people v cenahonon

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/169962.htm 1/17

ENBANC

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,

Appellee,

versusRAULCENAHONON,

Appellant.

G.R.No.169962(FormerlyG.R.No.157022)Present:PUNO,C.J.,QUISUMBING,YNARESSANTIAGO,SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,*CARPIO,AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,CORONA,CARPIOMORALES,AZCUNA,TINGA,CHICONAZARIO,GARCIA,VELASCO,JR.,andNACHURA,JJ.Promulgated:July12,2007

xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

Before us is theDecision[1]

dated June 3, 2005 of theCourt ofAppeals (CA) and the

Decision[2]

datedOctober20,2001oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofParaaqueCity,Branch 259, in Criminal Case No. 99248, both finding accused Raul Cenahonon(Cenahonon) andRaniloErdaje (Erdaje) guilty of kidnapping for ransom and imposinguponthemthedeathpenalty.

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


ThecasearosefromtheInformation[3]

datedNovember29,1999,theaccusatoryportionofwhichreads:

ThatonoraboutNovember25,1999inParaaqueCityandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and mutuallyhelpingoneanother,didthenandthere,byforceandintimidation,andwiththeuseofagun, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, carry away and deprive KENNETHMEDINAof his liberty against hiswill for the purpose of extortingmoney as in fact ademandformoneywasmadeasaconditionforhisrelease.CONTRARYTOLAW.

Upon arraignment, both accused pled "not guilty." Thereafter, Erdaje escaped fromdetentionand,thus,wastriedinabsentia.Thefacts,asestablishedbytheprosecutionevidence,areasfollows:OnNovember 25, 1999, around 9:00 a.m., JomethMagaway (Magaway), the driver ofspousesFortunatoandDaisyMedina,wasdrivingaredHondaCRV(CRV)bearingplatenumberWPP502outoftheMedinaresidenceinBFHomes,ParaaqueCity, tobringthecouplesfouryearoldson,Kenneth,toschool.Aman,lateridentifiedasErdaje,suddenlyapproached, poked a gun atMagaway, opened the vehicle door, and toldMagaway tomoveover from the driver's seat.Magaway followed and satwithKenneth at the frontpassengerseat.Erdaje'scompanion,lateridentifiedasCenahonon,occupiedthebackseat.ErdajehandedtheguntoCenahonon,whopokeditatMagawayfrombehind.Erdajethen

drovethecaraway.[4]

ThemaidoftheMedinas,whosawtheincident,immediatelyreportedtoFortunato,thendescending from the house,what happened.Fortunato tried to intercept theCRVat thevillage gate, but failed. He returned home and called Daisy at their office in Alabang,MuntinlupaCity.HetoldherabouttheincidentandinstructedhertocallthePresidentialAntiOrganizedCrimeTaskForce(PAOCTF).He,inturn,calledtheParaaqueCityPolice

Department.[5]

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


Meanwhile, inside the CRV, both accused informedMagaway that theywould call theMedinafamilytodemandaP5millionransom.UponreachingLasPiasCity,theformer

orderedMagawaytoalight.[6]

Magaway proceeded to Medina's office in Alabang and related to Daisy how

Kennethwas abducted.[7]

Daisy instructedMagaway to return to theMedina residence

wheretheParaaquePoliceandthePAOCTFmenwerewaiting.[8]

Around1:00p.m.thatday,somebodycalledtheMedinaresidenceandtalkedtoFortunato.Aspeakerphonewasusedsoeveryoneinthehouseheardthetelephoneconversation.Thecaller demanded P5,000,000.00 for Kenneth's release. A PAOCTF member instructedFortunatotonegotiate.Thecallermadeseveralcallsthatsameafternoontonegotiatefortheransom.Atabout6:00p.m.,thecalleragreedtoreducetheransomtoP100,000.00.He instructedFortunatotoputthemoneyinablackplasticbagandgiveittoMagawaywhowouldthenturnitoveratMonElVillagealongSucatAvenueneartheBaliwagLechonManokstall,

inexchangeforthekeysoftheCRV,withKennethinsidethecar.[9]

