riminal Cases: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

DOMINGO REYES, ALVIN ARNALDO AND

JOSELITO FLORES G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DOMINGO REYES, ALVIN ARNALDO
AND JOSELITO FLORES G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
Kidnapping for ransom
FACTS: The Yao family owns and operates a poultry farm in Barangay Santo
Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. On 16 July 1999, at about 11:00 p.m.,
the Yao family, on board a Mazda MVP van, arrived at their poultry farm in
Barangay Sto. Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Yao San alighted from the
van to open the gate of the farm, appellant Reyes and a certain Juanito
Pataray (Pataray) approached, poked their guns at Yao San, and dragged him
inside the van. Appellant Reyes and Pataray also boarded the van.
Thereupon, appellants Arnaldo and Flores, with two male companions, all
armed with guns, arrived and immediately boarded the van. Appellant Flores
took the drivers seat and drove the van. Appellants Reyes and Arnaldo and
their cohorts then blindfolded each member of the Yao family inside the van
with packaging tape.
Appellant Flores and his male companion told Yao San to produce the
amount of five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) as ransom in exchange for the
release of Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and Abagatnan. Thereafter,
appellant Flores and his male companion left the van and fled; while Yao San,
Lenny, Matthew, Charlene and Josephine remained inside the van. Upon
sensing that the kidnappers had already left, Yao San drove the van towards
the poultry farm and sought the help of relatives. Meanwhile, Chua Ong Ping
Sim, Robert, Raymond and Abagatnan were taken on foot by appellants
Reyes and Arnaldo, Pataray and one male companion to a safe-house
situated in the mountainous part of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan where they
spent the whole night.
On the morning of 19 July 1999, appellants again called Yao San via a cellular
phone and threatened to kill Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond because of
newspaper and radio reports regarding the incident. Yao San clarified to
appellants that he did not report the incident to the police and also pleaded
with them to spare the life of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond. Appellants
then instructed Yao San to appear and bring with him the ransom of P5
million at 3:00 p.m. in the Usan dumpsite, Litex Road, Fairview, Quezon City.
Yao San arrived at the designated place of the pay-off at 4:00 p.m., but none
of the appellants or their cohorts showed up. Yao San waited for appellants
call, but none came. Thus, Yao San left.
On 23 July 1999, the corpses of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were found
at the La Mesa Dam, Novaliches, Quezon CitY.Both died of asphyxia by

strangulation.On 26 July 1999, appellant Arnaldo surrendered.

ISSUE: Are the appellants guilty of kidnapping?

RULING: After carefully reviewing the evidence on record and applying the
foregoing guidelines to this case, we found no cogent reason to overturn the
RTCs ruling finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible.
Prosecution witnesses Abagatnan, Robert, and Yao San positively identified
appellants and their cohorts as their kidnappers during a police line-up and
also during trial.
Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San testified in a clear and candid
manner during the trial. Their respective testimonies were consistent with
one another. They were steadfast in recounting their ordeal despite the
grueling cross examination of the defense. Moreover, their testimonies were
in harmony with the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The
RTC and the Court of Appeals found their testimonies credible and
trustworthy. Both courts also found no ill motive for Abagatnan, Robert and
Yao San to testify against appellants.
Although the Yao family was blindfolded during the incident, it was,
nevertheless, shown that it took appellants and their cohorts about 10
minutes before all members of the Yao family were blindfolded. During this
considerable length of time, Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San were able to
take a good look at the faces of appellants and their cohorts. In addition,
Abagatnan and Robert narrated that their respective blindfolds loosened
several times, giving them the opportunity to have a glimpse at the faces of
appellants and their cohorts.
It is significant to note that Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were brutally
killed as a result of the kidnapping. It is difficult to believe that Robert and
Yao San would point to appellants and their cohorts as their kidnappers if
such were not true. A witness relationship to the victim of a crime makes his
testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative interested in
vindicating a crime done to their family to accuse somebody other than the
real culprit. Relationship with a victim of a crime would deter a witness from
indiscriminately implicating anybody in the crime. His natural and usual
interest would be to identify the real malefactor and secure his conviction to
obtain true justice for the death of a relative. Finally, we observed that the
RTC and the Court of Appeals denominated the crime committed by
appellants in the present case as the special complex crime of kidnapping for

