that the accused-
conspiracy is established, the responsibility of the conspirators is appellants could, as the CA and trial court properly ruled, only be
collective, not individual, rendering all of them equally liable sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. To this, the Court
regardless of the extent of their respective participations. In this adds that the accused-appellants are not eligible for parole.
relation, direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, as it Same; Damages; Moral Damages; Under Article 2217 of the Civil
can be presumed from and proven by the acts of the accused Code, moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish,
pointing to a joint purpose, design, concerted action, and fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock and similar
community of interests. Hence, as the factual circumstances in injury, while Article 2219 of the same Code provides that
this case clearly show that
70
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION. 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dionaldo
69
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731
moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal detention.— At around 8 o’clock in the morning of May 16, 2003,
Similarly, the Court finds that the award of moral damages is Roderick Navarro (Roderick) dropped his brother Edwin
warranted in this case. Under Article 2217 of the Civil Code, Navarro (Edwin) off at the Health Is Wealth Gym in
moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, Caloocan City. Thirty minutes later, he received a text
serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock and similar injury, message from another brother who told him that Edwin
while Article 2219 of the same Code provides that moral damages had been kidnapped.[2] Records show that three (3) men,
may be recovered in cases of illegal detention. It cannot be denied, later identified as Armando, Renato, and Mariano, forcibly
in this case, that the kidnap victim’s family suffered mental dragged a bloodied Edwin down the stairway of the gym
anguish, fright, and serious anxiety over the detention and and pushed him inside a dark green Toyota car with plate
eventually, the death of Edwin. As such, and in accordance with number UKF 194.[3] Upon receiving the message, Roderick
prevailing jurisprudence, moral damages in the amount of immediately reported the incident to the police. At around
P100,000.00 must perforce be awarded to the family of the victim. 10 o’clock in the morning of the same day, he received a
phone call from Edwin’s kidnappers who threatened to kill
Same; Same; Exemplary Damages; Exemplary damages must
Edwin if he should report the matter to the police.[4]
be awarded in this case in order to deter others from committing
The following day, Roderick received another call from
the same atrocious acts.—Exemplary damages must be awarded
the kidnappers, who demanded the payment of ransom
in this case, in view of the confluence of the aforesaid qualifying
money in the amount of P15,000,000.00. Roderick told
circumstances and in order to deter others from committing the
them he had no such money, as he only had P50,000.00. On
same atrocious acts. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence,
May 19, 2003, after negotiations over the telephone, the
therefore, the Court awards exemplary damages in the amount of
kidnappers agreed to release Edwin in exchange for the
P100,000.00 to the family of the kidnap victim.
amount of P110,000.00. Roderick was then instructed to
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals. bring the money to Batangas and wait for their next call.[5]
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. _______________
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellants. [2] Id., at pp. 6-7.
[3] Id., at pp. 4-5.
RESOLUTION [4] Id., at p. 7.
[5] Id.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision[1] 72
dated February 15, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
C.A.-G.R. 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dionaldo
_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-25. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan,
At around 7:30 in the evening of the same day, as
with Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Apolinario D.
Roderick was on his way to Batangas to deliver the ransom
Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
money, the kidnappers called and instructed him to open
71 all the windows of the car he was driving and to turn on
the hazard light when he reaches the designated place.
After a while, Roderick received another call directing him
VOL. 731, JULY 23, 2014 71 to exit in Bicutan instead and proceed to C-5 until he
People vs. Dionaldo arrives at the Centennial Village. He was told to park
beside the Libingan ng mga Bayani. After several hours,
CR-H.C. No. 02888 finding accused-appellants Armando an orange Mitsubishi car with plate number DEH 498
Dionaldo y Ebron (Armando), Renato Dionaldo y Ebron pulled up in front of his vehicle where four (4) men
(Renato), Mariano Gariguez, Jr. y Ramos (Mariano), and alighted. Roderick saw one of the men take a mobile phone
Rodolfo Larido y Ebron (Rodolfo) guilty beyond reasonable and upon uttering the word “ alat,” the men returned to
doubt of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal their car and drove away.[6]
Detention. Meanwhile, a team had been organized to investigate
The Facts the kidnapping of Edwin, headed by SPO3 Romeo
Caballero (SPO3 Caballero) and PO3 Nestor Acebuche
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731
(PO3 Acebuche) of the Camp Crame Police Anti-Crime June 12, 2003, while walking on his way home, he noticed
Emergency Response (PACER). During the course of the that a van had been following him. Suddenly, four (4)
investigation, Rodolfo, an employee at the Health Is Wealth persons alighted from the vehicle, boarded him inside,
Gym, confessed to PO3 Acebuche that he was part of the blindfolded him, and eventually tortured him. He likewise
plan to kidnap Edwin, as in fact he was the one who tipped claimed that he was made to sign an extrajudicial
off Mariano, Renato, Armando and a certain Virgilio[7] confession, purporting too that while a certain Atty.