Sr.InspectorEdgarAllanOkubo(Okubo)ofthePAOCTFandhisteamplacedtheboodlemoney inside a black plastic bag and gave it toMagaway.Magaway proceeded to theappointedplaceaboardaTamarawFXvehicle(TamarawFX)oftheMedinas,drivenbyaPAOCTFoperative.Two teamsweredispatched to follow theTamarawFX.Okubo led

oneteamwhileSr.InspectorLoretoDelelis(Delelis)ledtheother.[10]

BothteamsparkedtheirunmarkedvehiclesinfrontoftheMcDonald'srestaurantbesideMonElVillage.The

TamarawFXwasparkedinfrontoftheBaliwagLechonManokstall.[11]

Ataround8:00p.m.,ErdajearrivedandapproachedtheTamarawFX.Magawaygotdown

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


andgavethebagofboodlemoneytohim.Uponreceipt,Erdajeleftwithoutturningover

thekeysof theCRV.[12]

Okubo and the PAOCTFoperatives sawErdaje board a darkgrayGeminisedan(Gemini)parkedinfrontofMcDonald's.ThePAOCTFoperativesthenfollowed the Gemini towards the Sucat Airport road. Meanwhile, Magaway and his

companionreturnedtotheMedinaresidence.[13]

The PAOCTF operatives pursued the Gemini to a house inBarangayMolino, Bacoor,Cavite.Erdajealightedfromthecarandwentinsidethehouse.Afterafewminutes,heleftand drove away.Okubo orderedDelelis' team to tail Erdajewhile his team stayed andknocked at the door of the house. Elizabeth Alamag (Alamag) answered. The teamintroducedthemselvesandaskedfortheidentityofthemanwhojustleft.Alamagrepliedthatthemanisheruncle,RaniloErdaje,whowaslookingforCenahononandachild.She

informedtheoperativesthatshetoldErdajethatbothwereinTreceMartires,Cavite.[14]

OkuboinformedAlamagthattheyweresearchingforkidnapvictimKennethMedinawhoprobablywas thesamechildErdajewas lookingfor.OkuboaskedAlamag tocooperate

andtellthemwhatsheknew.[15]

Alamagaccededandnarratedthatthatmorning,Erdajerequested her to allow the boy to stay for some time because his friend Cenahonon,allegedlythechild'sfather,andthelatter'swifewerefightingovertheboy'scustody.SherefusedbutadvisedErdajetobringtheboytohermother'shouseinTreceMartires.WhenErdajeaskedhertoaccompanyhim,sheobliged.OntheirwaytoCavite,shemettheboyandCenahononinsidethecar.Theboywascryingandlookingforhismother.AtTreceMartires, Alamag sought the permission of her stepfather to allow Cenahonon and thechild tostay in theirhouse.Thestepfatheragreed.Thereafter,Erdaje left.Alamagwent

homealittlelater.[16]

Alamagvolunteered to accompany thePAOCTF team tohermother's house.[17]

When

they arrived there, Delelis' team had already surrounded the area.[18]

TheGemini wasparkedalongsidethecarnappedCRVnearby.Theoperativesthenraidedthehouse,safely

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


rescuedKenneth,andarrestedErdajeandCenahonon.Theteamtookthemtotheirofficein Camp Crame, Quezon City. At about 10:30 p.m. that evening, Okubo phoned hissuperior, Col. Agustin, then at the Medina residence, and informed him that they had

alreadyrescuedKenneth.[19]

The next day, November 26, 1999, Magaway and Kenneth identified Erdaje and

Cenahononastheirabductorsinapolicelineup.[20]

