EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
144050
November 11, 2003
-versus-
NELSON ANCHETA PUAAND BENLEY
ANCHETA
PUA,
Appellants.
D E C I S I
O N
PER
CURIAM.:cralaw:red
This is an automatic
appeal from the decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103, in Criminal
Case
No. Q-99-80570, convicting appellants Nelson ("Bong") Ancheta Pua and
Benley
Ancheta Pua of kidnapping for ransom and sentencing them to suffer the
death penalty; and to pay damages to the victim Jocelyn Caleon.
The Indictment
The appellants and their
cousin Nelson Laddit Pua were charged with kidnapping for ransom in an
Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or
about November 23, 1998, at San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and
grouping themselves together, did, then and there, by force and
intimidation,
and with the use of firearms, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take,
carry away and deprive JOCELYN CALEON Y LARIOSA of her liberty against
her will for the purpose of extorting ransom, as in fact a ransom of
ONE
AND A HALF MILLION PESOS (P1,500,000.00) was actually paid to them by
the
victim's father as a condition for her release, and which release was
only
made on November 29, 1998 (or a period of six days detention) at the
Congressional
Village, Quezon City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
to the damage and prejudice of JOCELYN L. CALEON and family in the said
amount and such other amounts as may be awarded to her and her family
under
the provisions of the Civil
Code.chanrobles virtual law library
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Accused Nelson Laddit
Pua
remained at-large. Upon arraignment, the appellants, assisted by
counsel,
entered their respective pleas of not guilty to the charge.[3] The Case for the
Prosecution[4]
The Spouses Simplicio
and Remedios Caleon, residents of Cauayan, Isabela, had two daughters,
Shiela and Jocelyn.[5]
In 1986, Jocelyn was enrolled as a freshman at the Philippine Yuh Chiau
School in Cabatuan, Isabela. She met appellant Benley, who was then
enrolled
in the same school as a sophomore. His brother, appellant Nelson
Ancheta
Pua, was likewise enrolled in the school as a third year high school
student.
In 1987 when Jocelyn was a sophomore, she met accused Nelson Laddit
Pua,
the cousin of the appellants.[6]
By then, appellant Benley was in his third year, while appellant Nelson
Ancheta Pua was in his senior year. Jocelyn saw the appellants during
the
school alumni reunions held in 1992, 1994 and 1997.[7]chanrobles virtual law library
The Spouses Caleon were
engaged in the business of selling household appliances and hardware in
Cauayan, Isabela, where they resided. They had twelve stores in Regions
2 and 3, including one located in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, under the
business
name S & J Marketing which they put up in 1996.[8]
The spouses assigned their daughter Jocelyn in mid-1998 to manage the
said
store. They employed Adrian Layag as warehouseman, Angelito Binalay as
helper, and Noel dela Cruz as driver.[9]
Jocelyn resided in the store except on weekends when she visited her
parents
in Cauayan, Isabela.cralaw:red
Accused Nelson Laddit
Pua was thin and Chinese looking. He had fair complexion and an
over-bite
as well, as his upper front teeth were prominent and protruding.[10]
He and his cousins, the appellants, met and decided to kidnap Jocelyn
for
ransom. To consummate the crime, they needed a motor vehicle and a
place
to detain Jocelyn as they awaited the delivery of the ransom money.cralaw:red
At 6:00 p.m. on November
19, 1998, accused Nelson Laddit Pua arrived at the Monarch Rent-A-Car
Hormop
Transport, Inc. at No. 1139 Don Quijote, Sampaloc, Manila. He rented a
white Mazda Familia from November 19 to 22, 1998 for P7,700, inclusive
of a P3,000 deposit.[11]
He also executed a rental agreement for the lease of the car where he
indicated
his address as "No. 1758 Yakal Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila." Accused
Nelson
Laddit Pua had rented cars from the company on previous occasions,
including
a Nissan Sentra with Plate No. UEJ 744 way back in July 7, 1998. In the
rental agreement covering this earlier transaction, the appellant
stated
that he was a resident of No. 58A1 Asuncion Street, Morning Breeze
Subdivision,
Caloocan City, with telephone number 363-28-96.[12]
Appellant Benley went
to Baguio City and talked to Marcelo Opiana the caretaker of the house
at No. 59 Gibraltar Road, Baguio City, owned by Catalina Salazar.[13]
Appellant Benley offered to lease the basement of the house[14]
for three days.[15]
He told Opiana that he and his brother, his girlfriend and another
companion
would be staying there.[16]
Marcelo agreed to lease the basement to the appellant for P2,000.[17]chanrobles virtual law library
Instead of returning
the white Mazda Familia to the Monarch Rent-A-Car on November 22, 1998,
accused Nelson Laddit Pua extended the lease agreement to November 26,
1998.[18]
At about 6:10 p.m. on
November 23, 1998, Adrian and Noel were closing the store in San Jose.
Jocelyn, who was wearing a pair of blue pants and a blouse, was at the
store supervising the employees. She had P9,000 in her pocket, the
gross
sales of merchandise from another store. Suddenly, a white four-door
sedan
stopped near Jocelyn. Two men, wearing bonnets and armed with handguns,
alighted from the vehicle and forced Jocelyn inside. She was made to
sit
at the back of the car between two of her abductors. The driver, whose
face was also hidden by a bonnet, revved up the car and sped away.
Jocelyn
shouted and struggled, but the kidnapper to her right forced her face
down
on the floor of the car. She was also handcuffed, and her face was
covered
with a white cloth. Her abductors told her not to worry as they were
only
after money.[19]
After about an hour,
Jocelyn and her kidnappers checked in at the Cocheros' Inn at the
National
Highway, Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan.[20]
She was brought to the bathroom and was told to sit on a toilet bowl.
Her
kidnappers divested her of the P9,000 in her pocket, her watch and
keys,
and forced her to divulge to them the telephone number of her father in
Cauayan, Isabela. Jocelyn told them that her father's number was
634-55-98.[21]
The kidnappers then ordered her to stay in the comfort room, with a
warning
that if she did not cooperate, they would get back at her family. They
made it clear to her that she did not know them, but that they knew
both
her and her family.cralaw:red
Adrian called Simplicio
and reported that Jocelyn had been kidnapped by unidentified persons.
Simplicio
contacted Ernesto Subia, whose daughter had also been kidnapped, and
the
latter referred him to Col. Michael Ray Aquino of the Presidential
Anti-Organized
Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) Simplicio was able to contact Col. Aquino,
who
instructed him on how to deal with the kidnappers in case he was
contacted.cralaw:red
At about midnight, Simplicio
received a telephone call from one of the kidnappers. The man told him
that he and his companions were holding Jocelyn and demanded P5,000,000
as ransom in exchange for her safety and release. Simplicio pleaded to
the man not to harm his daughter and asked for more time to raise the
money.[22]chanrobles virtual law library
At 9:00 a.m. the next
day or on November 24, 1998, Simplicio called Col. Aquino and told the
latter what transpired the night before. Col. Aquino advised Simplicio
to negotiate with the kidnappers for the reduction of the P5,000,000
ransom
demand. Col. Aquino thereafter dispatched Col. James Mela, Major
Alexander
Rafael and PO3 Rodolfo Mahor to assist Simplicio. The agents placed an
electronic device on Simplicio's telephone to facilitate the monitoring
of calls from the kidnappers.[23]
Meanwhile, Jocelyn was taken out of the comfort room and placed in
another
room. She was constantly under guard.cralaw:red
At about 3:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m., Simplicio received a telephone call from the same kidnapper
who demanded that Simplicio raise P5,000,000 if he wanted his daughter
to be released alive; otherwise, Jocelyn would be hurt. Simplicio
pleaded
for the reduction of the ransom. Jocelyn heard the kidnappers as they
talked
to her father and agreed to reduce the ransom to P3,000,000.[24]
Simplicio was able to talk to Jocelyn over the telephone. She assured
her
father that she was fine.cralaw:red
Jocelyn slept that night
in handcuffs. She was guarded by one of the kidnappers who checked on
her
by touching her every now and then.[25]
At noon of November
25, 1998, Jocelyn was taken out of the room and boarded onto a vehicle.
