THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 91262. January 28, 1998.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . WILFREDO

LLAGUNO, JUDY REYES @ FLORANTE REYES @ LORENZO PEDROSA
and a certain "ATIS" , accused, JUDY REYES @ FLORANTE REYES @
LORENZO PEDROSA , accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Astorga Macamay Rebong & Villacete for accused-appellant.

SYNOPSIS

Accused-appellant was the chief security and rattan controller at GF International

Export Inc., Cebu City. On February 16, 1987, accused-appellant Judy Reyes, together with
Wilfredo Llaguno and a certain "ATIS", were charged with Kidnapping with Murder. During
arraignment, accused Reyes and Llaguno pleaded not guilty. Accused "Atis" was not
arraigned since he was at large. The trial court rendered a decision dismissing the case
against accused Wilfredo Llaguno for lack of evidence to secure his conviction. Trial
against accused-appellant ensued. After trial, trial court nds the accused-appellant guilty
of Murder with the aggravating circumstances of employing means to weaken the defense
or means to insure or afford impunity, the use of a motor vehicle, commission of the
offense at nighttime and in an uninhabited place. The trial court did not nd him liable for
serious illegal detention because the victim was detained only for one day. EHCDSI

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder but found that the totality of
the evidence presented by the prosecution su ciently proved that appellant is guilty of the
crime of slight illegal detention penalized under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code. In
deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court is not con ned to the conviction of murder; rather,
the scope of its review encompasses the offense charged in the information, which the
prosecution sought to prove. When the information charges a complex crime and the
prosecution's evidence is insu cient to support a conviction for such complex crime or
for one of its component offenses, the accused may still be convicted of the other
component offense which may have been su ciently proven. The evidence presented by
the prosecution clearly established that appellant had in fact detained the victim without
authority to do so. The prosecution's witness, the company guard on duty, testi ed that he
witnessed the victim hanging by the arms in appellant's room. His testimony signi cantly
jibes with the physical evidence showing that the victim sustained multiple abrasions in
both arms. Furthermore, the unrebutted testimony of another prosecution witness, the
company manager, narrated that several employees called her up asking permission to go
home, because there was a man hanging at the back in one of the buildings of the
company. All these ineludibly prove that the victim was deprived of his liberty by appellant.
Besides, the trial court appreciated the act constituting slight illegal detention as a
qualifying circumstance, i.e., employing means to weaken the defense.

SYLLABUS

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; INFORMATION; WHEN AN
INFORMATION CHARGES A COMPLEX CRIME AND THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE IS
INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION THEREFORE, ACCUSED MAY STILL BE
CONVICTED OF OTHER COMPONENT OFFENSE PROVED. — When the information charges
a complex crime and the prosecution's evidence is insu cient to support a conviction for
such complex crime or for one of its component offenses, the accused may still be
convicted of the other component offense which may have been su ciently proven.
Conformably, when an accused who is charged with the complex crime of kidnapping with
murder is erroneously convicted to murder by the trial court, he may on appeal be relieved
from his erroneous conviction but still be found liable for slight illegal detention, because
the elements of the latter crime are necessarily included in the information for the complex
one. Since the information charged the complex crime of kidnapping with murder, the acts
constituting slight illegal detention were necessarily included in the information, and may
thus be validly taken into account in the resolution of the present appeal. Manifestly,
appellant was fairly apprised of the nature of the crime of slight illegal detention and
granted a fair opportunity to defend himself. aTICAc