Assolewitnessforthedefense,Cenahonontestifiedthat,around9:00a.m.ofNovember25,1999,hereportedforworkasacarpenterinIndang,TreceMartires,Cavite.Later,ataround11:00a.m., he excused himself from his employer to go to themarket and buysomething.Ashewasabouttoleavethemarket,somebodytappedhisshoulder,pokedagunathim,andblindfoldedhim.Hewasforcedinsideavehicleandtakentoanunknownplace.Whentheyarrivedattheirdestination,theblindfoldwasremovedandCenahononsaw three armedmen in fatigue pants. The armed men brought him to a small house.There, themen tookhis shortpants andwallet andorderedhim to takecareof a child.Thatnight,hewasarrestedwithoutawarrantbythePAOCTF.Thethreearmedmenwhoearlier took himwere nowhere at the time of the arrest.The PAOCTF brought him to

CampCrameandtherehemetforthefirsttimehiscoaccusedErdaje.[21]

In itsDecision[22]

datedOctober20,2001, the trial court foundCenahononandErdajeguiltyofkidnappingforransomandmetedtothemthepenaltyofdeathbylethalinjection.Thedispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,PREMISESCONSIDERED,findingRaulCenahononandRaniloErdajeGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofKidnappingforRansomasdefinedandpenalizedunderArt.267oftheRevisedPenalCodeasamendedbyRA7659particularlythe penultimate paragraph thereof, with reference to Kidnapping committed for thepurposeofextortingmoneyfromthevictimoranyotherperson,bothaccusedareherebysentencedto thesupremepenaltyofdeathbylethal injectionandtosuffer theaccessorypenaltiesprovidedbylawspecificallyArt.40oftheRevisedPenalCode.TheClerkofCourtisdirectedtopreparetheMittimusfortheimmediatetransferofRaulCenahonontotheNewBilibidPrisons,MuntinlupaCityfrom[the]ParaaqueCityJailandtoprepareanaliasWarrantofArrestforRaniloErdajewhoisnowconsideredafugitivefromjustice.TheClerkofCourtisalsodirectedtoforwardalltherecordstotheSupreme

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


CourtforautomaticreviewinaccordancewithSection9,Rule122oftheRevisedRulesofCourtandArt.47oftheRevisedPenalCodeasamendedbySection22ofRA7659.

SOORDERED.[23]

ThiscasewaselevatedforautomaticreviewtothisCourtandoriginallydocketedasG.R.No. 157022. The Public Attorney's Office (PAO) filed an appellants' brief for both

CenahononandErdaje.[24]

TheOfficeof theSolicitorGeneral (OSG), representing the

PeopleofthePhilippines,filedthecorrespondingappellee'sbrief.[25]

Accusedappellants,

thruthePAO,filedtheirreplybrief.[26]

InaResolution[27]

datedOctober12,2004,thisCourttransferredtherecordsofthecasetotheCAforappropriateactionanddispositionpursuant toPeopleof thePhilippinesv.

EfrenMateo[28]

whichmodifiedSections3and10ofRule122,Section13ofRule124,andSection3ofRule125,alloftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedure,andallowedintermediatereviewbytheCourtofAppeals.

Uponreview,theCArendereditsDecision[29]

datedJune3,2005,affirmingintoto thedecisionofthetrialcourt,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, theDecisiondatedOctober20,2001of theRegionalTrialCourt of theCityofParaaque,Branch259, inCriminalCaseNo. 99248, finding accusedappellantsRaul Cenahonon and Ranilo Erdaje guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime ofkidnappingforransomandimposinguponthemthedeathpenaltyisAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.[30]

Upon elevation of this case back to thisCourt, now docketed asG.R.No. 169962, thepartieswere directed to file their respective supplemental briefswithin thirty (30) days

fromnotice,iftheysodesired.[31]

ThePeople,thrutheOSG,movedthatitsbriefalready

filedbeadoptedasitssupplementalbrief.[32]

However,onlyCenahonon,thruthePAO,

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


prayedthatappellants'brieffiledearlierbeadoptedashissupplementalbrief.[33]

