People Vs Uyboco
People Vs Uyboco
Jepson was at his office at 10:00 a.m. of P/Insp. Escandor was assigned to
20 December 1993. He received a call proceed to Magallanes Commercial
from his wife asking him if Nimfa or Acon Center, together with two other police
called up, After 15 minutes, Yusan officers. They reached the place at 3:30
called again because she could not p.m. and positioned themselves in front
find the car. Jepson immediately called of the Maranao Arcade located at
up his brother and some police officers Magallanes Commercial Center. He
to inform them that his sons were missing brought a camera to cover the
then, his secretary informed him that an supposed pay-off. He took a total of 24
unidentified man called to inform them shots. He identified Macias together with
appellant in Magallanes Commercial
Center and the latter as the one who totally extinguished under Article 89,
took the ransom. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
ATTY. PAMARAN:
Q: What? A: When that man boarded the pick-up
there was a T-bird who also boarded on
A: When we were already in front of the the passengers side, Sir.
San Sebastian Church and Sta. Rita
College there was a stainless jeep that Q: When you entered the gate of
block our path, Sir. Merville Subdivision, where did you
proceed?
Q: How many persons were inside that
stainless jeep, if you know? A: When we entered the gate there was
a street which I do not know and when
A: I have not notice, but there were we went straight as to my estimate we
many, Sir. were going back to the main gate, Sir.
Q: How did that stainless jeep stop your A: The pick-up stopped in front of a low
vehicle?
house near the gate, Sir.
A: Our driver Pepito Acon was signaled Q: When you stopped in front of the
by the persons on the stainless jeep to gate, that house which is low, what
stay on the side, sir.
happened?
Q: What did your driver Pepito Acon do A: The tomboy alighted and opened
when the sign was made to him?
the gate of that low house, Sir.
A: The driver stopped the pick-up and Q: What followed next after the tomboy
set on the side, Sir. opened the gate?
Q: And then what followed next after he
A: After the tomboy opened the gate,
stopped? the driver entered the pick-up inside, Sir.
A: The man told us that we will be Q: And when you entered the house,
brought to the precinct because when what happened?
we then make a turn at Kentucky a
stone was ran and hit the son of the A: When we entered the house we were
General of PSG from Malacaang, Sir. confined at the comfort room, Sir.
Q: What did Pepito Acon do? When told Jepson gave an account how
to alight? appellant demanded ransom from him
and eventually got hold of the money,
A: Pepito Acon alighted, Sir. thus:
Q: Then what followed next? A: Then Macias offered the release of
A: After that Pepito alighted and the the two (2) boys for 1.5 Million each, Sir.
man who came from the stainless jeep A: Then I started begging and
boarded and he was the one who bargaining with them and then
drove, Sir.
suddenly Uyboco was again the one A: My jewelry, Sir.
continuing the conversation, Sir.
Q: And what did you do after you were
Q: What did you say? in possession of the money, the jewelries,
the gun and the bag?
A: After some bargaining and beggings
he reduced the demand to 1.7 million, A: I returned to my office and put the
and he asked for my wife to talk to cash in the bag.
because according to him I was very
hard to talk too, Sir. Q: In short, what were those inside the
bag?
ATTY. PAMARAN:
A: The P1.325 million money, the gun
Q: You said he, to whom are you and the assorted jewelries.
referring?
Q: And after placing them inside the
A: To Mr. Uyboco, Sir. bag, what happened?
Q: Why to offer the different (sic) in Q: What else did he tell you?
kind?
A: x x x He told me to put the ransom
A: To fill up the different (sic) between bag x x x inside my trunk compartment,
1.3 million to 1.5 million, Sir. leave it and lock the car, and walk
away without looking back for ten (10)
Q: So in short, how much cash did you minutes.
offer?
Q: After that instruction, what
A: I offered it for 1.3 million, Sir. happened, or what did you do?
Q: How about the different (sic), what A: After few minutes, he called again.
will it be? He told me to drive and park the car
A: At this point, he asked me to include beside the car Mitsubishi Colt Mirage
my gun, Sir. with Plate NO. NRZ-863.
A: Yes, in front of the Mercury Drug A: I walked towards the Pancake House
Store. without looking back and then I turned
to the back of the supermarket and I
Q: And then, what did you do? checked my trunk and saw that the bag
A: I followed his instruction. is gone already.
