18 People v. Bernardo y Espiritu. G.R. No. 242696. November 11, 2020.
18 People v. Bernardo y Espiritu. G.R. No. 242696. November 11, 2020.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J : p
Assailed in this ordinary appeal 1 is the Decision 2 dated July 31, 2017
rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05124, which
affirmed with modification the Joint Judgment 3 dated April 7, 2011 of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 166 (RTC) finding accused Zaldy
Bernardo y Espiritu (Bernardo), Monroy Flores y Corpuz (Flores), Jesus
Time y Cabesa (Time), Gilbert Pacpaco y Directo (Pacpaco), Gilbert Ramirez y
Dunego (Ramirez), Danny Cortez 4 y Donieto (Cortez), Rogelio Antonio y
Abujuela 5 (Antonio), Tommy Cabesa 6 y Villegas (Cabesa), and Mila Andres
Galamay (Galamay; collectively, accused) guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crimes of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, as defined and
penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and Murder,
as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC.
The Facts
The instant case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations filed
before the RTC charging accused-appellants Bernardo, Flores, Cortez, and
Galamay (accused-appellants) and their co-accused with the crimes of
Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide and Murder, the accusatory portions
of which read:
Criminal Case No. 115554-H 7
Flores, Cortez, and Antonio, who were all caught while counting the same.
Finally, the last element is also present as Dr. Andres, Sr. was killed while in
detention and his body was found in Mabitac, Laguna.
In this relation, the extrajudicial confession executed by Antonio as
embodied in his July 6 Salaysay relative to the commission of the kidnapping
of Dr. Andres, Sr. is merely corroborative of the prosecution evidence on this
particular charge. To be admissible, a confession must comply with the
following requirements: it "must be (a) voluntary; (b) made with the
assistance of a competent and independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in
writing." 45 In this case, not only was the prosecution able to establish that
these requirements had been complied with, it was also able to show that
the contents of Antonio's July 6 Salaysay merely corroborated independent
evidence pointing to accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.
Indeed, there is sufficient evidence showing the complicity of accused-
appellants beyond moral certainty, consisting in the positive identification of
Bernardo and Galamay by Dr. Andres, Jr., as well as the in flagrante arrest
of Flores. Furthermore, Antonio's July 6 Salaysay was executed after his co-
conspirators had been duly identified and arrested. If at all, aside from the
corroboration it lent to the prosecution evidence, it additionally provided
details that only persons privy to the kidnapping can supply, i.e., the place
where Dr. Andres, Sr. was detained and the fact that his vehicle had been
burned and abandoned in Norzagaray, Bulacan. 46
Therefore, the Court finds no reason to overturn the courts a quo's
findings in relation to accused-appellants' (and their co-accused's)
commission of the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with
Homicide, as there was no showing that the courts a quo overlooked,
misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of
the case. It bears pointing out that the trial court — whose findings were
affirmed by the CA — was in the best position to assess and determine the
credibility of the witnesses by both parties. 47
Accused-appellants must be
acquitted of Murder
In contrast to the above, Antonio's extrajudicial confession as
contained in his July 8 Salaysay detailing the abduction and killing of Major
Arcega cannot be used to convict accused-appellants in the absence of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
independent evidence on this charge and on account of the principle of
res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet expressed in Section 28, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court, which states:
Section 28. Admission by third-party. — The rights of a third
party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
another, except as hereinafter provided.
Expounding on this rule, the Court explained that "[o]n a principle of
good faith and mutual convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon
himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations.
Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that
a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a
party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their
acts or conduct be used as evidence against him." 48 Thus, as a general rule,
an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant. 49 As an
exception, Section 30, Rule 130 of the same Rules allows the admission of a
conspirator, provided the conditions therefor are satisfied, viz.:
Section 30. Admission by conspirator . — The act or
declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after
the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. (Emphasis supplied)
In this regard, case law states that "in order that the admission of a
conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is
necessary that: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the
admission itself; (b) the admission relates to the common object; and (c) it
has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy." 50 Here, aside from Antonio's extrajudicial statements in his July
8 Salaysay, there is a glaring dearth of evidence showing the participation of
accused-appellants in a plan or conspiracy to abduct and kill Major Arcega.