Varona[8] (Virgilio) on the condition that he will be given a Nepomuceno had been summoned to assist him, the latter
share in the ransom money. Rodolfo gave information on failed to do so.[12]
the whereabouts of his cohorts, leading to their arrest on During trial, the death of the victim, Edwin, was
June 12, 2003. In the early morning of the following day or established through a Certificate of Death[13] with Registry
on June 13, 2003, the PACER team found the dead body of No. 2003-050 (subject certificate of death) showing that he
Edwin at Sitio Pugpugan Laurel, Batangas, which died on May 19, 2003 from a gunshot wound on the head.
Roderick identified.[9]
Thus, accused-appellants as well as Virgilio were _______________
charged in an Information[10] which reads: [11] Id., at pp. 3 and 20.
[12] Id., at pp. 9-12.
_______________ [13] Records, p. 300, including the dorsal portion thereof.
[6] Id., at pp. 7-8.
74
[7] “Virginio” in some parts of the records.
[8] One of the original five (5) accused who died during trial, resulting
in the dismissal of the case against him. (See CA Rollo, p. 37.) 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
[9] See Rollo, pp. 6 and 8-9.
People vs. Dionaldo
[10] Id., at p. 3.
73 The RTC’s Ruling
In a Decision[14] dated June 13, 2007, the Regional Trial
Court of Caloocan City, Branch 129 (RTC), in Crim. Case
VOL. 731, JULY 23, 2014 73
No. C-68329, convicted accused-appellants of the crime of
People vs. Dionaldo Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, sentencing each
of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
That on or about the 16th day of May, 2003 in Caloocan City, It gave credence to the positive and straightforward
Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which clearly
the above named accused, conspiring together and mutually established that it was the accused-appellants who forcibly
helping one another, being then private persons, did then and dragged a bloodied Edwin into a car and, consequently,
there by force and intimidation willfully, unlawfully and deprived him of his liberty.[15] In light thereof, it rejected
feloniously with the use of motor vehicle and superior strength accused-appellants’ respective alibis and claims of torture,
take, carry and deprive EDWIN NAVARRO y ONA, of his liberty which were not substantiated. It also held that the crime of
against his will, for the purpose of extorting ransom as in fact a Kidnapping had been committed for the purpose of
demand of P15,000,000.00 was made as a condition of the victim’s extorting ransom, which is punishable by death. However,
release and on the occasion thereof, the death of the victim in view of the suspended imposition of the death penalty
resulted. pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 9346,[16] only the
Contrary to law. penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.[17] Further, the
RTC found that conspiracy attended the commission of the
During arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not crime, as the accused-appellants’ individual participation
guilty[11] and interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. was geared toward a joint purpose and criminal design.[18]
Except for Rodolfo, they individually claimed that on said Notably, while the RTC found that the testimonies of the
date and time, they were in their respective houses when prosecution witnesses prove that the victim Edwin was
they were taken by men in police uniforms, then abducted, deprived of liberty, and eventually killed,[19] a
subsequently brought to Camp Crame, and there allegedly fact which is supported by the subject certificate of death, it
tortured and detained. On the other hand, Rodolfo, for did not consider said death in its judgment.
himself, averred that at around 8 o’clock in the evening of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731
_______________ [22] Id., at pp. 18-19.
[14] CA Rollo, pp. 36-99. Penned by Presiding Judge Thelma Canlas [23] Id., at pp. 23-24.
Trinidad-Pe Aguirre. [24] Id., at pp. 22-24.
[15] Id., at pp. 93-95.
[16] Entitled “AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN
76
THE PHILIPPINES.”
[17] CA Rollo, pp. 98-99. 76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
[18] Id., at p. 97.
People vs. Dionaldo
[19] Id., at p. 60.
75 The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue to be resolved by the Court is whether or
not accused-appellants are guilty of the crime of
VOL. 731, JULY 23, 2014 75
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.
People vs. Dionaldo The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is devoid of merit.