Jocelyn's head was still covered with a piece of cloth. After about
five
hours of travel, the kidnappers and their victim arrived in Baguio
City.
Jocelyn was brought to the basement of the house earlier leased by
appellant
Benley from Marcelo Opiana.[26]
Jocelyn knew that she was in Baguio because the temperature was
noticeably
cold.[27]
At 3:30 p.m. that day,
Simplicio received another telephone call from the same kidnapper.
Simplicio
pleaded that the P3,000,000 ransom be reduced further. The caller
refused
and warned Simplicio that if he failed to raise the amount, Jocelyn
would
be harmed. Simplicio informed the caller that he had not yet raised the
amount because business was bad. He once more pleaded for the reduction
of the ransom. The caller remained noncommittal and told Simplicio to
wait
for another call the next day at 3:00 p.m. Simplicio was also warned
not
to inform the police authorities about their negotiations.cralaw:red
In the morning of November
26, 1998, the handcuffs and the cloth covering Jocelyn's head were
finally
removed. She was given a sweatshirt with the word "Army Airborne"
printed
on it, a shirt and two pairs of underwear. Jocelyn inspected the room.[28]
She made scratches on the walls and on some cabinets,[29]
hoping that after her release, she would somehow find her way back to
the
room and identify the place where she was detained. At lunchtime,
Jocelyn
was given noodles and bottled water. The bottled water had a price tag
on it which read "Benguet Supermarket."[30]
Jocelyn removed the price tag and kept it.cralaw:red
At 5:00 p.m., Simplicio
received another telephone call from the same kidnapper. He was
informed
that the kidnappers had agreed to reduce the ransom further to
P1,500,000.
Simplicio was then told to be ready to deliver the amount on November
28,
1998, and to await further instructions. The kidnapper also got
Simplicio's
cell phone number, which the latter disclosed as 0912-344-9391.[31]
Later that evening, one of the kidnappers whispered to Jocelyn that she
could relax, as her father had already agreed to pay the ransom of
P1,500,000.chanrobles virtual law library
On the same day, accused
Nelson Laddit Pua returned the white Mazda Familia to the Monarch
Rent-A-Car.
He was with a male companion who identified himself as Rodrigo
Sarmiento.
They rented another car, a honey beige 1997 Mazda Familia GLX, with
Plate
No. URX 876, for one month or until December 26, 1998 for the amount of
P42,000 a month, with a P5,000 deposit. "Rodrigo Sarmiento" executed a
rental agreement over the car where he indicated his address as "c/o
Nelson
Pua at No. 75 Dr. Alejos Street, Quezon City."[32]
He paid the amount of P37,200 as rental for the car.cralaw:red
At 4:00 p.m. on November
27, 1998, the kidnappers called again and demanded to know if Simplicio
was ready with the P1,500,000 ransom. When they were told otherwise,
the
kidnappers became angry and informed Simplicio that the delivery of the
ransom money scheduled for the next day was cancelled because police
authorities
were hot on their trail.[33]
At lunchtime on November
28, 1998, the kidnapper who was assigned to guard Jocelyn entered the
room
and served her noodles. This time, he had no cover on his head. Jocelyn
looked at the mirror of the built-in dresser in front of her[34]
and was shocked to see the face of a former schoolmate, appellant
Nelson
Ancheta Pua.[35]
Fearing that she might be harmed, Jocelyn did not show any sign of
recognition.
At 3:00 p.m. that day, appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua returned Jocelyn's
watch and keys. Jocelyn again saw appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua that
evening
when the latter brought food for her dinner. In both instances, the
appellant's
face was not covered.cralaw:red
At about this time,
Simplicio received a telephone call from the same kidnapper. He was
told
to proceed to the McDonald's Restaurant in San Fernando, La Union at
twelve
midnight. He was instructed to wait in front of the said restaurant.
When
the caller asked him what vehicle he would be using, Simplicio replied
that he would come in a white pick-up truck with Plate No. BBU 375.[36]
Simplicio immediately informed the PAOCTF of the kidnapper's
instructions.
Simplicio was told to comply with the kidnappers' orders and was
informed
that two PAOCTF agents would be sent to accompany him. SPO2 Edwin
Pastor
and PO3 Rodolfo Mahor arrived at Simplicio's house. The three of them
boarded
a four-door Isuzu pick-up truck and arrived in front of the McDonald's
Restaurant at about 11:50 p.m. Simplicio, who sat at the back seat, had
the P1,500,000 ransom placed in a leather bag.[37]chanrobles virtual law library
At about 1:30 a.m. to
2:00 a.m. of November 29, 1999, SPO2 Pastor saw appellant Benley near a
terminal, about two to fifteen meters from their vehicle. He had two
cell
phones tucked at his waist and appeared to be drunk. He walked right in
front of the pick-up truck, then boarded a tricycle.[38]
Simplicio thereafter
received a call from the kidnapper, who asked how many companions were
with him. When Simplicio replied that he had two companions, he was
told
to send them away. Simplicio did as he was told and asked SPO2 Pastor
and
PO3 Mahor to leave the vehicle.[39]
The two agents asked their superiors for instructions on how to
proceed,
and were told to leave Simplicio alone in the vehicle. SPO2 Pastor and
PO3 Mahor did so and took a tricycle to the Philippine Rabbit Terminal,
about 200 meters away from the pick-up truck.[40]
Simplicio received another
call from the same kidnapper, and was instructed to drive to Aringay,
La
Union. Simplicio replied that he could not drive because of his
arthritis.
Simplicio was then told to transfer to the driver's seat of the truck,
open the window on that side, and place the bag containing the ransom
money
on top of the window. Simplicio did as he was told. Almost immediately,
a car stopped beside the pick-up truck and someone from the car took
the
bag. The car then sped away towards the south.[41]
The PAOCTF agents followed the car but lost track of it.cralaw:red
For his part, Simplicio
drove the pick-up truck from San Fernando, La Union to Pozorrubio,
Pangasinan
and met SPO2 Pastor and PO3 Mahor at a gasoline station. They then
proceeded
to San Jose City to await Jocelyn's release.[42]
Between 4:00 to 4:30
a.m., appellant Benley and a slim, male companion with dark complexion
arrived at a house in Barangay Ambaracao, Naguilian, La Union. It was
owned
by Manuelito Orperia, a farmer by profession. Appellant Benley was then
wearing maong pants and leather shoes soaked in mud. He was also
carrying
a bag. The appellant identified himself as Michael Ong, and told
Manuelito
that someone had wanted to kidnap a member of his family, but that he
and
his companion were able to escape. He then asked if there was a vehicle
available for rent. Manuelito found the story convincing and
accompanied
appellant Benley to Billy Rimando, who owned a passenger jeepney. Billy
agreed to rent his vehicle to the appellant for P1,000. The group
proceeded
to Baguio City. Joel Rimando was at the wheel, and his passengers,
aside
from appellant Benley and his companion, were Manuelito, Walter Rimando
and Francisco Estipular. Before Benley and his companion alighted from
the vehicle, the appellant gave P400 to Manuelito who used it to buy
milk
for his children.[43]chanrobles virtual law library
At 3:00 p.m. of the
same day, appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua told Jocelyn that she was about
to be released. The kidnappers returned the clothes which were earlier
lent to Jocelyn. Appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua approached Jocelyn from
behind
and gave her P1,000 for her fare in going home after her release.
