People vs. Olidan

The failure of an accused to move to quash a duplicitous information before entering a plea constitutes a waiver of the defect, and the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved. Where four victims were kidnapped but only one Information was filed, and the accused entered a plea of not guilty without objecting to the duplicity, the accused may be convicted of four counts of Kidnapping for Ransom, each punishable by reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

The case arose from the kidnapping of three minor children, AAA, BBB, and CCC, and their nanny, Eulalia Cuevas, on August 30, 2005. The accused included private individuals and two active members of the Philippine National Police who were acting in their private capacities. The crime was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the children's parents, the Spouses ABC, who were demanded to pay PHP 50,000,000.00 for the victims' release. The case was governed by Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for kidnapping committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.

On August 30, 2005, at around 6:00 a.m., the ABC children — AAA (11 years old), BBB (11 years old), and CCC (9 years old) — together with their nanny, Eulalia Cuevas, and their family driver, Raymund Neflas, were on their way to school aboard a Ford Escape. Before they could reach the guardhouse of their subdivision, three men in police uniform flagged them down. When the vehicle stopped, the men instructed Raymund to get out of the car. As soon as Raymund alighted, the men boarded the vehicle: one man sat in the driver's seat, another on the front passenger side, and the third occupied the back seat where the ABC children and Eulalia were seated. The man driving the vehicle sped up towards a direction unknown to the children and Eulalia. Raymund ran back to the ABC residence and reported the incident to the Spouses ABC.

Inside the vehicle, Eulalia pleaded to the men that if they wanted the car, they should just allow her to bring the children to school via taxi. One of the men retorted, "kayo nga kailangan namin," and all the children started to cry. While they were still on the road, Raymund's cellphone, which was left in the car, started ringing. The man beside CCC answered the phone. Upon seeing that it was DDD, the mother of the ABC children, the man told her, "Nasa amin ang mga anak nyo huwag na huwag kayong magsumbong sa pulis kungdi papatayin namin sila." The ABC children also heard the man telling their mother to stop crying and just pay the amount that they were demanding.

After 30 minutes, the armed men transferred the ABC children and Eulalia to a maroon Nissan Urvan van, where another group of men were waiting. The men then blindfolded the victims. After some time, the van stopped, and the armed men dragged the victims out of the vehicle and brought them into a room with a particularly foul odor — later found to be an old bathroom. While the victims were kept inside the room, unknown individuals occasionally came to visit them and gave them water and crackers. The victims identified these individuals as accused-appellant, accused Annabelle, and Araneta.

On the same day, at around 8:30 a.m., the father of the ABC children reported the kidnapping incident to the PNP-PACER. On August 31, 2005, members of PNP-PACER received information from a concerned citizen about suspicious individuals at No. 2 Peñafrancia St., Payatas, Quezon City. Two teams were dispatched. The first team saw suspicious individuals, a maroon Nissan Urvan without a plate number, and a store selling purified water. The second team followed the Nissan Urvan when it left the area. PO1 Caubat conducted a surveillance operation, pretending to be a customer buying a gallon of water, and saw three blindfolded children in school uniforms. The PNP-PACER conducted a rescue operation and successfully rescued the victims. The first team arrested the three suspects present inside the house where the victims were kept — accused-appellant, accused Annabelle, and accused Araneta. The second team followed the Nissan Urvan until they reached SM Bicutan, where they arrested accused Navanes, PO1 Castillo, and Bicodo; one occupant, later identified as accused Alada, escaped.

After the rescue, Eulalia revealed that she saw accused Caloring, the former driver of the Spouses ABC, as one of the kidnappers. She likewise identified accused PO1 Castillo as the person who took the driver's seat of the Ford Escape and accused PO1 Zapatos as the one who sat at the backseat with the victims. Upon follow-up operation, the PNP-PACER arrested accused Caloring, and accused PO1 Zapatos surrendered. Together with accused PO1 Castillo and assisted by Atty. Manuel Go, they executed an extra-judicial confession after being informed of their constitutional rights. PO1 Castillo and PO1 Zapatos pointed to Caloring as the person who proposed the kidnapping and confessed the details of the kidnapping plan.

During trial, CCC identified accused-appellant, accused Annabelle, and accused Araneta as the individuals present at and caretakers of the house where they were kept, and identified PO1 Castillo as the person who drove the maroon Nissan Urvan and accused Caloring, Navanes, Bicodo, and PO1 Zapatos as among the kidnappers who flagged down the Ford Escape. BBB corroborated CCC's testimony. DDD, the mother of the ABC children, testified that the kidnappers demanded PHP 50,000,000.00 in exchange for her children's freedom, warned her that if she could not give the money within two days they would kill her children, and later gave her three hours to produce the amount; otherwise, they would send her the heads of her children. Before the three-hour limit was over, the PNP-PACER informed DDD of the successful rescue operation.