As such, Antonio's statement in his July 8 Salaysay is binding on him alone; it
cannot be admitted against his co-accused and is considered as hearsay
against them. 51
In this light, the Court is constrained to acquit not only herein accused-
appellants, but also their co-accused — except for Antonio who executed the
July 8 Salaysay — for the Murder of Major Arcega. This is pursuant to Section
11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads:
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall
not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of
the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
While it is true that it was only accused-appellants who successfully
perfected their appeal before the Court, it is well to reiterate the rule that an
appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the entire case out in the open,
including those not raised by the parties. 52 Considering that, under Section
11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as above-quoted,
a favorable judgment — as in this case — shall benefit the co-accused who
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
did not appeal or those who appealed from their judgments of conviction but
for one reason or another, the conviction became final and executory 53
accused-appellants' acquittal for the crime of Murder is likewise applicable to
the rest of the accused, save for Antonio, against whom his confession in his
July 8 Salaysay shall be solely binding, and Cortez, who had since died.
Finally, and in light of prevailing jurisprudence, Antonio should pay the
heirs of Major Arcega the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for
the crime of Murder, all with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. 54
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED . The Decision dated
July 31, 2017 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05124
is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows:
(1) I n Criminal Case No. 115554-H, accused-appellants Zaldy
Bernardo y Espiritu, Monroy Flores y Corpuz, and Mila Andres
Galamay are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, as defined and penalized
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, and accordingly,
sentenced to each suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole and to jointly and severally indemnify
the heirs of Dr. Eliezer Andres, Sr. the amounts of P100,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and P117,455.00 as actual damages, all
with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from
the date of finality of this Decision until full payment. On the
other hand, the case is DISMISSED, and hereby DECLARED
CLOSED and TERMINATED insofar as accused-appellant Danny
Cortez y Donieto is concerned by reason of his supervening
death; and
(2) I n Criminal Case No. 115555-H, accused Rogelio Antonio y
Abujuela is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, as
defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Major Igmedio Arcega
the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as
moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and
P50,000.00 as temperate damages, all with legal interest at the
rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of
this Decision until full payment. On the other hand, accused-
appellants Zaldy Bernardo y Espiritu, Monroy Flores y Corpuz, and
Mila Andres Galamay, as well as accused Jesus Time y Cabesa,
Gilbert Pacpaco y Directo, Gilbert Ramirez y Dunego, and Tommy
Cabesa y Villegas are ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.
Finally, the case is DISMISSED, and hereby DECLARED CLOSED
and TERMINATED insofar as accused-appellant Danny Cortez y
Donieto is concerned by reason of his supervening death.
Footnotes
* Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5,
2020.
1. See Notice of Appeal dated August 22, 2017; rollo, pp. 25-26.
2. Id. at 2-24. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez with Associate Justices
Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of this Court),
concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 165-198. Penned by Presiding Judge Rowena De Juan-Quinagoran.
8. CA rollo, p. 30.
9. See rollo, p. 4.
10. See id.
11. See id.
12. See id.
17. See Autopsy conducted by Police Senior Inspector Tomas D. Suguitan, M.D.,
Folder of Exhibits, p. 17.
38. Signed by New Bilibid Prison Superintendent Gerardo F. Padilla; id. at 47.
39. Signed by Medical Officer III Gerbert S. Madlang-Awa; id. at 48.
40. Id. at 49.
41. See People v. Monroyo, G.R. No. 223708, October 9, 2019, citing People v.
Culas, 810 Phil. 205, 209 (2017).
42. Arambulo v. People, G.R. No. 241834, July 24, 2019, citing Manansala v.
People, 775 Phil. 514, 520 (2015).
43. People v. Cornista , G.R. No. 218915, February 19, 2020, citing People v.
Ramos, 358 Phil. 261, 286-287(1998).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
44. P/C Inspector Arthur de Guzman and P/C Inspector Warren de Leon testified
that they were part of the team that witnessed how the accused "cased" the
vehicle of Dr. Andres, Jr. before taking the ransom money. (See CA rollo, pp.
169-172.)
45. See People v. Omilig , 766 Phil. 484, 500 (2015), citing People v. Tuniaco , 624
Phil. 345, 352 (2010).
46. See July 6, 1998 Sinumpaang Salaysay; records, pp. 36-37.
47. See People v. Naciongayo , G.R. No. 243897, June 8, 2020, citing Cahulogan v.
People, 828 Phil. 742, 749 (2018).
48. Salapuddin v. CA, 704 Phil. 577, 601 (2013), citing Tamargo v. Awingan, 624
Phil. 312, 327 (2010).
49. See id. at 600.
50. People v. Cachuela , 710 Phil. 728, 741 (2013), citing People v. Bokingo , 671
Phil. 71, 93 (2011).
51. See Salapuddin v. CA, supra note 48, at 600.
52. See People v. Libre , G.R. No. 235980, August 20, 2018, citing Benabaye v.
People, 755 Phil. 144, 157 (2015).
53. See Benabaye v. People , id. at 157.