Jocelyn
faced the appellant and took the money. The appellant had no cover on
his
head and face. Jocelyn asked to be allowed to go to the comfort room.[44]
Appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua agreed. The appellant thereafter opened
the
door and gave Jocelyn a pair of sunglasses,[45]
and instructed the latter to wear it and to pretend to be sick. He
warned
her to cooperate with him and his companions so that no harm would be
inflicted
on her. Jocelyn put the sunglasses on and went out of the house with
appellant
Nelson Ancheta Pua's arm on her shoulder. Outside the house, Jocelyn
surreptitiously
let the sunglasses slip down her face, and saw appellants Benley and
Nelson
Ancheta Pua loading their baggage in the van, about seven Meters away
from
the house.[46]
She also saw the accused Nelson Laddit Pua near the van. Their faces
were
not covered. Jocelyn was made to sit in the rear passenger seat.[47]
After a five-hour drive, Jocelyn was dropped off at the Congressional
Village,
Quezon City. Jocelyn then contacted her sister Shiela and told the
latter
she had already been released. After two hours, her cousins Roderick
and
Esperanza fetched her and brought her to their house at Araneta Avenue,
Quezon City.[48]
Jocelyn called up her
father and told him that she was kidnapped by appellants Benley and
Nelson
Ancheta Pua. Simplicio told her that Col. Aquino of the PAOCTF would be
coming to talk to her. When the colonel arrived an hour later, Jocelyn
disclosed that she was kidnapped by appellants Benley and Nelson
Ancheta
Pua and another male person. She also gave him the pair of sunglasses
that
appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua made her wear, as well as the price tag of
the Benguet Supermarket for the bottled water.[49]
On November 30, 1998,
the PAOCTF learned that the police authorities in La Union found the
Mazda
Familia car with Plate No. URX 876 abandoned in Caba, La Union. They
also
learned that the car was registered under the name of the Monarch
Rent-A-Car.
When the personnel of the company were questioned, the agents were told
that "Rodrigo Sarmiento c/o Nelson Pua" had rented the car. The company
records also indicated that "Nelson Pua" had two addresses: No. 75 Dr.
Alejos Street Quezon City and at No. 1758 Yakal Street, Sta. Cruz,
Manila.
On the other hand, the addresses of one "Nelson Pua Ancheta" was stated
as No. 58 Asuncion Street, Morning Breeze Subdivision, Caloocan City[50]
and No. 161 Ibay Street, La Loma, Quezon City. The agents proceeded to
these locations but failed to find their quarry. They learned, however,
that the occupants of the houses in these addresses were from Aurora,
Isabela.chanrobles virtual law library
The PAOCTF agents forthwith
proceeded to Cauayan, Isabela and learned that appellant Benley had
been
charged with violation of B.P. No. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court
of Cauayan, Isabela, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 98-123 and 98-163.
A "Nelson Pua" had also been charged with violation of B.P. No. 22 in
Criminal
Cases Nos. 98-243, 98-244 and 98-245. The agents secured copies of
warrants
of arrest issued in the following cases: Criminal Case No. 98-123 dated
February 27, 1998; Criminal Case No. 98-163 dated March 6, 1998;[51]
and Criminal Cases Nos. 98-243, 98-244 and 98-245 dated November 27,
1998
and August 18, 1998, respectively.[52]
Unknown to the agents, the "Nelson Pua" indicated in Criminal Cases
Nos.
98-243 to 98-245 as the accused therein, was actually the accused
Nelson
Laddit Pua, and not the appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua.[53]
On December 29, 1998,
the accused Nelson Laddit Pua contacted the Monarch Rent-A-Car and
reported
that the Mazda Familia he had rented on November 26, 1998 had been
carnapped.
Ferdinand Palacio reported the call to the PAOCTF.cralaw:red
In the meantime, the
PAOCTF agents conducted a surveillance of appellant Nelson Ancheta
Pua's
residence at No. 58A1 Asuncion Street, Morning Breeze Subdivision,
Caloocan
City. The agents were equipped with a video camera to facilitate the
operation.cralaw:red
On January 15, 1999,
the PAOCTF agents saw a woman emerge from the house under surveillance.
She left momentarily, and returned on board a taxi. The woman then went
back inside the house, and thereafter again boarded the taxi, carrying
pieces of luggage. She and a man, who turned out to be appellant Nelson
Ancheta Pua, travelled to Rizal Avenue, Manila, where the latter
alighted
and went to an automated teller machine (ATM) booth. Appellant Nelson
Ancheta
Pua then returned to the taxi, while the woman in turn alighted. The
agents
followed the taxi to Tayuman Street, where the appellant got down and
went
to a nearby house. When the appellant returned, another male person was
with him, who turned out to be appellant Benley. The latter was also
carrying
pieces of luggage. With the two appellants on board, the taxi proceeded
to Pier 12 at Tondo, Manila.chanrobles virtual law library
The agents contacted
the Monarch Rent-A-Car and requested an employee to join them at Pier
12
and assist in identifying the two male passengers who alighted from the
taxi. The employee arrived and when shown a. video-clip of the
appellants,
identified them as the same persons who had rented cars from the
company.
In the meantime, the appellants boarded the vessel "Princess of the
Universe"
bound for Cebu. The PAOCTF agents, armed with the warrants of arrest
issued
by the MTC in Criminal Cases Nos. 98-243, 98-244, 98-123 and 98-163,
boarded
the vessel and arrested appellants Benley and Nelson Ancheta Pua near
their
cabin. The appellants were brought to the PAOCTF Headquarters in Camp
Crame,
Quezon City, where they were turned over to the Legal and Law
Enforcement
Division for investigation. The agents found a pistol and live
ammunitions
in appellant Benley's possession. They also confiscated cash money from
the appellants.cralaw:red
On January 17, 1999,
the PAOCTF agents summoned Jocelyn and Simplicio to Camp Crame, Quezon
City. Jocelyn, her sister, and her father arrived shortly thereafter.cralaw:red
Six male persons, including
appellants Benley and Nelson Ancheta Pua, formed a police line-up. When
Jocelyn was asked to identify her kidnappers in the line-up, she
pointed
to and identified appellants Benley and Nelson Ancheta Pua. Jocelyn
then
asked the PAOCTF officers if she could talk to the appellants in
private.
The officers agreed. In the presence of her father and sister, Jocelyn
asked the appellants why she was kidnapped. The appellants
spontaneously
begged for Jocelyn's forgiveness, and told her that they had not really
meant to kidnap her. The appellants pleaded that they be allowed to
return
the P1,500,000 ransom money in exchange for their lives. They told
Jocelyn
that they were prepared to suffer a long prison term, but were afraid
to
die for the crime they committed Jocelyn wept as she recalled her
ordeal
at the hands of the appellants, and their pleas failed to sway her.[54]
A short while later, someone approached Jocelyn and told her that
appellant
Nelson Ancheta Pua still had a lot of things to say to her; but Jocelyn
refused to meet with him again. She instead told the emissary to tell
the
appellant to write down what he wanted to say and promised to read the
message. The emissary thereafter handed a letter to Jocelyn where
appellant
Nelson Ancheta Pua pleaded that his uncle and brother be allowed to
talk
to Jocelyn's mother to discuss arrangements for the return of the
ransom
money they earlier received.[55]
The appellant also pleaded for "another chance," and for Jocelyn to
spare
their lives.[56]
Jocelyn ignored appellant
Nelson Ancheta Pua's letter. She gave a sworn statement to SPO1 Joel A.
Lapaz where she identified the appellants as two of the men who
kidnapped
her.[57]
Simplicio also gave a sworn statement to PO2 Joseph Bagao.[58]
PO2 Edwin Pastor executed an affidavit identifying appellant Benley as
one of the men who took delivery of the ransom in front of the
McDonald's
Restaurant in San Fernando, La Union.[59]
Chief Inspector Alexander Rafael also executed an affidavit.[60]chanrobles virtual law library
On January 18, 1999,
the NBI agents brought Jocelyn to the basement of the house at No. 59
Gibraltar
Street, Baguio City, where she was detained from November 25 to 29,
1999.