The defense presented denials. Accused Araneta testified that he went to visit his sister, accused Annabelle, in Payatas, and was suddenly grabbed by police officers who beat him up and took him to Camp Crame. Accused Caloring denied involvement, testifying that he was arrested without a warrant while aboard a bus, though he admitted on cross-examination that he was previously employed by Mr. EEE as a company driver and resigned on the first week of August 2005. Accused PO1 Zapatos testified that police forced him to sign a document. Accused-appellant testified that he was a carpenter and caretaker of a house at No. 2 Peñafrancia, Payatas, Quezon City since December 2004, and that police officers suddenly arrested him and his wife and linked them to a kidnapping incident. During trial and before the RTC issued a Decision, accused Navanes died, and the RTC ruled that his criminal and civil liability had been extinguished by his death.

• Lack of Direct Participation: Accused-appellant argued that the CA erred in sustaining his conviction despite the absence of evidence as to his direct participation in the commission of the crime. He maintained that there was no evidence showing that he took part in the actual kidnapping of the victims.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that it would no longer be filing a Supplemental Brief, considering that in its Appellee's Brief dated June 7, 2016 filed before the CA, it already substantially and exhaustively refuted accused-appellant's arguments.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping for Ransom.
• Number of Counts: Whether accused-appellant should be held liable for four counts of Kidnapping for Ransom considering that there were four victims.
• Award of Damages to Spouses ABC: Whether the Spouses ABC, as parents of the kidnapped children, are entitled to damages.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, and conspiracy was proven through accused-appellant's overt act of serving as caretaker of the safe house where the victims were detained.
• Number of Counts: Yes. Although only one Amended Information was filed for the kidnapping of four victims, the defect of duplicity was deemed waived because accused-appellant and his co-accused failed to move to quash the information before entering their pleas, and the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved.
• Award of Damages to Spouses ABC: No. Only the kidnapped victims are the offended parties in the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom, and the damages awarded by the CA to Spouses ABC were deleted.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Court gave high respect to the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of witnesses, as the trial judge is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses. The Court found no reason to deviate from the uniform factual findings of the RTC and the CA, as there was no indication that they overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances. The elements of Kidnapping for Ransom were established: (1) the accused was a private person; (2) he kidnapped or detained, or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty; (3) the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (4) the victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom. Even though PO1 Zapatos and PO1 Castillo were members of the PNP, they were acting in their private capacities when they kidnapped the victims. The victims' testimonies were consistent with each other and corroborated by the statements of Raymund and DDD. The Court discarded accused-appellant's argument that there was no evidence of his participation, as the victims identified him as one of the caretakers of the safe house, and his participation was necessary for the successful execution of the Kidnapping for Ransom. Conspiracy was established through accused-appellant's role as caretaker of the safe house, which was an overt act directly contributing to the crime. Without accused-appellant guarding the safe house and preventing the victims from escaping, his co-accused would not have had the luxury of time to demand ransom from Spouses ABC. His conduct showed a community of design between him and his co-accused, making him a co-principal under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Number of Counts: The Court applied Rule 110, Section 13 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. The Amended Information was defective for charging the kidnapping of four victims in a single Information. However, since accused-appellant and his co-accused failed to object to the defect and freely entered their pleas of "Not Guilty" during arraignment, the defect was deemed waived. Citing People vs. Caloring and People vs. Dela Cruz, the Court ruled that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense. However, only accused-appellant could be convicted of four counts because he was the only one who appealed the CA Decision. As to his surviving co-accused, their conviction for one count of Kidnapping for Ransom had already attained finality, and they could not be placed in a worse situation with the filing of accused-appellant's appeal, applying Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Court. The Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, and A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC which requires the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify reclusion perpetua where the death penalty is warranted but not imposed because of R.A. 9346.

• Award of Damages to Spouses ABC: The Court ruled that only the kidnapped victims are entitled to damages inasmuch as they are the offended party in the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom. Accordingly, the damages awarded by the CA to Spouses ABC were deleted. The deletion of the award in favor of Spouses ABC was applicable to all surviving accused applying Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Court, considering that the deletion is favorable to them. The Court affirmed the CA's award of PHP 100,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 100,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages in line with existing jurisprudence, all earning interest at 6% per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Kidnapping for Ransom (Article 267, RPC) — The elements are: (1) the accused was a private person; (2) he or she kidnapped or detained, or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty; (3) the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (4) the victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom. Ransom means money, price, or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that would release him from captivity; no specific form of ransom is required as long as the ransom was intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim's freedom, and whether the ransom is actually paid is immaterial. The essence of illegal detention is the deprivation of the victim's liberty, and if the victim is kidnapped to extort ransom, the duration of detention is immaterial. The curtailment of liberty need not involve physical restraint, and it is not necessary that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or treated him harshly.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is not presumed and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, the evidence must be strong enough to show the community of criminal design. It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime, which may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime or moral assistance by being present at the commission or exerting moral ascendancy over co-conspirators. An accused need not participate in all the details of the execution of the crime; as long as he helped and cooperated in the consummation of a felony, he is liable as a co-principal. Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation, because in contemplation of the law the act of one is the act of all.