ItmustberememberedthatErdajeescapedfromjailafterhisarraignment.Thetrialcourttriedhiminabsentia,foundhimguiltyofthecrimechargedtogetherwithCenahonon,andlikewisesentencedhimtodeath.WhileitappearsthatCenahononistheloneappellantin

this case, thisCourt, in linewith its ruling inPeople v.Esparas[34]

and in subsequent

similarcases,[35]

ismandatedbylawtoautomaticallyreviewtheconvictionandthedeathsentence imposed on both Cenahonon and Erdaje, and promulgate the appropriatejudgment.AsthebriefdraftedbythePAOwasinitiallyfiledforbothaccused,theCourtwill also consider the samewith respect toErdaje.Further, as the entire case is thrownopenforscrutiny,itisthedutyofthisCourttocorrectanyerror,ifany,thatmaybefoundin the judgment under review, whether or not an appeal brief is filed, and if there is,whetherornotsucherrorisassigned.

Thus,forreviewisthefollowingassignmentoferrors:

I.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THEPROSECUTIONTOPROVETHEIRGUILTBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.

II.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WASCONSPIRACYINTHECASEATBAR.Cenahonon assails the credibility of prosecution witnesses JomethMagaway and

ElizabethAlamag.Hepointstocertaininconsistencieswhich,accordingtohim,discredittheirtestimony.Firstly, Cenahonon claims thatMagaway, on direct examination pointed to him as thepersonwhoapproachedhim,pokedagunathim,demandedthathe transfer to thefrontpassenger seat, and drove the CRV away from the Medina residence but, on cross

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


examination, testified that itwasErdaje, thepersonwhocollected themoney fromhim,whopokedthegunathim,demandedhistransfer,anddrovethevehiclewiththeboy.Secondly,Cenahononpoints out thatAlamag testified that she voluntarily accompaniedhimandtheboytohermother'shouseandwasnotthreatenedbyheruncle,Erdaje,butshealsoaffirmedthecontentsofheraffidavitwhereinshestatedthatherunclethreatenedher.Theargumentdoesnotpersuade.AscorrectlyobservedbytheOSGandasfoundbytheCA,theallegedinconsistenciesinthe testimony ofMagaway aremore apparent than real. Indeed,Magaway committed amistakeinidentifyingthepersonwhopokedthegunathimanddrovetheCRVawaywiththechild.Noteworthyisthat,onredirectexamination,hewasabletoexplaintheapparentinconsistency,andcorrectthemistakeinthiswise:

Q:Mr.witness,inyouranswerinthistranscriptofstenographicnotesdatedJune8,2000onpage8 thereof,yousaid that theonewhodirectedyou to transfer to therightportionofthecar,inthefrontside,andalsotheonewhodrovethecarwasoneofthe accused namedRaulCenahonon. In the transcript, you said that.Now whenyouwere askedby thedefense counselwhodirectedyou to transfer to the rightportionofthefrontseatofthecarandtheonewhodrovethecar,youranswerwasthepersonwhoisnotpresenthereincourt,orthatitwasnotRaulCenahonon.Myquestionis,whydidyousayinyourstatementheremadeonJune8,2000that itwas Raul Cenahonon who drove the car and the one who also ordered you totransfertotherightportionofthecar?

A:BecauseFiscalMacapagalmentioned thename, sir.I onlyknew themby their faces

kayanalilitopoako.Q:Andyousaidalsothattheonewhoisnotpresenthereincourtwastheonewhopoked

agunatyouandtheonewhodrovethecar.Now,whilethatpersonwasdrivingthecar,didyoucometoknowwhereheplacedthegunthatwaspokedonyou?

A:Hehandedittohisothercompanion,sir.Q:Andthatcompanionorthatpersonisnotpresentincourt,ishepresentinthisoffice?

ATTY.OCTAVA:Your Honor please, matters that have to be taken by during redirect examination are

matters thathavebeen takenupduring thecrossexamination.And thesematters

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


werenottakenupduringthecrossexamination,yourHonor.STATEPROS.MACAPAGAL:It is material, your Honor, because there was a mistake committed by the witness on

identifying who poked the gun and drove the car because I mentioned, thisrepresentation happened to mention the name of the accused which he did notknow.Now, I'mclarifying thematterbymaking thewitnesspoint to thatpersonwho was then the companion of the one who is not present in court, for theclarificationoftheHonorableCourt.