2. ID.; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL

COURT, GENERALLY NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL. — Long settled in criminal
jurisprudence is the rule that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate
courts will not disturb the ndings of the trial court. This rule is justi ed by the fact that the
trial court is in a better position to decide the question. Having the advantage of directly
observing witnesses, "the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between
fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line
may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing
court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will a rm the truth or expose the
contrivance, like the angry ush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a
discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a
ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in
confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The
record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain or in
feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his
observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict."
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RULE SHOULD NOT APPLY WHERE THE JUDGE WHO PENNED
THE DECISION DID NOT PERSONALLY OBSERVE OR ASSESS ANY OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES. — The records reveal, however, that this doctrinal guide should not apply in
this instance, for the judge who penned the Decision did not personally hear the evidence
for the prosecution. Judge Jose P. Burgos, the ponente, started presiding at the trial only
on January 9, 1989 after the rst witness for the defense had been presented. Hence, he
did not personally observe or assess any of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, as an
exception to the rule, we meticulously reviewed the evidence to determine for ourselves
the credibility of the witnesses and the su ciency of the evidence to sustain the judgment
of conviction.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DENIAL CANNOT BE GIVEN GREATER WEIGHT THAN
AFFIRMATIVE DECLARATIONS. — Appellant's self-serving negative defense of denial
cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testi ed on
a rmative matters. Jurisprudence teaches us that "a rmative testimony has greater
value than a negative one, for the reason that he who denies a certain fact may not
remember exactly the circumstances on which he bases his denial."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; INCONSISTENCIES ON MINOR DETAILS REINFORCE RATHER
THAN WEAKEN CREDIBILITY; CASE AT BAR. — Insigni cant lapses do not taint the
credibility of the witnesses. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance, veracity
or weight of their declarations. In fact, these inconsistencies reinforce rather than weaken
their credibility, for they lessen the prospect of a rehearsed testimony. Au contraire, such
discrepancies serve to add credence and veracity to their categorical, straightforward and
spontaneous testimonies.
6. ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF; FINDING OF GUILT MUST REST ON THE
STRENGTH OF THE PROSECUTION'S OWN EVIDENCE. — The burden of proof in criminal
cases is on the prosecution. Thus, a nding of guilt must rest on the strength of the
prosecution's own evidence, not on the weakness or even absence of evidence for the
defense.
7. ID.; ID.; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; WHEN SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT. — A
conviction may rest purely on circumstantial evidence, provided the following requisites
concur: "(a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt."
8. ID.; ID.; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY; WHEN INCULPATORY FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CAPABLE OF TWO OR MORE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE
CONSISTENT WITH INNOCENCE OF ACCUSED AND THE OTHER WITH HIS GUILT, THEN
THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION. — In so doing, the lower
court transgressed the basic rule that "when the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more interpretations one of which is consistent with the innocence of
the accused and the other or others consistent with his guilt, then the evidence, in view of
the constitutional presumption of innocence, has not ful lled the test of moral certainty
and is thus insu cient to support a conviction." Parenthetically, when the prosecution's
case is anchored only on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must be
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime sought to be proven,
and no other. In addition, the circumstances under consideration must not support any
rational hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. Consequently, appellant
may not be held criminally liable for killing the victim.
9. CRIMINAL LAW; SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION; DETENTION FOR LESS THAN
FIVE (5) DAYS; CASE AT BAR. — The trial court did not nd appellant liable for serious
illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code on the ground that the period
of detention was less than ve days. This Court, however, nds that the totality of the
evidence presented by the prosecution su ciently proves beyond reasonable doubt that
appellant is guilty of the crime of slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised
Penal Code. The evidence presented by the prosecution, which was sustained by the trial
court, clearly established that appellant had in fact detained the victim without authority to
do so. Banzon testi ed that he witnessed the victim hanging by the arms in appellant's
room. Banzon's testimony signi cantly jibes with the physical evidence showing that the
victim sustained multiple abrasions in both arms. Furthermore, Dr. Ceniza narrated that
several employees called her up in the morning of February 5, 1987 asking for permission
to go home, because there was a "man hanging at the back in one of the buildings of GF
International." Dr. Ceniza's testimony was unrebutted. All these ineludibly prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the victim was deprived of his liberty by appellant.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 10. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; APPEAL; APPEAL OF CONVICTION
OF COMPLEX CRIME ENCOMPASSES THE OFFENSE CHARGED. — It must be emphasized
that appellant was charged with the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder, not
of two independent charges of kidnapping and murder. "In a complex crime, although two
or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the
law as well as in the conscience of the offender." Hence, in deciding this appeal, the Court
is not con ned to the conviction for murder; rather, the scope of its review encompasses
the offense charged in the information, which the prosecution sought to prove.
11. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AN APPEAL THROWS THE WHOLE CASE WIDE OPEN FOR
REVIEW. — It is a well-settled doctrine that an appeal "throws the whole case wide open for
review and empowers (even obligates) the appellate court to correct such errors as may
be found in the appealed judgment even if they have not been assigned." When an accused
appeals, he stands for a new trial of the whole case. STIcaE