A: After few more minutes, he called A: A few minutes, Uyboco called up and
again and asked if I am in front of the told me that my sons were at the shell
Mercury Drug Store already. station after the Magallanes
Commercial Center inside the
Q: And what was your answer? Bibingkahan.
A: I told him yes and he again gave me Now, appellant seeks to destroy the
the final arrangement, but he uttered I credibility of these witnesses by imputing
walk back towards the Pancake House inconsistencies, untruthfulness and
without looking back for ten (10) incredibility in their testimonies.
minutes.
Appellant harps on the supposed
Q: And? inconsistencies in the testimony of
Nimfa, namely: First, Nimfa stated that
A: And informing me the whereabouts
on the day they were to be released,
of my sons.
they, together with Macias, left Merville
ATTY. PAMARAN: Subdivision at 4:00 p.m. while appellant
stayed behind. However, P/Insp.
Q: Did you comply with that instruction? Escandor testified that at around 4:00
p.m., he saw Macias and appellant at
A: Yes, sir.
Magallanes Commercial Center.
Q: What did you do? Second, Nimfa could not properly
identify the number of kidnappers. Third,
A: I walked towards the Pancake House Nimfa failed to state in her affidavit and
without looking back for more than ten during the direct examination that
(10) minutes. Sarge had a gun, but later on cross-
examination, she intimated that Sarge
Q: That car that you parked near the
had a gun. Fourth, it was incredible that
Mitsubishi Colt, how far was your car the
Nimfa was able to identify the route
parked form that Colt Mirage?
taken by the kidnappers to the safe
A: Beside the Colt Mirage, Sir. house because she was not allegedly
blindfolded. Fifth, it was strange for
Nimfa to say that two persons, Macias captive only proves that, in this real
and appellant, were holding the world, mistakes or blunders are made
receiver and the dialing mechanism and there is no such thing as a perfect
whenever they hand the phone to her. crime. On a different view, it may even
Sixth, it was impossible for Nimfa to have be posited that the incredible
access to an operational telephone happenings narrated by Celiz only
while in captivity.[48] The Court of highlights the brilliance of Uyboco and
Appeals correctly dismissed these his companions. Verily, in committing
inconsistencies as immaterial, in this the crime of kidnapping with ransom,
wise: they adopted and pursued unfamiliar
strategies to confuse the police
The purported inconsistencies and
authorities, the victim, and the family of
discrepancies involve estimations of the victims.
time or number; hence, the reference
thereto would understandably vary. The Appellant then zeroes in on Jepson and
rule is that inconsistencies in the accuses him of lying under oath when
testimonies of prosecution witnesses on he claimed that appellant owed him
minor details and collateral matters do only P2.3 Million when in fact, appellant
not affect the substance of their owed him P8.5 Million. Appellant
declaration, their veracity or the weight charges Jepson of downplaying his
of their testimonies. The inconsistencies closeness to him when in fact they had
and discrepancies of the testimonies, in several business deals and Jepson
the case at bar, are not of such nature would address appellant as Ernie.
as would warrant the reversal of the Moreover, it was unbelievable for
decision appealed from. On the Jepson to be able to identify with
contrary, such trivial inconsistencies utmost certainty that the kidnapper he
strengthen, rather than diminish, Celiz was supposedly talking to was
testimony as they erase suspicion that appellant. Finally, appellant claims that
the same was rehearsed. Jepsons motive to maliciously impute a
false kidnapping charge against him
The fact that Uyboco and his boils down to money. Among the
companions neither donned masks to businesses that Jepson owns was along
hide their faces nor blindfolded or tied the same line of business as that of
up their victims goes to show their appellant, which is the supply of police
brazenness in perpetrating the crime. equipment to the PNP. To eliminate
Besides, familiarity with the victims or competition and possibly procure all
their families has never rendered the
contracts from the PNP and considering
commission of the crime improbable, his brothers close association to then
but has in fact at times even facilitated
Vice-President Estrada, Jepson crafted
its commission. Moreover, the fact that and executed a frame up of appellant.
there was a usable phone in the house
where Celiz and the kids were held
And the Court of Appeals had this to pointing to appellant as one of the
say: kidnappers. Both witnesses testified in a
clear and categorical manner, unfazed
For one, the strategy used, which is the
by efforts of the defense to discredit
use of unconventional or not so them. As a rule, the assessment of the
commonly used strategy, to apprehend credibility of witnesses and their
the kidnappers of Celiz and the testimonies is a matter best undertaken
Dichaves children is, by reason of their by the trial court, which had a unique
special knowledge and expertise, the opportunity to observe the witnesses
police operatives call or prerogative.
