[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
152 views2 pages

People vs. Muit

The Supreme Court case involved six men - Millano Muit, Sergio Pancho Jr., Eduardo Hermano, Rolando Dequillo, Romeo Pancho, and Joseph Ferraer - who were charged with kidnapping for ransom with homicide and carnapping for their roles in kidnapping a victim from a construction site. Based on testimony and extrajudicial confessions, the court found that Romeo Pancho served as the group's informant and identified the victim for kidnapping. While Muit escaped during an exchange of gunfire when the victim was rescued, resulting in the victim's death, he was later apprehended. The court affirmed the lower court's finding of guilt, relying not only on interlocking

Uploaded by

Tootsie Guzma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
152 views2 pages

People vs. Muit

The Supreme Court case involved six men - Millano Muit, Sergio Pancho Jr., Eduardo Hermano, Rolando Dequillo, Romeo Pancho, and Joseph Ferraer - who were charged with kidnapping for ransom with homicide and carnapping for their roles in kidnapping a victim from a construction site. Based on testimony and extrajudicial confessions, the court found that Romeo Pancho served as the group's informant and identified the victim for kidnapping. While Muit escaped during an exchange of gunfire when the victim was rescued, resulting in the victim's death, he was later apprehended. The court affirmed the lower court's finding of guilt, relying not only on interlocking

Uploaded by

Tootsie Guzma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No. 181043. October 8, 2008.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MILLANO MUIT, SERGIO


PANCHO, JR., EDUARDO HERMANO ALIAS “BOBBY REYES,” ROLANDO
DEQUILLO, ROMEO PANCHO, and JOSEPH FERRAER, appellants.

TINGA, J.:

FACTS:

Joseph Ferraer (Ferraer) was introduced by his relative, Orestes Julaton (Julaton), to
Sergio Pancho, Sr. (Pancho, Sr.), Sergio Pancho, Jr. (Pancho, Jr.), Rolando Dequillo
(Dequillo), and four other men. All the men arrived at Ferraer’s house in Batangas expressing
their intent to use his house as a safehouse for their “visitor.” Ferraer was hesitant at first but
he was told not to worry because they are not killers and their line of work is kidnap for
ransom. Ferraer was also assured that the money they would get would be divided equally
among them. Ferraer and Pancho, Sr. would guard their victim. Later, five other men came.
One of them was Muit.

Romeo Pancho (Romeo) served as the group’s informant. One day, Romeo informed
them of the presence of the victim in the construction site. Roger Seraspe (Seraspe), the
victim’s driver, drove the latter in a Pajero to the construction site together with one engineer.
The victim and the engineers alighted the Pajero. In the construction site, the engineers and
Seraspe were threated with a gun to lie prostate on e ground. Seraspe witnessed as the victim
was taken away in the Pajero. Seraspe immediately reported the incident to the police. The
police then barricaded several roads leading to Lipa whereupon they caught the Pajero. An
exchange of gunshots took place, the victim was one of the casualties, while Muit escaped
but was subsequently apprehended.

Based on the foregoing, two separate informations charged Muit et al. with
kidnapping for ransom with homicide and carnapping. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
rendered judgement declaring Muit, Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Romeo quilty. The Court of
Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC on appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
charges against them.

The extrajudicial confessions of Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit also strengthened the
prosecution’s case against Romeo. The rule that an extrajudicial confession is evidence only
against the person making it recognizes various exceptions. One such exception is where
several extrajudicial 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 extrajudicial 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.

You might also like