DECISION

PANGANIBAN , J : p

When the information charges a complex crime and the prosecution's evidence is
insu cient to support a conviction for such complex crime or for one of its component
offenses, the accused may still be convicted of the other component offense which may
have been su ciently proven. Conformably, when an accused who is charged with the
complex crime of kidnapping with murder is erroneously convicted of murder by the trial
court, he may on appeal be relieved from his erroneous conviction but still be found liable
for slight illegal detention, because the elements of the latter crime are necessarily
included in the information for the complex one.
Statement of the Case
On appeal before this Court is the Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court 2 of Cebu
City, Branch XVII, in Criminal Case No. CBU 50414, dated July 25, 1989, convicting Judy
Reyes of murder.
Appellant Judy Reyes, together with two others, was charged in an Information
dated February 16, 1987, which reads as follows: 3
"The undersigned 3rd Asst. Fiscal of the City of Cebu 4 accuses BOY
LLAGUNO, JUDY REYES @ FLORANTE REYES and a certain "ATIS" of the crime of
KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER, committed as follows:

"That on or about the 4th day of February, 1987, at about 8:00 o'clock in
the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with rearm, conniving and
confederating together and mutually helping with (sic) one another, with
deliberate intent, did then and there kidnap and detain one Bienvenido Mercado,
and while under detention, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there suddenly and unexpectedly shot said
Bienvenido Mercado with said rearm, hitting him on the vital part of his body,
thereby inflicting upon him the following physical injuries(sic):

'GUNSHOT WOUND THROUGH AND THROUGH FROM FRONTAL

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 AREA OF THE HEAD TO OCCIPITAL AREA.'
as a consequence of which, Bienvenido Mercado died a few days later." 5

Arraigned on June 11, 1987, Accused Wilfredo (Boy) LLaguno and Judy Reyes,
assisted by Counsel Ernesto Amores, pleaded not guilty to the charge. 6 Accused "Atis"
was at large; hence, he was not arraigned.
A consolidated Motion to Remand Case for Reinvestigation and Motion to Quash
Warrant of Arrest alleging lack of preliminary investigation was led by Llaguno and Reyes
through Counsel Rolando M. Lim on February 23, 1987. 7 The motion was granted and the
records were returned to the City Fiscal's O ce. Subsequently, in an Order dated
September 23, 1987, the trial court, then presided by Judge Mario M. Dizon, dismissed the
case against Wilfredo "Boy" Llaguno: 8
"It appearing from the Reinvestigation Report & Recommendation dated
September 14, 1987, led by 3rd Asst. Fiscal Rodolfo V. Perez and duly approved
by the City Fiscal, that the State has no evidence to present against, and secure
the conviction of accused WILFREDO 'BOY' LLAGUNO, as prayed for, the instant
case against said accused is ordered DISMISSED, and, accordingly, he is ordered
immediately released, unless he is also detained for another cause. . ."

On October 26, 1987, Fiscal Generosa Labra requested a resetting of the case
because no witness for the prosecution was available. Atty. Vicente Cabahug, the
appellant's counsel, objected on the ground that the remaining accused, Judy Reyes, was
detained, adding that a previous warning had already been given to the prosecution in the
last hearing during which it also failed to present any witness. Thus, the trial court
provisionally dismissed the case: 9
"In view of this, the instant case as against JUDY REYES is hereby ordered
provisionally dismissed. The accused Judy Reyes, @ Florante Reyes is hereby
ordered released from the BBRC 1 0 unless he is also detained for another case."