firsthand and to note their demeanor,
Accordingly, in the absence of any conduct and attitude.[52] While it is true
evidence that said agents falsely
that the trial judge who conducted the
testified against Uyboco, We shall hearing would be in a better position to
presume regularity in their performance
ascertain the truth or falsity of the
of official duties and disregard Uybocos testimonies of the witnesses, it does not
unsubstantiated claim that he was necessarily follow that a judge who was
framed up.
not present during the trial, as in this
Secondly, matters of presentation of case, cannot render a valid and just
witnesses by the prosecution and the decision, since the latter can very well
determination of which evidence to rely on the transcribed stenographic
present are not for Uyboco or even the notes taken during the trial as the basis
trial court to decide, but the same rests of his decision.
upon the prosecution. This is so since
Appellant raises questions which
Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules purportedly tend to instill doubt on the
of Court expressly vests in the prosecutions theory, thus:
prosecution the direction and control
over the prosecution of a case. As the If Uyboco is really the mastermind of the
prosecution had other witnesses who it kidnapping syndicate, why would he
believes could sufficiently prove the demand only P1.325M x x x as ransom?
case against Uyboco, its non- Why would he be the one to personally
presentation of other witnesses cannot pick-up the ransom money using his own
be taken against the same. car registered in his sons name? Why did
he not open the bag containing the
Time and again, this court has invariably ransom to check its contents? Why
viewed the defense of frame-up with
would he be the one to personally hand
disfavor. Like the defense of alibi, it can the phone to Nimfa Celiz without any
be just as easily concocted. mask covering his face x x x. Why would
We are inclined to accord due weight he go back to his family residence x x x
and respect to the ruling of the lower with the ransom money still intact in the
courts in giving credence to the positive trunk of his car?
testimonies of Nimfa and Jepson, both
had been substantially reduced due to
aggressive bargaining and negotiations;
If Nimfa Celiz and her wards were that appellant personally picked up the
indeed kidnapped, why were they not
ransom money because he could not
blindfolded x x x? Why were they not trust anybody to do the work for him;
tied x x x? that appellant did not open the bag
If it is true that the house at Merville, containing the money because he
Paraaque was used by accused- trusted Jepson, who then out of fear,
appellant Uyboco as the place of the would deliver as instructed; that
alleged detention x x x how come appellant did not cover his face in front
Uyboco signed the lease contract under of Nimfa because he thought Nimfa
his own name? x x x Certainly, any would not recognize him; that appellant
person with the education attainment went back to his family residence
of at least high school degree, much because he never thought that Jepson
more so an established businessman like would recognize him as the voice
accused-appellant would know that the behind one of the kidnappers; that the
lease contract and the post-dated victims were not blindfolded or tied
checks are incriminating evidence. because Nimfa, who appeared to be
ignorant to the kidnappers and the two
x x x (h)ow come no effort was exerted children barely 5 years old would be
in apprehending Uyboco during day 1 emboldened to escape; that appellant
of the kidnapping? x x x Why is their story never thought that the police would
focused only on the day of the ransom discover the place of detention; that
payment? Why did they not apply for a the police employed a different
warrant of arrest against accused- strategy, which is to first secure the
appellant Uyboco when they victims before they apprehend the
supposedly knew that from day 1, he kidnappers; that to secure a warrant
was the kidnapper? would be futile as the police then did
not have sufficient evidence to pin
Why were there no tapes presented in
down appellant to the crime of
evidence which recorded the
kidnapping; that there were no actual
conversations between the kidnappers
record of the telephone conversations
Furthermore, appellant stresses that his between Jepson and the kidnappers.
financial status as an established and
However, to individually address each
well-off businessman negates any
and every question would be
motive on his part to resort to
tantamount to engaging in a battle of
kidnapping.
endless speculations, which do not have
If we indulge appellants speculations, a place in a court of law where proof or
we could readily provide for the answers hard evidence takes precedence. On
to all these questions that appellant the other hand, the prosecution
originally demanded P26 Million but this presented testimonies and evidence to
prove that kidnapping occurred and the trial court's assessment on the
that appellant is the author thereof. credibility of the apprehending officers,
shall prevail over the accused's self-
Appellant seeks to pierce the
serving and uncorroborated claim of
presumption of regularity enjoyed by frame-up.
police officers to anchor his argument
that he has been framed up. He belittles Appellant then questions the validity of
the efforts of the police officers who his arrest and the search conducted
participated in the operation. Appellant inside his car in absence of a warrant.
claims that despite knowledge of the The arrest was validly executed pursuant
place of alleged detention, the police to Section 5, paragraph (b) of Rule 113
did not try to rescue the kidnap victims. of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Appellant also notes that while P/Supt.