Jocelyn gave her supplemental statement to NBI agent Arnold Lazaro,[61]
confirming that the said basement was the same place where she was held
captive by the kidnappers until she was released.cralaw:red
On January 19, 1999,
the relatives of the appellants arrived at the Caleon residence to once
more plead for mercy for the latter's plight. They were the appellants'
mother Leticia Pua, their brother Chito Pua and their uncle and aunt
the
Spouses Mariano and Veronica Pua. The appellant Nelson's wife Josephine
and their child also came. Simplicio was in Baguio during this time,
and
it was his wife Remedios who met with the visitors. Remedios was
noncommittal.
The appellants' relatives again went to the Caleon residence on January
26, 1999 and told Simplicio that they were so sorry that Jocelyn had
been
kidnapped by the appellants, and that the entire Pua family was trying
to raise the amount of P1,500,000 so that it could be returned to them.
They pleaded that the appellants be spared their lives, and Leticia
even
told Simplicio that she would kneel before Jocelyn if that was what it
would take for the latter to forgive her sons. Simplicio simply told
Leticia
that they had already filed a case against the appellants, and that it
was up to the court to decide the matter. Nevertheless, Mariano and
Veronica
Pua, Chito, Josephine and Leticia returned, and offered to give ransom
money back in exchange for Nelson and Benley's freedom. Simplicio was,
however, adamant.cralaw:red
Simplicio and some PAOCTF
agents went to the Cochero's Inn in Carmen, Rosales, and to No. 59
Gibraltar
Street, Baguio City, where Jocelyn had been detained. They took
photographs
of the said places.[62]
The Case for the
Appellants[63]
Appellant Nelson Ancheta
Pua denied kidnapping Jocelyn. He testified that he was a businessman,
and that he and Jocelyn were schoolmates. He left his residence at No.
58A1 Asuncion Street, Morning Breeze Subdivision, Caloocan City on
November
27, 1998 and arrived at Barangay Macatal, Aurora, Isabela, to help his
widowed mother, Leticia Pua, harvest calamansi in their farm. He stayed
at his mother's house up to November 29, 1998. He was in Laoag City on
January 12 to 15, 1999. The appellant also averred that he was arrested
on January 15, 1999 without any warrant therefor, and was blindfolded
and
mauled by PAOCTF agents headed by Major Alexander Rafael. A gun was
poked
at him, and he was hit with a helmet, and his legs were swollen. He and
his brother appellant Benley were detained at Camp Crame, Quezon City
until
January 17, 1999.chanrobles virtual law library
Although appellant Nelson
Ancheta Pua admitted that he wrote the letter addressed to Joy,[64]
he explained that he did so while he was detained at the PAOCTF cell in
Quezon City, only on orders of Major Alexander Rafael. Major Rafael,
who
was outside the appellant's cell when he wrote the letter, dictated
several
corrections. The appellant also denied renting any car from the Monarch
Rent-A-Car.cralaw:red
Appellant Benley, for
his part, testified that he was a businessman, and that he knew Jocelyn
because they studied in the same high school. He made it clear that
they
had had no misunderstanding before the kidnapping, and even had common
friends, like Shirley Uy and Janet Subia. He also testified that he had
a small house in Macatal, Aurora, Isabela, where the family had a farm
consisting of about 14 hectares: 2 hectares were devoted to planting
calamansi,
10 hectares for corn crops and 2 hectares to palay growing. He and his
brother appellant Nelson and their mother Leticia employed workers in
their
farm. He was in Macatal, Aurora, Isabela from November 23, 1998 up to
December
1998. He spent New Year's eve in a hotel in Ilocos with his wife and
kids,
his brother Nelson and their mother and a few other companions between
December 28, 1998 and January 2, 1999. They returned to Macatal
afterwards.
On January 12, 1999, the appellants went to Manila en route to Cebu to
watch the "Sinulog." However, in the early evening of January 15, 1999,
while they were on board a boat then docked at Pier 12 in Tondo,
Manila,
several armed men arrested them for undisclosed reasons. They were not
shown any warrants of arrest. Appellant Benley later came to know that
the men were from PAOCTF.cralaw:red
Appellant Benley corroborated
his brother's testimony, that they were mauled and blindfolded while
detained
at Camp Crame. He also testified that he was forced to ingest a
substance
which tasted like human excrement. He denied kidnapping Jocelyn, and
also
denied picking up the bag containing the ransom money in front of the
McDonald's
Restaurant in San Fernando, La Union. Appellant Benley further denied
renting
the basement of the house of Catalina Salazar in Baguio City, as well
as
the passenger jeepney owned by Billy Rimando. According to appellant
Benley,
he had no inkling that his mother Leticia, his father-in-law Cornelio
Pua,
his elder brother Chito, his wife Josephine and his aunt approached
Jocelyn's
father twice, to ask for some sort of settlement.chanrobles virtual law library
Jeremias Frias, a farmer
who owned a two-hectare farm adjacent to the land owned by Leticia Pua
at Macatal, Aurora, Isabela, corroborated the appellants' alibi. He
testified
that from November 22, 1998 to the first week of December 1998, he saw
the appellants harvesting calamansi in their farm in Macatal.cralaw:red
Prospero C. Guillermo,
a tricycle driver and a barangay kagawad of Macatal, Aurora, Isabela,
testified
that he saw the two appellants in Macatal in the months of September,
October,
November and December 1998.cralaw:red
Renato Calimag, a barangay
kagawad of Apiat, Aurora, Isabela, located some two kilometers from
Barrio
Macatal, testified that he was a worker in the appellants' farm. He saw
the brothers harvesting calamansi in November 1998. In December 1998,
the
two brothers tended to "their other harvests." He also saw them "during
New Year's time."
Eufemio dela Cruz, the
appellants' neighbor, also a barangay kagawad of Macatal, Aurora,
Isabela,
testified that he saw them in Macatal from sunrise to sundown everyday
from January 1998 to December 1998 and in January 1999. The appellants
apparently always passed by his house. He stopped seeing the appellants
only in February 1999. He testified that he could see the house of the
appellants from the barangay hall.cralaw:red
The appellants adduced
evidence to prove that when they were arrested on January 15, 1999,
they
were divested of their valuables, none of which was part of the ransom.
They also adduced evidence that Criminal Cases Nos. 98-123 and 98-163
were
dismissed as early as March 23, 1998.[65]
The appellants also alleged that on January 16, 1999, the appellants
were
brought out of their detention cell and were presented to Simplicio and
one Marvin. The meeting was held to enable the latter to familiarize
themselves
with the physical appearance of the appellants, prior to the formation
of the police line-up where they were later identified as Jocelyn's
kidnappers.chanrobles virtual law library
After trial, the trial
court rendered judgment finding the appellants guilty as charged. The
decretal
portion of the decision of the court reads:
ACCORDINGLY,
judgment is hereby rendered finding the herein accused NELSON PUA y
ANCHETA
and BENLEY PUA y ANCHETA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as PRINCIPALS
in
the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom in violation of the Revised Penal
Code,
as amended, and each of them is hereby sentenced to DEATH, the only
penalty
prescribed by law for Kidnapping for Ransom.
On the civil
aspect,
the two accused are ordered to pay the kidnapped victim Miss Jocelyn
Caleon
the sum of P8,000.00 and Mr. Simplicio Caleon the sum of P1.5 million
in
actual damages and also to pay Miss Jocelyn Caleon the sum of
P300,000.00
as moral damages. Costs versus the accused.
Let an Alias
Warrant
of Arrest be issued, without bail, in this case against co-accused
Nelson
Pua Y Laddit who has remained at-large to this date.