Two days after, on October 29, 1987, Atty. Ramon B. Ceniza 11 representing the
Citizens Legal Assistance Society of the Philippines (CLASP) as private prosecutor, and
with the "conforme" of Asst. Fiscal Labra, filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying for the
reinstatement of the case against the appellant. 12 In an Order dated November 2, 1987,
the trial court granted the motion and trial thereafter ensued. After the evidence from both
parties had been presented, the assailed Decision penned by Judge Jose P. Burgos was
promulgated, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: 13
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, this Court nds the
accused Judy Reyes alias Florante Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not of
the complex crime as charged in the information but of the offense of MURDER
de ned and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the
aggravating circumstances of employing means to weaken the defense or means
to insure or afford impunity, the use of a motor vehicle, commission of the
offense at nighttime and in an uninhabited place and sentence is hereby rendered
ordering the accused to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with the
accessory penalties under the law, to indemnify the heirs of Bienvenido Mercado
the sum of Thirty [Thousand] (P30,000.00) Pesos and [to] pay the costs."

On September 26, 1989, the accused through Counsel Cabahug led a Notice
erroneously appealing the judgment to the Court of Appeals. 1 4 Correcting the lapse, 1 5 the
Court of Appeals in a letter dated December 6, 1989 1 6 forwarded the records of the case
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 to this Court. After this Court's receipt of all pleadings and documents, the case is now
ripe for resolution. 1 7
The Facts
According to the Prosecution
The solicitor general's summary of the facts is as follows:
"On February 5, 1987 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning, the appellant Judy
Reyes, chief security and rattan controller at GF International Export Inc., Cebu
City, informed Tomas Banzon, the company duty guard, that he caught a thief on
February 4, 1987 (TSN, November 24, 1987, p. 26). Appellant then took Banzon to
his room where a person named Bienvenido Mercado was found tied to a wooden
post in the room. Appellant told Banzon that Mercado was the thief he caught
(TSN, November 24, 1987, p. 28) LLphil

At 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 6, 1987, Dr. Jovita Ceniza,

manager of the company, called up Banzon by phone inquiring if there was any
unusual incident. Banzon replied that he would give a report after two (2) hours,
and when appellant learned of this, he warned Banzon to keep quiet about
Mercado's detention or be killed (TSN, November 24, 1987, p. 31). Appellant at the
time was armed with a .45 caliber pistol (TSN, November 24, 1987, p. 31). When
Dr. Ceniza went to the company's o ce later in the afternoon, she met the
appellant who told her it was all nished and that he was going to Santo Niño to
confess as he had killed someone (TSN, December 7, 1987, p. 28).

At 9:00 o'clock in the morning of February 7, 1987 Banzon inquired from

appellant as to the whereabouts of Mercado and appellant replied that he already
disposed of him (TSN, November 24, 1987, p. 33). Banzon, at that time, noticed
that appellant's arm had teeth marks, and when Banzon inquired as to the cause
thereof, appellant replied that he was hit by a piece of wood (TSN, November 24,
1987, p. 33).
Also on February 7, 1987, the body of Bienvenido Mercado was found by
the police in Sogod, Cebu, which showed a gunshot wound on the forehead and
multiple abrasions in the arms and body (TSN, November 24, 1987, p. 11)." 1 8

In the place where they found the body, the police also found an empty shell of a .45
caliber bullet. 1 9
According to Banzon, on February 5, 1987, he noted that the company-owned
Datsun pickup was still sporting its gray corduroy seat covers, but on February 7, the seat
covers were gone. Banzon asked Cirilo Eric Medico, the guard who relieved him, what
happened to the seat covers, and Medico replied that they had been taken by one Boy
Saragoza to have them washed as they had been bloodstained. Feeling anxious and
suspicious, he called up the Security Agency and asked for permission to take a leave of
absence on February 8. 2 0
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, appellant narrates the facts as follows:
"1. Appellant is of legal age, single and a resident of GF International
Export, Inc. compound located at H. Abellana Street, Basak, Mandaue City.
1.1. At the time of his arrest, appellant was employed as a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Rattan Controller of GF International Export, Inc.