Chan denies installing any listening SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
device to record the conversations of lawful. A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a
the kidnappers and Jepson, the
interview made by a reporter for a person: (a) When, in his presence, the
television network shows that Major person to be arrested has committed, is
Aquino admitted to taped actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense; (b) When an offense
conversations of appellants alleged
negotiations for the ransom with Jepson. has in fact been committed and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating
Appellant insists that these taped
conversations do exist. that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and, (c) When the person
Appellant cannot rely on a vague to be arrested is a prisoner who has
mention of an interview, if it indeed escaped from a penal establishment or
exists, to discredit the testimony of place where he is serving final judgment
P/Supt. Chan. The truth of the matter is or temporarily confined while his case is
appellant failed to prove the existence pending, or has escaped while being
of the alleged taped conversations. The transferred from one confinement to
matters of failure of the police officer to another. (Emphasis supplied)
properly document the alleged pay-off,
the non-production of the master copy The second instance of lawful
warrantless arrest covered by
of the video tape, and the chain of
custody supposedly broken are not paragraph (b) cited above necessitates
two stringent requirements before a
semblance of neglect so as to debunk
the presumption of regularity. In the warrantless arrest can be effected: (1)
absence of proof of motive on the part an offense has just been committed;
of the police officers to falsely ascribe a and (2) the person making the arrest has
serious crime against the accused, the personal knowledge of facts indicating
presumption of regularity in the that the person to be arrested has
performance of official duty, as well as committed it.
Records show that both requirements is equivalent to personal knowledge
are present in the instant case. The based on probable cause.
police officers present in Magallanes
Likewise, the search conducted inside
Commercial Center were able to
witness the pay-off which effectively the car of appellant was legal because
consummates the crime of kidnapping. the latter consented to such search as
They all saw appellant take the money testified by P/Supt. Cruz. Even assuming
from the car trunk of Jepson. Such that appellant did not give his consent
knowledge was then relayed to the for the police to search the car, they
can still validly do so by virtue of a
other police officers stationed in Fort
Bonifacio where appellant was search incident to a lawful arrest under
Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
expected to pass by.
which states:
Personal knowledge of facts must be
based on probable cause, which SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.
A person lawfully arrested may be
means an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion. The grounds of searched for dangerous weapons or
suspicion are reasonable when, in the anything which may have been used or
absence of actual belief of the arresting constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant.
officers, the suspicion that the person to
be arrested is probably guilty of In lawful arrests, it becomes both the
committing the offense is based on duty and the right of the apprehending
actual facts, i.e., supported by officers to conduct a warrantless search
circumstances sufficiently strong in not only on the person of the suspect,
themselves to create the probable but also in the permissible area within
cause of guilt of the person to be the latter's reach. Otherwise stated, a
arrested. A reasonable suspicion, valid arrest allows the seizure of
therefore, must be founded on evidence or dangerous weapons either
probable cause, coupled with good on the person of the one arrested or
faith on the part of the peace officers within the area of his immediate control.
making the arrest. Section 5, Rule 113 of The phrase "within the area of his
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure immediate control" means the area
does not require the arresting officers to from within which he might gain
personally witness the commission of the possession of a weapon or destructible
offense with their own eyes. evidence.[58] Therefore, it is only but
It is sufficient for the arresting team that expected and legally so for the police
they were monitoring the pay-off for a to search his car as he was driving it
number of hours long enough for them when he was arrested
to be informed that it was indeed Appellant avers that it was not proven
appellant, who was the kidnapper. This that appellant was present and in fact
participated in the abduction of the
victims. Lacking this element, appellant kidnapping syndicate would entrust the
should have been acquitted. In a performance of an essential and
related argument, appellant contends sensitive phase of their criminal scheme,
that conspiracy was not proven in the i.e. possession of the ransom payment,
execution of the crime, therefore, to people not in cahoots with them, and
appellants participation was not who had no knowledge whatsoever of
sufficiently established. the details of their nefarious plan.