ATTY.OCTAVA:Bytheway,yourHonor,Ihavevividlyaskedthewitnessawhileagothatifthatstatement

hemadebeforewasnottrueandheaffirmed,yourHonor.Heaffirmedthathewaslying.

STATEPROS.MACAPAGAL:No.Therewas no affirmation that hewas lying. It is just that he committed amistake

becausethisrepresentationmentionedthenamewhichhedidnotknow.COURT:Mayanswer.A:Yes,ma'am.Heishere.STATEPROS.MACAPAGAL:Q:Willyoupleasepointtohim?A: Siya po. (Witness pointed to a person who, when asked his name, answered Raul

Cenahonon).Q:Andwhatdidthatpersonwhomyoupointeddotothegun?A:Hepokedthegunattheleftportionofmywaist,sir.Q:Sotheonewhopokedthegunonyouwhileyouwerealreadyonboardthecarandthat

theonewhoisnotpresentwasdrivingthecarawayisthepersonwhomyoujustidentifiedhereincourt?

A:Yes,ma'am.[36]

WhatMagawaymade was an honest mistake that does not destroy his credibility as awitness.Eventhemosttruthfulwitnesscancommiterrors,butsuchinnocentlapsesdonot

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


necessarilyaffecthiscredibility.Thetestimoniesofwitnessesmustbecalibratedintheir

entirety,notmerelybytheirtruncatedportionsorisolatedpassages.[37]

Similarly, the truthfulness of Alamag's testimony is not affected by the allegedinconsistency as to whether she was threatened or not by her uncle (Erdaje). ThediscrepancyisofsuchaminornaturethatitdoesnotbelietheoccurrenceoftheabductionofKennethMedinabyCenahonon andErdaje. In fact, such trivial inconsistencies evenserve tostrengthen thecaseof theprosecutionas theyerasesuspicionofa rehearsedor

perjuredtestimony.[38]

In this case, bothMagaway and Alamag proved to be credible witnesses as there wasnothingtoshowthattheywereactuatedbyanyillmotivetotestifyagainstCenahononandErdaje.Hence,thepresumptionthatthesewitnesseswerenotmovedbyimpropermotive

orbias,andthus,entitledtofullfaithandcredit,holds.[39]

Ontheotherhand,Cenahononinterposedthedefensesofalibianddenial,statingthathewasmerelycoerced to takecareofKennethand thathemetErdaje for the first timeatCamp Crame. Ranged against this lame excuse is the positive identification of bothaccusedbyMagawayandbyKennethhimself.

MagawayandKennethidentifiedbothCenahononandErdajeasthekidnappersina

policelineupthedayfollowingthekidnapping.[40]

Followingthe"totalitytestrule"laid

down in People of the Philippines v. Teehankee,[41]

this outofcourt identification isadmissibleandreliable.Indeed,MagawayhadsufficienttimetofamiliarizehimselfwithCenahononandErdajewhenheandKennethweretakenonboardtheCRV,andmoresowith Erdaje when the latter collected the boodle money from him. There was a shortinterval of time between the abduction on November 25, 1999 and the police lineupidentificationonNovember26,1999.KennethMedina,thekidnapvictimhimself,andathis young age, reinforced Magaways identification of Cenahonon and Erdaje as theabductors.Itisnaturalforvictimstostrivetorecallthefacesoftheculpritsandhowthe

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


crimewascommittedagainstthem.[42]

During trial, however, onlyCenahononwas positively identified byMagaway, as

Erdajehadalreadyescapedfromprison.Anaffirmative testimonymeritsgreaterweight thananegativeone,especiallywhen theformer comes from a credible witness. Categorical and positive identification of anaccused,without any showing of illmotive on the part of thewitness testifying on thematter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and selfserving evidenceundeservingofrealweightinlawunlesssubstantiatedbyclearandconvincingevidence.[43]

In this case, Cenahonon's version that he was forced to take care of the kidnap

victimissimplyunbelievable.Fortestimonytobebelieved,itshouldnotonlycomefrom

acrediblewitnessbutmustalsobecredible in itself.[44]

Itwouldbe inconceivable thatkidnapperswouldentrusttheperformanceofanessentialandsensitivephaseoftheirwellplanned scheme to people not in collaboration with them, and who had no knowledge

whatsoever of the details of their reprehensible plan.[45]

Cenahonons narrative evenstrengthens the prosecutions case, as it partakes of an admission that he participated indeprivingthechildofhisliberty.