• Duplicity of Offenses — Under Rule 110, Section 13 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. The rationale behind the rule is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare for his defense. Non-compliance is a ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or information under Rule 117, and the accused may raise the same in a motion to quash before he enters his plea; otherwise, the defect is deemed waived. When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense.

• Effect of Appeal by One of Several Accused — Under Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Court, 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. A penalty modification that is not favorable to the non-appealing accused shall not apply to them.

• "Simply stated, his participation was necessary for the successful execution of the Kidnapping for Ransom." — This passage articulates the Court's finding that accused-appellant's role as caretaker of the safe house constituted sufficient overt act establishing his participation in and conspiracy to commit the crime, notwithstanding his absence at the initial stages of the kidnapping.

• "Without accused-appellant guarding the safe house and preventing the victims from escaping, his co-accused would not have the luxury of time to demand ransom from Spouses ABC." — This excerpt states the Court's reasoning for finding that accused-appellant's conduct showed a community of design with his co-accused, making him liable as a co-principal under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code.

• "However, since appellant entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment and failed to move for the quashal of the Informations, he is deemed to have waived his right to question the same." — This passage, quoted from People v. Jugueta via People v. Caloring, states the rule on waiver of the defect of duplicity of offenses and the consequence that the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved.

• "The phrase 'without eligibility for parole' is attached to qualify reclusion perpetua where the death penalty is warranted but is not imposed because of Republic Act No. 9346, as in this case, pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC." — This excerpt explains the proper penalty qualification under R.A. 9346 and A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC where the death penalty is prohibited but would otherwise be warranted.

• People vs. Caloring, G.R. No. 250980, March 15, 2022 — Controlling precedent, a case intimately related to the present controversy involving the same kidnapping incident. The Court ruled that four Informations for Kidnapping for Ransom should have been filed against all the accused, but the defect was deemed waived when none of the accused objected, and all could be convicted of four counts were it not for specific circumstances. Caloring died pending appeal, and the Court declared his criminal and civil liability ex-delicto totally extinguished under Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

• People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 248456, August 16, 2022 — Followed. The Court en banc reiterated the ruling in Caloring that where there is duplicity of crimes in a single information and none of the accused-appellants objected by filing a motion to quash before arraignment, they are deemed to have waived the defect.

• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited for the rule that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose the proper penalty for each offense.

• People vs. Jatulan, 550 Phil. 342 (2007) — Cited for the definition of ransom as an element of Kidnapping for Ransom, including that no specific form of ransom is required and whether the ransom is actually paid is of no moment.

• People vs. Lababo, 832 Phil. 1056 (2018) — Cited for the principles in determining whether a conspiracy exists, including that conspiracy is not presumed and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that a conspirator must have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime.

• De Lima vs. Guerrero, 819 Phil. 616 (2017) — Cited for the principle that it is not indispensable for a co-conspirator to take a direct part in every act of the crime, and as long as the accused helped and cooperated in the consummation of a felony, he is liable as a co-principal.

• People vs. Solar, 858 Phil. 884 (2019) — Cited for the principle that once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation, because the act of one is the act of all.

• Article 267, Revised Penal Code — Defines and prescribes the penalty for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. The Court applied this provision in finding accused-appellant guilty of four counts of Kidnapping for Ransom, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count, the death penalty being warranted but prohibited by R.A. 9346.

• Article 8, Revised Penal Code — Defines conspiracy as existing when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The Court applied this provision in finding that accused-appellant conspired with his co-accused to commit the kidnapping.

• Article 17, Revised Penal Code — Defines who are considered principals, including those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. The Court applied this provision in holding accused-appellant liable as a co-principal in the commission of Kidnapping for Ransom.

• Article 89, Revised Penal Code — Provides how criminal liability is totally extinguished, including by the death of the convict as to personal penalties. The Court noted this provision in relation to accused Navanes, who died during trial, and Caloring, who died pending appeal.

• Rule 110, Section 13, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. The Court applied this provision in finding the Amended Information defective for duplicity but deemed the defect waived.

• Rule 117, Section 9, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads shall be deemed a waiver of any objections. The Court applied this provision in ruling that accused-appellant waived the defect of duplicity.

• Rule 122, Section 11(a), Rules of Court — Provides that 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. The Court applied this provision in limiting the conviction for four counts to accused-appellant alone and in applying the deletion of damages to Spouses ABC to all surviving accused.

• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. The Court applied this provision in sentencing accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole instead of death.

• A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — Provides guidelines for the proper use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole" in indivisible penalties, requiring the qualification where the death penalty is warranted but not imposed because of R.A. 9346. The Court applied this in qualifying the penalty imposed on accused-appellant.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred. Singh, J., was on official leave.