Pursuant to law
and
the Rules of Court, let the complete records of this case be forwarded
forthwith to the Honorable Supreme Court for automatic review in view
of
the death sentence imposed in this case.
SO ORDERED.[66]
The appellants assail
the
decision of the trial court, contending that the prosecution failed to
prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They assert that the
testimony
of Jocelyn identifying them as the kidnappers is unreliable and barren
of probative weight.
The appellants contend
that Jocelyn could not have seen and identified them as her kidnappers
because despite her claim that she revealed the identities of her
kidnappers
to Col. Aquino of the PAOCTF on November 29, 1998, the PAOCTF agents
never
conducted any search and arrest operations in Barangay Macatal, Aurora,
Isabela, where they and their widowed mother Leticia Pua had their farm
and residence. Instead, the PAOCTF agents conducted raids only in
Barangay
Nampicuan, Aurora, Isabela, in the third week of December 1998, and in
the Poblacion, San Manuel, Isabela in the first week of January 1999
for
the apprehension of the accused Nelson Laddit Pua. Jocelyn did not even
execute any sworn statement narrating the details of the kidnapping, as
well as the identities of her kidnappers. They also allege that PO3
Rodolfo
Mahor could not have seen that it was appellant Benley who received the
ransom money because there were other persons milling about in the
area.
They also point out that Major Rafael testified that the money found in
the possession of appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua was not part of the
ransom
money. Furthermore, Jocelyn's identification of the appellants as her
kidnappers
is flawed, for the added reason that Simplicio and "Marvin" were given
a chance by the PAOCTF on January 16, 1999 to familiarize themselves
with
the appellants' physical features. Simplicio, in turn, briefed Jocelyn
on January 17, 1999 to make sure that the appellants would be
identified
before the latter were presented in the police line-up.chanrobles virtual law library
Finally, the appellants
insist that the contents of the handwritten letter[67]
were dictated to the appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua by Major Alexander
Rafael
while the latter was detained at the PAOCTF cell in Quezon City. The
appellants
also point out that they were illegally arrested without any valid
warrants
therefor; hence, the said letter is inadmissible in evidence. The
appellants
further insist that appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua was not a signatory to
the rental agreement,[68]
as the signature of the lessor therein was different from his genuine
signatures.[69]
Hence, they conclude, the rental agreements are likewise inadmissible
in
evidence.cralaw:red
The Office of the Solicitor
General, on the other hand, contends that even without appellant Nelson
Ancheta Pua's letter,[70]
Jocelyn's testimony, corroborated by the other testimonial and
documentary
evidence on record, is proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of
the
appellants for the crime charged. The appellants failed to assail their
arrest and the jurisdiction of the court over their persons before
their
arraignment; hence, are barred from assailing the same and claiming
before
this Court the inadmissibility of appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua's letter
in evidence. Although appellant Nelson was not a signatory to the
rental
agreements,[71]
the agreement is still admissible in evidence to prove that he
conspired
with appellant Benley and accused Nelson. Having conspired with
appellant
Benley and accused Nelson Laddit Pua as borne by the other evidence on
record, the appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua is as guilty of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention for ransom as the appellant Benley.cralaw:red
The contentions of the
appellants are barren of merit.cralaw:red
By assailing the credibility
of Jocelyn and the probative weight of her testimony, the appellants
thereby
dispute the findings of the trial court. But the legal aphorism is that
the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial
evidence
of the parties, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence
on record and its conclusions anchored on the said evidence are
accorded
by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, because
of the unique advantage of the trial court of observing at close range
the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses as they testify,
unless the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent
facts and circumstances which if considered would change the outcome of
the case.[72]
The trial court found Jocelyn to be a credible witness and her
testimony
forthright, spontaneous and definite. The court minutiosely considered
the evidence on record and found no reason to deviate from the findings
and conclusions of the trial court on the identities of the appellants
as Jocelyn's kidnappers.chanrobles virtual law library
The trial court ruled,
based on the evidence on record, that when Jocelyn testified, she
positively,
unerringly and spontaneously identified the appellants as her
kidnappers.
She pointed to the appellants when asked by the prosecutor to point to
and identify the culprits from among those in the courtroom:
First, Joy positively
identified Nelson Pua y Ancheta as one of her kidnappers because when
said
kidnapper fed her from behind with food at lunchtime on Saturday,
November
28, 1998, she was able to take a peek at him craning her neck to look
at
him from a mirror fronting a dresser beside her. Said kidnapper,
evidently
because Joy had been such an obedient victim, did not put on his bonnet
anymore that time. Joy saw his face again that day.cralaw:red
Second, Joy could not
have been mistaken as to the identity of Nelson because she has known
him
for a long, long time, not only in high school, Philippine Yuh Chian
(sic)
School, where both studied at the same time, she as a first year
student,
paid) that, as the sunglass she was wearing (the glasses were covered
with
packing tape) slid a little down her nose that she was able to see
Benley
Pua, together with Nelson Pua, loading their luggage inside the van
that
was to take her to Quezon City.cralaw:red
Fourth, the opportunities
and incidents under which Joy was able to identify her two kidnappers
appear
to this court as having arisen, not just from sheer luck, but due to
the
neglect and lack of professionalism displayed by these two young
brothers.
Nelson delivered food to Joy from behind her while she was seated, but
forgot that there is a mirror placed at a nearby dresser from which the
victim could take a side glance to see who her kidnapper was, and then,
while the two kidnappers took care to tape the sunglasses she was made
to wear so she can't see them, they made her stop for a while standing
on the driveway while they put her inside the van and, more
importantly,
they forgot to tape the sunglasses to her face thereby enabling Joy to
slide the sunglasses down her nose by a slight tilt of her and thus
enabling
her to identify not only Nelson, but Benley as well with whom she is
also
well-acquainted.[73]
In convicting the appellants
for the crime charged, the trial court relied not only on the
testimonies
of Jocelyn and Simplicio but also on the testimony of SPO2 Edwin
Pastor,
not to mention those of PO3 Rodolfo Mahor, Major Alexander Rafael,
Marcelo
Opiana, Emiliano Agaton, Manuelito Orperia, as well as assorted
documentary
evidence. All of these constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt that
the
appellants and the accused Nelson Laddit Pua conspired to kidnap and
illegally
detain Jocelyn for ransom and in fact kidnapped and illegally detained
her for ransom in the amount of P1,500,000 which the appellants took
from
her father, Simplicio Caleon.cralaw:red
As testified to by Simplicio
and SPO2 Pastor, on November 28, 1998, Simplicio was ordered by the
kidnappers
to proceed in front of the McDonald's Restaurant in San Fernando, La
Union
and to park his vehicle before midnight. Shortly thereafter, appellant
Benley sauntered by and passed in front of the parked vehicle. There is
no evidence that other persons were milling about between SPO2 Pastor
and
the appellant. Simplicio thereafter received a call instructing him to
get rid of his two companions and to place the ransom money on top of
the
rolled-down window of the vehicle, opposite the driver's seat. The
ransom
money was then taken by the kidnappers. Admittedly, there is no direct
evidence that the appellants received the bag containing the P1,500,000
ransom, However, the confluence and sequence of events, from the time
Jocelyn
was kidnapped, the negotiations for the delivery of the ransom to the
appellants,
the call from one of the kidnappers instructing Simplicio to bring the
ransom money to San Fernando, La Union, up to the time the ransom money
was taken by the kidnappers, constitute a tapestry of circumstantial
evidence
on the appellants' participation in the kidnapping of Jocelyn and the
delivery
of the ransom money.chanrobles virtual law library
Jocelyn's testimony
identifying the appellants as two of her kidnappers cannot be
discredited
on the bare claim that the PAOCTF agents failed to conduct search and
arrest
operations in Barangay Macatal, Aurora, Isabela, where the appellants'
mother Leticia Pua resided and where their farm was located. Although
Jocelyn
and the appellants were schoolmates, there is no evidence on record
that
she knew the appellants' home addresses. Hence, she could not have
revealed
such information to Col. Aquino after the kidnappers released her on
November
29, 1998. Moreover, on November 30, 1999, or barely a day after
Jocelyn's
release, the PAOCTF agents learned from the Monarch Rent-A-Car
personnel
that the appellants and accused Nelson Laddit Pua were residing at the
addresses indicated in the rental agreements.[74]
The agents forthwith conducted search and arrest operations in the
places
enumerated therein, but the appellants were nowhere to be found. At
that
point in time, the PAOCTF agents were unaware that the appellants'
mother
resided in Aurora, Isabela. When the agents later learned of this, they
secured copies of warrants of arrest of "Nelson Pua" and appellant
Benley
from the MTC of Cauayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 96-123 and 96-163 and
98-243
to 98-245. Moreover, the PAOCTF agents did not know that there were two
persons going by the name "Nelson Pua" who were involved in the
kidnapping,
namely, accused Nelson Laddit Pua and his cousin, the appellant Nelson
Ancheta Pua. The agents were not even aware that the Nelson Pua who was
charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 98-243 to 98-245 before the MTC of
Cauayan,
Isabela was the accused Nelson Laddit Pua and not the appellant Nelson
Ancheta Pua. The Court, thus, agrees with the following ruminations of
the trial court:
The defense claim then
that since Joy knows them, she should have had them arrested earlier
than
January 1999 lacks much substance. Indeed, the PAOCTF, as asserted by
both
accused, raided the house of Nelson Pua y Laddit and that of his father
sometime in December 15, 1998 and it appears that PAOCTF
intelligence-gathering
was, at that time not fool-proof because the one they thought was
Nelson
Pua, one of the accused in this case, was not really the Nelson charged
here, but another Nelson Pua, a namesake and cousin of the accused,
who,
unlike the herein Nelson Pua, is residing not in Isabela province but
in
Guadalajara, Guadalupe, Cebu City. As far as this Court has observed
it,
not a few Chinese or Filipinos of Chinese descent here are quite good
in
this kind of trickery and/or gobbledygook.[75]
Jocelyn and the appellants
were schoolmates at the Philippine Yuh Chiau School in Cabatuan,
Isabela.