The CA’s Ruling Well-settled is the rule that the question of credibility of
In a Decision[20] dated February 15, 2013, the CA witnesses is primarily for the trial court to determine. Its
affirmed in toto the RTC’s conviction of accused-appellants, assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to
finding that the prosecution was able to clearly establish great weight, and it is conclusive and binding unless shown
all the elements of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious to be tainted with arbitrariness or unless, through
Illegal Detention, namely: (a) the offender is a private oversight, some fact or circumstance of weight and
individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any influence has not been considered. Absent any showing
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or
detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (d) in the misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which
commission of the offense, any of the following would affect the result of the case, or that the judge acted
circumstances is present: (1) the kidnapping or detention arbitrarily, his assessment of the credibility of witnesses
lasts for more than three days; (2) it is committed deserves high respect by the appellate court.[25]
simulating public authority; (3) any serious physical In this case, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, gave
injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
detained or threats to kill him are made; or (4) the person witnesses, which they found to be straightforward and
kidnapped or detained is a minor, except when the accused consistent. Through these testimonies, it was clearly
is any of the parents, female or a public officer.[21] It established that accused-appellants, who were all
likewise sustained the finding that the kidnapping was private individuals, took the victim Edwin and
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, as deprived him of his liberty, which acts were illegal,
sufficiently proven by the testimony of the brother of the and for the purpose of extorting ransom.[26] Thus,
victim.[22] Moreover, the CA affirmed that conspiracy seeing no semblance of arbitrariness or misapprehension
attended the commission of the crime, as the acts of on the part of the court a quo, the
accused-appellants emanated from the same purpose or
common design, and they were united in its execution.[23] _______________
Separately, the CA found that accused-appellants’ [25] People v. Mercado, 400 Phil. 37, 71; 346 SCRA 256, 278 (2000). See
claims of torture were never supported, and that Rodolfo also People v. Lamsen, G.R. No. 198338, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA
voluntarily signed the extrajudicial confession and was 498, 505-506.
afforded competent and independent counsel in its [26] See CA Decision; Rollo, pp. 16-19.
execution.[24]
Aggrieved by their conviction, accused-appellants filed 77
the instant appeal.
VOL. 731, JULY 23, 2014 77
_______________
People vs. Dionaldo
[20] Rollo, pp. 2-25.
[21] Id., at pp. 15-16.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731
Court finds no compelling reason to disturb its factual with the settled rule that in a criminal case, an appeal,
findings on this score. as in this case, throws open the entire case wide
Anent the finding that conspiracy attended the open for review, and the appellate court can correct
commission of the crime, the Court likewise finds the errors, though unassigned, that may be found in the
conclusion of the RTC in this regard, as affirmed by the appealed judgment.[31]
CA, to be well-taken. Conspiracy exists when two or more After the amendment of the Revised Penal Code on
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission December 31, 1993 by RA 7659, Article 267 of the same
of a felony and decide to commit it, and when conspiracy is Code now provides:
established, the responsibility of the conspirators is
collective, not individual, rendering all of them equally Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.—Any
liable regardless of the extent of their respective private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any
participations.[27] In this relation, direct proof is not other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of
essential to establish conspiracy, as it can be presumed reclusion perpetua to death:
from and proven by the acts of the accused pointing to a 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have
joint purpose, design, concerted action, and community of lasted more than three days.
interests.[28] Hence, as the factual circumstances in this 2. If it shall have been committed simulating
public authority.
case clearly show that accused-appellants acted in concert
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have
at the time of the commission of the crime and that their
been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
acts emanated from the same purpose or common design,
detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been
showing unity in its execution,[29] the CA, affirming the
made.
trial court, correctly ruled that there was conspiracy among
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall
them.
be a minor, except when the accused is any of the
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court is, however,
parents, female or a public officer.
constrained to modify the ruling of the RTC and the CA, as
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or
the crime the accused-appellants have committed does not,
detention was committed for the purpose of ex-
as the records obviously bear, merely constitute
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, but that of the
_______________
special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with
the purpose of extorting ransom as in fact a demand of P15,000,000.00 was
Homicide. This is in view of the victim’s (i.e., Edwin’s)
made as a condition of the victim’s release and on the occasion thereof, the
death, which was (a) specifically charged in the
death of the victim resulted.” (Id., at p. 3; emphasis and underscoring
Information,[30] and (b) clearly estab-
supplied.)
[31] People v. Quimzon, G.R. No. 133541, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 261, 281,
_______________
citing People v. Feliciano, 418 Phil. 88, 106; 365 SCRA 613, 629 (2001).
[27] People v. Castro, 434 Phil. 206, 221; 385 SCRA 24, 35 (2002).
[28] People v. Buntag, 471 Phil. 82, 93; 427 SCRA 180, 189 (2004). 79
[29] Rollo, p. 23.