ransom with double homicide since two of the kidnap victims were killed or
died during the kidnapping.
P
EOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee,Vs
WILLIAM MONTINOLA,
accused[G.R. Nos. 131856-57. July 9, 2001]Topic: Disregard of Rank, age or sexFacts:WILLIAM was
charged with robbery with homicide in and illegal possession of firearm.Criminal Case No.
47168:November 1996, in Iloilo, William was
armed with unlicensed Cal. 380 Pistol Llama did then
and there deliberately, willfully and criminally with violence against or intimidation of persons,with
intent of gain, take and carry away cash amount of P67,500.00 belonging to Jose
EduardoReteracion, and by reason, shot to death the said Jose Eduardo Reteracion;Criminal Case
No. 47169 reads as follows:November 1996, Iloilo, William with deliberate intent and without any
justifiable motive, did thenand unlawfully and criminally have in his possession, custody and control
one (1) Pistol Llama,caliber .380 without having obtained the proper license or permit to carry, to
hold and possess,which firearm was used by William Montinola in shooting to death the victim Jose
EduardoReteracion.January 1997,
[
WILLIAM entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. Joint trial of the twocases was conducted.
However, on 19 February 1997, after the prosecution had presented
three witnesses, WILLIAM moved to withdraw his previous plea of not guilty; and when re
arraigned, he pleaded guilty
to both charges. , trial on the merits
continued. At noon of November 18, 1996, appellant boarded a passenger jeepney drive
n by JesusHibinioda bound for Libertad Plaza, Iloilo City. Among the passengers was Jose
EduardoReteracion. All of a sudden, appellant drew his gun, an unlicensed firearm, .380 caliber
pistolLlama with Serial No. 170257 and directed Reteracion to hand over his money or else he
wouldbe killed Appellant aimed the firearm at the neck of Reteracion and fired successive shots at
thelatter. As a result Reteracion slumped deadPolice Officer Garcia, who heard the shot,
approached the jeep and met appellant carrying agun. He chased appellant who ran away with his
jacket bloodstained as he threw bundles of money. Garcia and the bystanders picked up the
money strewn on the way by appellant.The gun used by appellant while robbing and killing
Reteracion was determined by Senior The wife of the victim spent for the burial and wake of her
husband an amount of P191,835.00and failed to recover P39,500.00 which was a part of
the money taken from her husband. Shebecame depressed, sleepless and not in the mood to eat
because of utter sadness resultingfrom the death of her husband,The trial court rendered a Joint
Judgment finding WILLIAM guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges filed against him. It
sentenced him to
reclusion perpetua

for the robbery withhomicide and to the penalty of death for illegal possession of firearm. It also
ordered him to paythe family of the victim the amounts of P50,000 as death indemnity; P191,835 for
the burial andwake expenses; and P39,000 for the unrecovered
People vs Taboga
Edralin Taboga was charge with Robbery and Homicie in an information which reads
that with intent to gain, and with violence against person, entered the house of one
Francisca Tubon, and once inside, with treachery and of abuse of superior strength,
assault, attacked and stabbed Tubon, thereby inflicting upon her a mortal wound which
necessarily caused the death of the said Tubon and took away several personal
properties belonging to Tubon. He was likewise indicted for Arson for setting the victims
house on fire. After finding the burnt house and charred body of Tubon and set her
house on fire, causing the whole house, including the dead body of the old woman, to
be burned. Taboga brought to the police station for further investigation. Mr. Contaoi, a
radio announcer of DZNS, went to the police station to interview the suspect. Again,
Taboga admitted killing the deceased and setting her and her house on fire. Upon
arraignment accused entered separate pleas of Not Guilty to the crimes charged and
interposed an alibi. Accused also claimed that he was maltreated by the policemen force
him to admit the crime. Regarding his admission to radio announcer Contaoi, he
narrated that the interview was held inside the investigation room of the police station
where policemen were present and that the reporter acted as an agent for the
prosecution. Thus, he had to admit the crime because he was afraid of the policemen.
The RTC rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes.
Issue: Whether or not confession made by the accused to a radio report, a private
person, can be admitted as evidence against him. Held: Yes, There is nothing in the
record to show that the radio announcer collude with the police authorities to elicit
inculpatory evidence against accuse. Neither is there any thing on the record, which
remotely suggests that the police to the extract information from him on the details of the
crimes instructed the radio announcer. Indeed, the reporter even asked permission from
the officer-in-charge to interview accused. Nor was the information obtained under
duress. In fact, accused not only confessed to the radio reporter but to several others.
FACTS
:Feb 4, 1996


witness Rene L. Saano was walking home with victim PHILIP CANTRE when
Cantre saw Michael Bulalacao walking with petitioner ROLLIE CALIMUTAN.
Cantre then punched Bulalacao.Calimutan to defend Bulalacao threw a stone
hitting the back of Cantre. Afterwards, they were pacified by the witness and
went theirseparate ways
Cantre complained of back pains and afterwards died the nextday
Dr. Ulanday - did the initial autopsy and stated that the cause of death was
cardio-respiratory arrest due to food poisoning
Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez

conducted a separate autopsy andconcluded that Cantre died due to a

ruptured spleen caused bythe trauma of the stoning19 November 1998

RTC found Calimutan guilty of homicide

Ruled that the retaliatory act of throwing the stone at Cantrewas unlawful
and as established by Mendez as the proximatecause of death, is guilty of
the consequences of throwing thestone even if different from intended (RPC
4)29 August 2001

CA sustained conviction as the autopsy conductedby Ulanday cannot be

given more credence than the autopsyconducted by Mendez
ISSUES:
(1) WON the throwing of the stone was the proximate cause of
death as found by Mendez autopsy
(2) WON Calimutan is guilty of homicide
HELD:
(1)
YES
RATIO:
The autopsy report conducted by Ulanday was lacking comparedto the
extensive autopsy conducted by Mendez

This was even testified by Ulanday who only found thatthe food poisoning
MAY have been the cause of cardiacarrest and should b