Appellant Benley admitted when he testified that he and Jocelyn and the
other witnesses for the prosecution had no quarrels nor
misunderstandings.
There is no evidence on record that Jocelyn, the officers and agents of
the PAOCTF, as well as Marcelo Opiana and Manuelito Orperia, had
improper
motives to so actuate them; the presumption then is that no such ill
motive
existed and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and
probative
weight.[76]chanrobles virtual law library
The appellants anchored
their defense on their denial of the charge and their alibi, asserting
that when Jocelyn was kidnapped in San Jose Nueva Ecija, in the evening
of November 23, 1998 and illegally detained until the evening of
November
29, 1998, they were in their mother's house in Barangay Macatal,
Aurora,
Isabela, helping the latter harvest calamansi and other produce in
their
farm. But as Jocelyn and Simplicio testified on January 19, 1999 and on
two other occasions, the appellants' mother Leticia, her other son
Chito,
appellant Nelson's wife Josephine, and the appellants' Uncle Mariano
and
Aunt Veronica pleaded to Jocelyn's parents for mercy and forgiveness,
and
for the latter to agree to the restitution of the ransom money of
P1,500,000
in exchange for the lives of the appellants. The appellants never
presented
their mother Leticia to controvert the testimony of Jocelyn and
Simplicio
and to corroborate their defenses. By pleading for mercy for her sons
and
offering to restitute the ransom money, Leticia thereby belied the
appellants'
alibi and denial of their receipt of the ransom money. The Court notes
that the visits of the appellants' mother, brother, uncle and aunt to
Jocelyn
and Simplicio on three occasions ensued at the heels of appellant
Nelson
Ancheta Pua's Letter dated January 17, 1999 to Jocelyn, which reads:
Jan. 17,
1999
Joy,
Sorry na lang sa
nagawa
namin sa inyo. Wala naman talaga kaming balak na ikaw ang kukunin
namin,
parang nadaan lang kami sa store ninyo. Kaya nagkaroon kami ng idea.
Pero
Joy and Shiela, wala na kaming magagawa kasi nagawa na namin kaya sorry
na lang ulit sa inyong pamilya pero kung pwede Joy pakisabi naman sa
Papa
mo na bigyan niya kami ng pagkakataon para magbago. Ang ibig kong
sabihin
Joy, sana pakiusap lang na gusto namin makausap ang Mama mo, Kuya
Chito,
at si Uncle Mar Pua para pag-usapan namin kung saan kami kukuha ng 5M
para
ibalik sa inyo. Ang pinag-usapan kasi namin ni Benley ipapabenta na
lang
namin yung mga bukid at bahay sa Aurora para makapagbalik sa inyo.
Tapos
Joy sa kulungan na lang kami para mapagdusahan namin yung nagawa namin
sa inyo. Kaya kung puwede Joy, Shiela pakisabi naman sa Papa at Mama
niyo
na sana bigyan pa kami ng isang buhay. Kasi Joy and Shiela, alam ninyo
naman, na hindi naman namin gawain ang ganito at hindi naman siguro
kami
ganon kasama. Ang inaaalala (sic) ko yung misis at ang anak ko, kaya
Joy
& Shiela, sang bigyan niyo naman kami ng pagkakataon para makita ko
pa kung paano naman lumaki ang anak ko kahit na nasa bilangguan kami ng
kapatid ko si Benley. Thanks, sana maunawaan ninyo kami.
Nelson
"Bong"
Pua[77]
When the appellant
Nelson
wrote the foregoing letter, he was not under custodial investigation.
He
wrote to Jocelyn without any prodding from the PAOCTF officers and
agents,
to reiterate his plea for mercy and forgiveness. The appellant Nelson
failed
to prove his assertion that the contents of the letter and the
corrections
thereon were indeed dictated by Major Rafael. As gleaned from the
letter,
the appellant even pleaded to Jocelyn that he, his mother, brother and
his uncle be given a chance to talk to Jocelyn's mother and discuss the
restitution of the ransom money. Major Rafael could not have known the
names of the appellants' uncle and brother, whether the appellants'
family
owned a farm in Aurora, and the appellants' plan for their relatives to
once more plead to Jocelyn's mother for mercy. Appellant Nelson even
asserted
when he testified that when he wrote the letter, Major Rafael was not
in
his detention cell. Hence, the latter could not have dictated to the
appellant
what to write down. As to why Major Rafael could not have dictated the
corrections on the letter of the appellant, the trial court reasoned,
thus:
x x
x The court studied those "corrections" and is not
convinced
that they are dictated corrections, mainly because the corrections were
simple grammatical (the letter was in Tagalog) corrections that have
nothing
to do with the making up of a synchronized story.cralaw:red
For example, the 1st
sentence says "Sorry na lang sa nagawa namin sa inyo." The words "sa
inyo"
was originally written "sa yo." In the middle of the letter was
inserted
between "nagbago" and "ibig kong sabihin (next sentence) the word
"Ang."
At the latter part of the letter where it says "and anak ko Joy" was
inserted
the word "nga" between "ko" and "Joy." In the penultimate sentence
where
it said "ang anak ko kahit nasa bilangguan kami" was a word between
"ko"
and "kahit" which was crossed out with several horizontal lines. Said
crossed
out word could not, have been an ignorance of fact on the kidnapping by
Maj. Rafael as that sentence refers to Nelson's request for a final
chance
so he could see how his children would grow even if he is in jail. Such
an expression could not have been known to Maj. Rafael or something he
could have been mistaken about. The subject of the said sentence is
Nelson's
situation, vis-a-vis, his family, now that he is in jail.[78]
Not only did appellant
Nelson Ancheta Pua write to Jocelyn; he and appellant Benley, also
without
any prodding from the PAOCTF officers and agents, spontaneously pleaded
to Jocelyn, her father and sister for mercy, and for their lives to be
spared. This can be gleaned from the testimony of Jocelyn on direct
examination:
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q On January 17, 1999
while you were being investigated, do you recall if there was any
occasion
that you were able to talk with the accused Nelson Pua?