[30] “[T]he above named accused, conspiring together and mutually VOL. 731, JULY 23, 2014 79
helping one another, being then private persons, did then and there by
People vs. Dionaldo
force and intimidation willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the use of
motor vehicle and superior strength take, carry and deprive EDWIN
torting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none
NAVARRO y ONA, of his liberty against his will, for
of the circumstances above mentioned were present in the
78 commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. (Emphases
People vs. Dionaldo supplied)
The Court further elucidated in People v. Mercado:[32]
lished during the trial of this case. Notably, while this
matter was not among the issues raised before the Court, In People v. Ramos, the accused was found guilty of two
the same should nonetheless be considered in accordance separate heinous crimes of kidnapping for ransom and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731
murder committed on July 13, 1994 and sentenced to death. On to the family of the kidnap victim. In People v. Quiachon,
appeal, this Court modified the ruling and found the accused [35] the Court explained that even if the death penalty was
guilty of the “special complex crime” of kidnapping for not to be imposed on accused-appellants in view of the
ransom with murder under the last paragraph of Article 267, prohibition in RA 9346, the award of civil indemnity was
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. This Court said: nonetheless proper, not being dependent on the actual
x x x This amendment introduced in our imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that
criminal statutes the concept of ‘special qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the
complex crime’ of kidnapping with murder or death penalty attended the commission of the crime.[36] In
homicide. It effectively eliminated the the present case, considering
distinction drawn by the courts between those
cases where the killing of the kidnapped victim _______________
was purposely sought by the accused, and [33] Id., at pp. 82-83; p. 289.
those where the killing of the victim was not [34] Pursuant to Section 3 of RA 9346 which states that “[p]ersons
deliberately resorted to but was merely an convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences
afterthought. Consequently, the rule now is: will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be
Where the person kidnapped is killed in eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the
the course of the detention, regardless of Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.” (See People v. Tadah, G.R. No.
whether the killing was purposely sought 186226, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 744, 747; see also People v. Lalog,
or was merely an afterthought, the G.R. No. 196753, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 640.)
kidnapping and murder or homicide can [35] 532 Phil. 414; 500 SCRA 704 (2006).
no longer be complexed under Art. 48,
[36] Id., at p. 428; p. 719.
nor be treated as separate crimes, but
shall be punished as a special complex 81
crime under the last paragraph of Art.
267, as
VOL. 731, JULY 23, 2014 81
_______________ People vs. Dionaldo
[32] Supra note 25 at pp. 288-289.
that both the qualifying circumstances of ransom and the
80
death of the victim during captivity were duly alleged in
the information and proven during trial, civil indemnity in
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the amount of P100,000.00 must therefore be awarded to
People vs. Dionaldo the family of the victim, to conform with prevailing
jurisprudence.[37]
amended by RA No. 7659.[33] (Emphases Similarly, the Court finds that the award of moral
supplied; citations omitted) damages is warranted in this case. Under Article 2217 of
the Civil Code, moral damages include physical suffering,
Thus, further taking into account the fact that the mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings,
kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting moral shock and similar injury, while Article 2219 of the
ransom, accused-appellants’ conviction must be same Code provides that moral damages may be recovered
modified from Kidnapping and Serious Illegal in cases of illegal detention. It cannot be denied, in this
Detention to the special complex crime of case, that the kidnap victim’s family suffered mental
Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, which carries anguish, fright, and serious anxiety over the detention and
the penalty of death. As earlier intimated, the enactment of eventually, the death of Edwin. As such, and in accordance
RA 9346 had suspended the imposition of the death with prevailing jurisprudence,[38] moral damages in the
penalty. This means that the accused-appellants could, as amount of P100,000.00 must perforce be awarded to the
the CA and trial court properly ruled, only be sentenced to family of the victim.
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. To this, the Court adds Finally, exemplary damages must be awarded in this
that the accused-appellants are not eligible for parole.[34] case, in view of the confluence of the aforesaid qualifying
On a final note, the Court observes that the RTC and circumstances and in order to deter others from committing
the CA failed to award civil indemnity as well as damages the same atrocious acts. In accordance with prevailing
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f46e4fd9eb30e90003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731
jurisprudence,[39] therefore, the Court awards exemplary ——o0o——
damages in the amount of P100,000.00 to the family of the
kidnap victim.
In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the
date of finality of judgment until fully paid, pursuant to
prevailing jurisprudence.[40]
_______________
[37] See People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA
508.
[38] See People v. Reyes, 600 Phil. 738, 788; 581 SCRA 691, 734 (2009).
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
[39] See id., at p. 787; pp. 734-735.
[40] People v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 176740, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA
535, 550, citing People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 181827, February 2, 2011, 641
SCRA 472, 485.
82
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Dionaldo
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
Decision dated February 15, 2013 of the Court of Appeals
in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02888 is hereby AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that all the accused-appellants
herein are equally found GUILTY of the special complex
crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, and are
sentenced to each suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
without eligibility for parole, and to pay, jointly and
severally, the family of the kidnap victim Edwin Navarro
the following amounts: (1) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
(2) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of
judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and Perez,
JJ., concur.
Appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed with modification.
Notes.—To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by
reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed
an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.
(People vs. Jose, 708 SCRA 608 [2013])
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. (People vs. Niegas, 711 SCRA 46
[2013])