Cenahonon also points out in the reply brief that it was incredulous for him and

Erdaje to releaseMagaway after the latter had seen their faces.According to him, it is

unnaturalforcriminalstorisktheiridentification.[46]

The contention lacks merit. Following this line, if they were careful not to risk

identification,thentheyshouldhavewornmasksinthefirstplace.Whatoccurred,andaswasprovenduringtrial,wasnotimprobableorunnatural.

It should also be remembered that Erdaje escaped from prison after hewas duly

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


arraigned.Hisflightcanonlybeindicativeofhisguilt.Flightmeanstheactofevadingthenaturalcourseofjusticebyvoluntarilywithdrawingoneselftoavoidarrest,detention,ortheinstitutionorcontinuanceofcriminalproceedings.Injurisprudence,ithasalwaysbeen

a strong indication of guilt betraying a desire to evade responsibility.[47]

It is hardly

consistentwithaclaimofinnocence.[48]

In fine, there is no showing that the lower court has overlooked, misunderstood, ormisapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would warrant thereversalof theconviction.Further, the assessment of the credibility ofwitnesses by thetrialcourtisbindingandconclusiveonappealbecausethetrialcourthadtheopportunityto evaluate conflicting testimonies and observe the demeanor ofwitnesseswhile on the

stand.[49]

Asregardstheissueofconspiracy,theprosecutionhasprofferedsufficientevidencethatCenahonon and Erdaje had unity of purpose in the perpetration of the kidnapping forransom of KennethMedina. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreementconcerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitit.[50]

Whileitismandatory to prove it by competent evidence, direct proof is not essential to showconspiracyitmaybededucedfromthemode,method,andmannerbywhichtheoffensewasperpetrated,orinferredfromtheactsoftheaccusedthemselveswhensuchactspoint

toajointpurposeanddesign,concertedactionandcommunityofinterest.[51]

CenahononandErdajewereshowntohaveclearlyactedtowardsacommongoaltoabductKennethMedinaandtoextortransomfromhisfamily.ItwasErdajewhodrovetheCRVwhile Cenahonon poked a gun atMagaway from the back seat. They tookKenneth toAlamaginMolino,Bacoor,Cavite,whereCenahononposedasthefatheroftheboy,andthen proceeded to the house Alamag's mother in Trece Martires, Cavite. Erdaje leftCenahononandKennethtocollecttheransomfromtheMedinaspousesandlaterreturnedtothathouseinTreceMartires.

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


TheelementsofkidnappingforransomunderArticle267[52]

oftheRevisedPenalCode(RPC),asamendedbyRepublicAct(R.A.)7659warranting the impositionof thedeathpenalty,areas follows: (a) intenton thepartof theaccused todeprive thevictimofhisliberty(b)actualdeprivationof thevictimofhis libertyand(c)motiveof theaccused,

whichisextortingransomforthereleaseofthevictim.[53]

Neitheractualdemandfornorpaymentofransomisnecessaryfortheconsummationofthefelony.Itissufficientthatthedeprivation of liberty was for extorting ransom even if none of the four circumstances

mentionedinArticle267werepresentinitsperpetration.[54]