2. Sometime evening of 4 February 1987, one Bienvenido Mercado,

while in the presence of his mother and common-law wife, was invited by Atis and
a certain Alex to join a drinking spree with the latter.
2.1. At the time of the aforesaid invitation, the aforenamed
Bienvenido Mercado was wearing a blue t-shirt and an orange short pants.
3. Unfortunately, however, Bienvenido Mercado was last seen alive
during the aforementioned invitation.
4. In the meantime, on the same evening of 4 February 1987, appellant
was, all the while, within the premises of GF International Export, Inc.
5. Moreover, at around 6:00 o'clock in the morning of the following
day, or more appropriately, on 5 February 1987, appellant, from his sleeping
quarter, proceeded to take a bath at a place near the guardhouse of GF
International Export, Inc. and, thereafter, proceeded to dress up and prepare for
work on the said day.
6. On 7 February 1987, at around 5:43 o'clock in the afternoon, the
body of a dead person and an empty caliber .45 shell were recovered.
7. After the aforestated recovery, a Post-Mortem Examination was
immediately conducted.
8. While in his hut, appellant was arrested for Illegal Possession Of
Firearm on 12 February 1987.
9. On 15 February 1987, the previously-mentioned recovered body was
identified to be that of forenamed Bienvenido Mercado." 2 1

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court held the appellant liable for murder, stating:
"It is clear from the established evidence on record that after the victim was
detained by the accused for a day in his rest house at the compound of GF
International, he brought the victim with the use of Datsun pick-up to Sogod, Cebu
for salvaging in the evening of February 5, 1987, the day when accused ordered
for no overtime work in the GF premises to better perpetuate the offense of killing
the victim in Sogod, Cebu with hands tied using a .45 caliber pistol." 2 2

Although herein appellant was charged with "kidnapping with murder," the trial court
convicted him only of "murder de ned and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code with the aggravating circumstances of employing means to weaken the
defense or means to insure or afford impunity, the use of a motor vehicle, commission of
the offense at nighttime and in an uninhabited place." 2 3 The trial court, however, did not
nd him liable for serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code
because the victim was detained only for one day.
The Issues
In his brief, appellant imputes the following "errors" to the trial court, viz:
"I.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 The trial court erred in lending credence to the testimonial evidence of the
prosecution.
II.
The trial court erred in holding that the testimonies of appellant and his
witnesses were mere denials.
III.
Therefore, the trial court erred in nding the existence in this case of
circumstances sufficient to sustain a conviction."