WITNESS:
A Yes, after the police
line up, I was able to talk with Nelson Ancheta and Benley Pua.chanrobles virtual law library
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q Where, in what particular
place did you talk to them?
WITNESS:
A That was in the office
of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force at Camp Crame.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q Why, were you able
to talk with these 2, at whose instance was there a confrontation
between
the 3 of you?
WITNESS:
A I was asking it I
could talk to them. And they were asked if they were willing to be face
to face with me and my Dad and my sister. They agreed and we were able
to talk infront (sic) of the personnel present.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q Are you saying that
your father Mr. Simplicio Caleon and your sister Shiela were also there?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q And other agent of
PAOCTF?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q What did you talk
about?chanrobles virtual law library
WITNESS:
A I was asking why.
It was my initial feeling I was asking why it was to happen and they
were
asking for an apology and they were saying that he regretted for what
he
did. They were unhappy about what they did. And they were proposing
that
they will return the 1.5 million ransom that we have given. So that if
in case they were convicted instead of death, they will get a lower
penalty.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q Did you accept the
offer to re-imburse the 1.5 million pesos they received from your
family?
WITNESS:
A I did not say no.
I did not say yes. I just remained quiet.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q Apart from that conversation
during which they made this admission and the proposal to refund the
ransom
money, do you know if there was any document that was ever executed in
connection with that conversation?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Because the confrontation
was so short, we were very emotional. We were crying. After a while,
one
person approached me and told me that Nelson Ancheta has a lot of
things
to say to me. And he was requesting that he will talk to me but I did
not
agree anymore. And I told the person if he really wants to say
something
he write it down and I promised I will read it.chanrobles virtual law library
COURT:
Q You said they were
crying, who were crying?
WITNESS:
A The two (2) Nelson
Ancheta and Benley Pua and I was also shed a (sic) tears.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q You mentioned you
became emotional, to what extend (sic) did you became (sic) emotional?
WITNESS:
A So I felt my experienced
(sic) came back to me and I was really saying these people I know, are
the one who made harm to me and my family.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q Do you expect them
to do that to you?
WITNESS:
A No, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:chanrobles virtual law library
Q This person who approached
you with the request that Nelson would like to talk to you, would you
recognize
him?
WITNESS:
A I could not recognize
him.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q Is he a man or a woman?
WITNESS:
A A man, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q When you suggested
that if there was anything else he wanted to tell to you or write a
letter,
do you know if he did?
WITNESS:
A Yes, he did.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q Do you have a copy
of that letter?chanrobles virtual law library
WITNESS:
A I have, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q I am showing to you
a letter dated January 17, 1999 consisting of one page already marked
as
Exhibit F, please go over this and tell if you can recognize it?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q The letter sent to
you by Nelson Ancheta the letter is addressed to Joy, who is this Joy?
WITNESS:
A That is my nickname,
sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. CRESCINI:chanrobles virtual law library
Q The letter sender
wrote his name Nelson Bong Pua, who is this Nelson Bong Pua?
WITNESS:
A That is Nelson Ancheta
Pua, Bong is his nickname.[79]
Appellant Nelson Ancheta
Pua's contention that his letter to Jocelyn[80]
is inadmissible in evidence because he was illegally arrested is barren
of merit.cralaw:red
We agree with the appellant's
submission that he was arrested without any subsisting and valid
warrant
of arrest. Although the MTC of Cauayan, Isabela had issued warrants of
arrest in Criminal Cases Nos. 98-243 to 98-245, the accused therein was
Nelson Laddit Pua and not the appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua. However,
the
appellant did not question the validity of his arrest before he was
arraigned.
By entering a plea of not guilty, he submitted himself to the
jurisdiction
of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest.[81]
Moreover, the appellant participated in the proceedings before the
trial
court and even adduced evidence in his behalf. The appellant is thus
precluded
from questioning his arrest and the procedure therefor.[82]
However, the waiver
by the appellant of his right to question the legality of his arrest
does
not necessarily carry with it his waiver of the right to question the
admissibility
of any evidence procured by the PAOCTF agents on the occasion of or
incidental
to his illegal arrest or thereafter.[83]
The plea and actual participation of the appellant in the trial would
not
cure the illegality of the search and transform the inadmissible
evidence
into objects of proof.[84]
In this case, appellant Nelson Ancheta Pua did not object to the
admission
of the letter[85]
in evidence on the ground that it was secured by the PAOCTF agents
incidental
to and in the aftermath of his illegal arrest. The appellant objected
to
the admission of the letter in evidence solely on the following
grounds:
(a) he was coerced into writing the letter; (b) the contents of the
letter
were dictated by Major Alexander Rafael; and (c) he was not assisted by
counsel. The appellant was not under custodial investigation when he
wrote
the letter. The letter was written of the appellant's own volition, as
another attempt to convince the kidnap victim to forgive him and his
brother,
and for Jocelyn to have mercy on them. Moreover, the counsel of the
appellant
incisively cross-examined Jocelyn on the letter, thus:
ATTY. MARAMBA:
Madam witness,
you also mentioned in your direct examination that no physical harm
happened
to you during the period of captivity?
WITNESS:
No physical harm
was made on me, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
ATTY. MARAMBA:
In other words,
you were treated nicely, madam witness?
WITNESS:
No physical harm
was done. I was really terrified emotionally, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. MARAMBA:
Madam witness,
you made mentioned (sic) of the fact that during the interrogation at
Camp
Crame, the Pua brothers, Nelson and Benley knelt down before you, madam
witness?
WITNESS:
They were very
apologetic, sir, they were even crying in front of me and my father and
my other relatives, they were expressing their apology, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. MARAMBA:chanrobles virtual law library
Where (sic) they
remorseful, madam witness?
WITNESS:
Based on what
I saw, I saw them crying, we saw them willing, asking forgiveness they
were expressing their intention to return the money, sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. MARAMBA:
Madam witness,
aside apolozising (sic), as well as the physical appearance during that
time at Camp Crame, was there anything they do (sic) in order to ask
for
your forgiveness, madam witness?
WITNESS:
They gave me a
letter your honor which we present last Monday and the same thing, they
were expressing apologies, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
ATTY. MARAMBA:
No further question,
your honor.[86]
The appellants' contention
that on January 16, 1999, Simplicio and a male named "Marvin" were
allowed
to see the appellants, to familiarize themselves with their physical
appearance,
and thereafter brief Jocelyn thereon before the formation of the police
line-up on January 17, 1999 is flimsy. If it were the intention of the
PAOCTF agents to apprise Jocelyn of the physical appearance of the
appellants
before the latter were identified in the police line-up, the agents
could
have easily allowed Jocelyn herself to view the appellants in their
detention
cell. This could have been done even without the appellants' knowledge.
Significantly, the prosecution did not present any witness by the name
of "Marvin."chanrobles virtual law library
We agree with appellant
Nelson Ancheta Pua that he was not a party to the rental agreement.[87]
This notwithstanding, his conviction for the crime charged is in order,
considering the copious evidence of the prosecution that by his overt
acts,
he conspired with his brother, appellant Benley and his cousin, accused
Nelson Laddit Pua, in kidnapping Jocelyn for ransom.chanrobles virtual law library
The appellants failed
to adduce evidence independently of their allegations that they were
tortured
by the PAOCTF agents while detained at Camp Crame, Quezon City. The
appellants
could have presented any of the doctors who attended to and treated
them
for their injuries, but the appellants did not do so. If it were true
that
they were indeed tortured by the PAOCTF agents, the appellants should
have
filed the appropriate charges against the malefactors. The appellants
failed
to do so.cralaw:red
Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659 reads:
Art. 267.