Based on the evidence proven during trial and as above discussed, the elements of thecrimewerepresent.Necessarily,theassaileddecisionsshouldbeaffirmed.However,with

theadventofR.A.9346,[55]

prohibitingtheimpositionofthedeathpenalty,Cenahononand Erdaje should be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory

penaltiesandwithouteligibilityforparoleunderAct4103,[56]

asamended.WHEREFORE,theDecisiondatedOctober20,2001inCriminalCaseNo.99248oftheRTC,Branch 259, ParaaqueCity, findingRaulCenahonon andRanilo Erdaje guilty ofkidnapping for ransomofKennethMedina, and theDecisiondated June3, 2005of theCA, affirming in toto the Decision of the RTC, areAFFIRMED. On Cenahonon andErdajeisimposed,inlieuofthedeathpenaltybylethalinjection,thepenaltyofreclusionperpetuawithallitsappurtenantaccessorypenaltiesandwithouteligibilityforparole.PursuanttoSection4ofR.A.9346,inrelationtoArticle83oftheRPC,lettherecordsofthis case be forwarded to the President of the Philippines for the possible grant of

executiveclemency.[57]

CostsagainstappellantCenahonon.SOORDERED.

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURAAssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNOChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBINGAssociateJustice

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGOAssociateJustice

(OnLeave)ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ

AssociateJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIOAssociateJustice

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ

AssociateJustice

RENATOC.CORONAAssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALESAssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNAAssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGAAssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIOAssociateJustice

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


CANCIOC.GARCIAAssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATIONPursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheabovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNO

ChiefJustice

*Onleave.[1]

PennedbyAssociateJusticeAuroraSantiagoLagman,withAssociateJusticesConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.andRebeccadeGuiaSalvador,concurringrollo,pp.319.[2]

Rollo(G.R.No.157022),pp.1519.[3]

Records,pp.12.[4]

TSN,June8,2000,pp.47,813TSN,August23,2000,pp.716.[5]

TSN,July11,2000,p.7TSN,August23,2000,pp.3137.[6]

TSN,June8,2000,pp.1417.[7]

Id.at1824.[8]

TSN,July11,2000,p.3.[9]

Id.at411TSN,August23,2000,pp.2123,3742.[10]

TSN,October12,2000,pp.1521.[11]

Id.at2021TSN,December6,2000,p.20.[12]

TSN,July11,2000,pp.13,17id.at2125.[13]

Id.at16TSN,October12,2000,pp.2325.[14]

TSN,April18,2000,p.16id.at2629.[15]

TSN,October12,2000,p.30.[16]

TSN,April18,2001,pp.614.

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


[17]TSN,October12,2000,pp.2132.

[18]TSN,April18,2001,p.21.

[19]TSN,October12,2000,pp.3340.

[20]TSN,August23,2000,pp.4749.

[21]TSN,July12,2001,pp.415.

[22]Rollo(G.R.No.157022),pp.1519.

[23]Id.at19.

[24]Id.at3849.

[25]Id.at70107.

[26]Id.at116120.

[27]Rollo(G.R.No.169962),p.2.

[28]G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640.

[29]Rollo(G.R.No.169962),pp.319.

[30]Id.at1819.

[31]OrderdatedDecember6,2005,id.at20.

[32]OSG'sManifestationandMotionforLeavetoAdoptBriefasSupplementalBrief,id.at2123.

[33]Manifestation(InLieuofSupplementalBrief),id.at2527.

[34] 329 Phil. 339, 347 (1996) (Resolution) 354 Phil. 342 (1998) (Decision). CitingU.S. v. Laguna, et al. (17 Phil. 533

[1910]),theCourtheldthatthepowertoreviewadecisionimposingthedeathpenaltyremainsautomaticandmandatoryandcannotbewaivedeitherbytheaccusedorbythecourts.Inthiscase,theaccusedhasabsconded.[35]

PleaseseePeoplev.Latayada,467Phil.682(2004)Peoplev.Abes,465Phil.165,180(2004)Peoplev.Ferrer,454Phil.431,451(2003)Peoplev.Oranza,434Phil.417,424(2002)Peoplev.Palabrica,409Phil.618,627(2001)Peoplev.Aquino,385Phil.887,899 (2000)Peoplev.Raquio,374Phil.283,292 (1999) andPeoplev.Prades, 355Phil.150,160(1998).[36]

TSN,August23,2000,pp.2430.[37]

Yuchengcov.Sandiganbayan,G.R.Nos.149802,150320,150367,153207&153459,January20,2006,479SCRA1,39Peoplev.Castillano,Sr.,448Phil.482,506507(2003).[38]

Peoplev.Salimbago,373Phil.56,65(1999).[39]

Peoplev.Mamarion,459Phil.51,87(2003).[40]

TSN,August23,2000,pp.4749.[41]

319Phil.128,180(1995).SeealsoPeoplev.Arellano,397Phil.307,322(2000)."Inresolvingtheadmissibilityofandrelyingonoutofcourtidentificationofsuspects,courtshaveadoptedthetotalityofcircumstancestestwheretheyconsiderthefollowingfactors,viz.: (1) thewitness'opportunity toview thecriminalat the timeof thecrime (2) thewitness'degreeofattentionatthattime(3)theaccuracyofanypriordescriptiongivenbythewitness(4)thelevelofcertaintydemonstratedbythewitnessattheidentification(5)thelengthoftimebetweenthecrimeandtheidentificationand(6)thesuggestivenessoftheidentificationprocedure."[42]

Peoplev.Bacungay,428Phil.798,811(2002).[43]

Peoplev.Suarez,G.R.Nos.15357376,April15,2005,456SCRA333,349.[44]

Peoplev.Garin,G.R.No.139069,June17,2004,432SCRA394,407Peoplev.Giganto,Sr.,391Phil.169,183(2000).

6/30/2015 G.R. No. 169962


[45]Peoplev.Bacungay,supranote42,at814815.

[46]Rollo(G.R.No.157022),pp.116117.

[47]Peoplev.Otayde,462Phil.309,323(2003)Peoplev.Cueto,443Phil.425,436(2003)Peoplev.Prades,supranote35,

at164165.[48]

Peoplev.Raquio,supranote35,at298.[49]

Peoplev.Andales,466Phil.873,887(2004).[50]

RevisedPenalCode,Article8,2ndparagraph.[51]

PhilippineAirlines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.159556,May26,2005,459SCRA236,258Peoplev.Felipe,463Phil.518,553554(2003)Peoplev.Pangilinan,443Phil.198,238(2003).[52]

Art.267.KidnappingandSeriousIllegalDetentionAnyprivateindividualwhoshallkidnapordetainanotherorinanymannerdeprivehimofhislibertyshallsufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeath1.Ifthekidnappingordetentionshallhavelastedformorethanthreedays2.Ifitshallhavebeencommittedsimulatingpublicauthority3.Ifanyseriousphysicalinjuriesshallhavebeeninflicteduponthepersonkidnappedordetainedorifthreatstokillhimshallhavebeenmade4. If the person detained or kidnapped shall be aminor, exceptwhen the accused is any of the parents, female, or publicofficer.Thepenaltyofdeathwherethekidnappingordetentionwascommittedforthepurposeofextortingransomfromthevictimoranyotherperson,evenifnoneofthecircumstancesabovementionedwerepresentinthecommissionoftheoffense.xxx[53]

Peoplev.Bisda,454Phil.194,234(2003).[54]

Peoplev.Salimbago,supranote38,at75.[55]

AnActProhibitingDeathPenaltyinthePhilippines.[56]

IndeterminateSentenceLaw.[57]

Sec.4.TheBoardofPardonsandParoleshallcausethepublicationofatleastonceaweek,forthreeconsecutiveweeks,inanewspaperofgeneralcirculationofthenamesofpersonsconvictedofoffensespunishedwithreclusionperpetuaorlifeimprisonment by reason of this Act who are being considered or recommended for communication or pardon:Provided,however,That nothing herein shall limit the power of the President to grant executive clemency under Section 19,ArticleVIIoftheConstitution.(emphasissupplied)

people v cenahonon

Documents

accused informedmagaway

abovenamed accused

daisy instructedmagaway

daisy howkennethwas

jomethmagaway magaway

medinas office

toldmagaway tomoveover

purpose of extortingmoney