Kidnapping
and serious illegal retention.- Any private individual who shall kidnap
or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty,
shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the
kidnapping
or detention shall have lasted more than three days.chanrobles virtual law library
2. If it shall have
been committed simulating public authority.chanrobles virtual law library
3. If any serious
physical
injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained,
or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person
kidnapped
or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the
parents,
female, or a public officer.
The penalty shall
be
death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose
of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of
the
circumstances above-mentioned were present in the 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 acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.chanrobles virtual law library
In this case, the
prosecution
adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants conspired to
kidnap Jocelyn for ransom, and kidnapped and illegally detained her
from
November 23, 1998 until November 29, 1998, when she was released by the
appellants after the latter received the P1,500,000 ransom. The trial
court
correctly sentenced the appellants to suffer the penalty of death as
provided
for in the second paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code.
The crime committed
by the appellants was aggravated by the use of a motor vehicle. Jocelyn
was transported by the appellants from San Jose to Pangasinan and on to
Baguio City with the use of a motor vehicle.[88]
However, this aggravating circumstance cannot affect the imposable
penalty,
because under Article 63 of the Revised
Penal Code, the Court is mandated to impose the death penalty, a
single
and indivisible penalty, prescinding from the presence of any generic
modifying
circumstances.
Civil Liabilities
of the Appellants
The trial court ordered
the appellants to restitute the P1,500,000 ransom to Simplicio Caleon
and
to pay to Jocelyn P300,000 as moral damages. However, the trial court
erred
in ordering the appellants to return to Jocelyn only the amount of
P8,000
as actual damages. The evidence on record shows that the appellants
divested
Jocelyn of P9,000 in San Jose, Nueva Ecija; hence, the appellants are
obliged
to return the same amount to their victim. Jocelyn is likewise entitled
to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.[89]chanrobles virtual law library
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the Decision dated July 19, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. Q-99-80570, is
AFFIRMED
WITH MODIFICATION. Appellants Nelson Ancheta Pua and Benley Ancheta Pua
are found guilty of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer the death penalty. The
appellants
are directed to pay, jointly and severally, to Simplicio Caleon the
amount
of P1,500,000 as actual damages; to Jocelyn Caleon the amount of
P300,000
as moral damages; P9,000 as actual damages; and P25,000 as exemplary
damages.
Costs de officio.cralaw:red
Three Justices of the
Court maintain their position that Republic
Act No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death
penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that
the
law is constitutional, and that the death penalty can be lawfully
imposed
in the case at bar.cralaw:red
In accordance with Section
25 of Rep.
Act
No. 7659, amending Section 83 of the Revised
Penal Code, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded,
upon
finality of this Decision, to the Office of the President for possible
exercise of the pardoning power. No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna
and Tinga, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Jaime N. Salazar.
[2]
Records, pp. 1–2.
[3]
Id. at 46.
[4]
The prosecution presented Jocelyn L. Caleon, Simplicio Caleon, PO3
Edwin
Pastor, Major Alexander Rafael, PO3 Rodolfo Mahor, Emiliano Agaton,
Adrian
Layag, Marcelo Opiana, Manuelito Orperia.
[5]
Sometimes referred to as "Joy."chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Exhibit "T," Folder of Exhibits, p. 52.
[7]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 8–11.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Exhibits "G" and "G-1," Folder of Exhibits, p. 30.
[9]
Exhibit "J," id. at 43.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
TSN, 19 July 1999, p. 23.
[11]
Exhibit "L," id. at 44.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Exhibit "S," id. at 51.
[13]
Exhibit "H-6," id. at 37.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Exhibits "H" to "H-5," id. at 31–36.
[15]
TSN, 14 June 1999, p. 34.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Exhibit "Q," Folder of Exhibits, p. 49.
[17]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Exhibit "L," supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 16–23.
[20]
Exhibits "I" and "I-1," Folder of Exhibits, pp. 41–42.
[21]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 26–31.
[22]
Id. at 137–138.
[23]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 140–147.
[24]
Id. at 35–36, 143–144.
[25]
Id. at 38–39.
[26]
Exhibit "H-6," Folder of Exhibits, p. 37.
[27]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 40–42.
[28]
Exhibit "H-4," Folder of Exhibits, p. 35.
[29]
Exhibits "H-2" and "H-3," id. at 33–34.
[30]
Exhibit "A," id. at 18–21.
[31]
Exhibit "B," id. at 22–24.
[32]
Exhibit "M," id. at 45.chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 156–158.
[34]
Exhibit "H-3," Folder of Exhibits, p. 34.
[35]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 69–73.
[36]
Exhibit "B," supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[37]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 158–163.
[38]
TSN, 7 June 1999, pp. 29–36.
[39]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 163–165.
[40]
TSN, 7 June 1999, pp. 37–42.
[41]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 166–171.
[42]
Id. at 171–172.chanrobles virtual law library
[43]
Exhibits "R" to "R-2," Folder of Exhibits, p. 50.
[44]
Exhibit "H-5," id. at 36.chanrobles virtual law library
[45]
Exhibits "K" to "K-2," id. at 9–10.
[46]
Exhibits "H-8" and "H-9," id. at 39–40.
[47]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 77–88.
[48]
Id. at 89–95.
[49]
Exhibit "A," supra.
[50]
Exhibit "S," id. at 51.
[51]
Exhibits "O" and "P," id. at 47–48.
[52]
Exhibit "D," id. at 26.chanrobles virtual law library
[53]
Records, p. 232.
[54]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 107–112.
[55]
Id., at 112–115.chanrobles virtual law library
[56]
Exhibit "F," Folder of Exhibits, p. 29.
[57]
Exhibit "A," supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[58]
Exhibit "B," supra.
[59]
Exhibit "C," id. at 25.
[60]
Exhibit "D," id. at 26–27.
[61]
Exhibit "E," id. at 28.
[62]
Exhibits "H" and "I," id. and their submarkings.chanrobles virtual law library
[63]
The appellants testified in their behalf. They also presented Prospero
Guillermo, Emiliano dela Cruz, Dr. Jonathan Serrallo, SPO1 Edwin Pastor
and PO3 Rodolfo Mahor.
[64]
Exhibit "F," supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[65]
Records, p. 233.
[66]
Id. at 368–369.
[67]
Exhibit "F," supra.
[68]
Exhibit "L," supra.
[69]
Exhibits "S-2" and "5," id. at 51.
[70]
Exhibit "F," supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[71]
Exhibits "L," "M" and "S," supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[72]
People v. Delim, G.R. 142773, January 28, 2003.
[73]
Rollo, p. 38.chanrobles virtual law library
[74]
Exhibits "L," "M" and "S," supra.
[75]
Rollo, pp. 40–41.chanrobles virtual law library
[76]
People v. Dela Piedra, 350 SCRA 163 (2001).
[77]
Exhibit "F," supra.
[78]
Records, p. 366.chanrobles virtual law library
[79]
TSN, 24 May 1999, pp. 107–115.
[80]
Exhibit "F," supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[81]
People v. Gamer, 326 SCRA 693 (2000).
[82]
People v. Palijon, 343 SCRA 486 (2000); People v. Madraga, 344 SCRA 628
(2000).
[83]
People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557 (1994).chanrobles virtual law library
[84]
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998).
[85]
Exhibit "F," supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[86]
TSN, 31 May 1999, pp. 10–13.
[87]
Exhibits "L" and "M," supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[88]
Article 2014, paragraph 20, Revised Penal Code.
[89]
People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2001). |