The foregoing boil down to the following issues: (1) the credibility of witnesses and
(2) the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is partly meritorious. The Court finds appellant liable only for slight illegal
detention, not for murder or kidnapping with murder.
First Issue : Credibility of witnesses
Long settled in criminal jurisprudence is the rule that when the issue is one of
credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the ndings of the trial court. This
rule is justi ed by the fact that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question.
24 Having the advantage of directly observing witnesses, "the trial judge is able to detect
that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the
impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs
that will a rm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry ush of an insisted
assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant
answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have
darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has
nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in
shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can
see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned
verdict." 25
The records reveal, however, that this doctrinal guide should not apply in this
instance, for the judge who penned the Decision did not personally hear the evidence for
the prosecution. Judge Jose P. Burgos, the ponente, started presiding at the trial only on
January 9, 1989 2 6 after the rst witness for the defense had been presented. 2 7 Hence, he
did not personally observe or assess any of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, as an
exception to the rule, we meticulously reviewed the evidence to determine for ourselves
the credibility of the witnesses and the su ciency of the evidence to sustain the judgment
of conviction.
Buttressing his defense of denial, appellant propounds several challenges to the
credibility of the prosecution account. He maintains that Banzon was in no position to
witness the alleged detention. He also denies that he had con ded to Banzon and to Dr.
Ceniza that the victim was in his custody and that he intended to "salvage" or kill him. He
posits further that there were several inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses. We will deal with each of these contentions.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 In his Brief, appellant assails the testimony of Banzon that he saw the victim hanging
by his hands at eight o'clock in the evening of February 5, 1987 and for thirty minutes
thereafter. He contends that Banzon was "in no position to have witnessed the purported
detention" of Victim Mercado, because Banzon's work shift ended at eight o'clock in the
evening and the endorsement of his duties to the relief guard took only a few minutes. 2 8
We are not convinced. It was not proven that Witness Banzon left at exactly eight
o'clock that evening, or right after he had turned over his responsibilities to the relieving
guard. In fact, a reasonable allowance of time may be considered in the turnover of
responsibility by one guard to another; Banzon could still have been inside the GF premises
at 8:30 in the evening of February 5, 1987. Banzon himself testi ed that he was invited to
appellant's room at 8:10 that evening. 2 9 Thus, we nd appellant's attack on Witness
Banzon's allegation that he was at the GF premises on February 5, 1987 to be insignificant.
Appellant further contends that it is unbelievable that he would con de to Banzon
the following: that he had detained Victim Mercado, that he had intended to "salvage" the
latter, or that he had already done so. He maintains that it has not been shown that Banzon
enjoyed his con dence. 3 0 He raises the same arguments in respect to the revelations he
allegedly made to Dr. Ceniza. He states that he and Dr. Ceniza were already at odds with
each other prior to February 1987. 3 1
It must be stressed, however, that during the trial, appellant never denied the
statements of Banzon. In spite of the damaging accusations of Banzon, appellant, on the
stand, did not dispute the former's presence at the GF premises. Only in his appeal brief
did he do so. We nd appellant's denial a mere afterthought, and thus undeserving of
credence. The testimony of Banzon clearly shows appellant's penchant for boasting: 3 2
"Atty. Ceniza:

Q. What transpired on the occasion of your meeting of [sic] the accused?

A. He said they were able to catch a robber in the evening of February 4 but I
did not believe him because I have not seen (the robber).
Q. What else transpired in your conversation:
A. No more.
Q. In the evening of February 5, 1987 what did you do?
A. About 8:10 in the evening of February 5 he brought me to his room.

Atty. Ceniza:
Q. Who is that he?
Witness:
A. Lorenzo Pedrosa.
Q. That means Judy Reyes?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the purpose of Judy Reyes in bringing you to his room?
A. He showed me the person that he hanged. He was tied in both hands and
raised upwards to a wooden brace of the house.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q. What was the tenor of your conversation if any to Lorenzo or between
Lorenzo and you?

A. I asked him why he brought this [sic] here. He told me that is [sic] a prison
cell for those who have committed a crime.

Q. Where was the room of Judy Reyes?

A. Inside the premises of the company GF International Inc.
Q. Was that all that transpired in your conversation on that occasion?
A. I asked why he brought this person here and he answered me that Boy
Saragoza will come back for him and I asked him what has he done and
he said, he is a robber. He has stolen something.
Atty. Ceniza:
Q. Was that all that transpired in your conversation?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What else?
A. I asked that person who was hanged. I asked him what was his name and
he said his nickname was Ben and his full name is Bienvenido Mercado
and he is a resident of Tabo-an and a 'cargador.'"

The testimony of Dr. Ceniza confirmed Banzon's account that appellant detained and
planned to kill the victim. As in the case of Banzon, Ceniza's testimony was not objected to
by appellant. Thus: 3 3
"Atty. Ceniza:
Q. And what was the answer of Lorenzo (Pedrosa or Judy Reyes)?

A. And then he said, you know that if I had to narrate (it) all it will take more
than one hour.

Q. Please limit you answer. Particularly, what Lorenzo told you about?
A. He asked permission[;] he wanted to use the Datsun because he was going
to salvage a man. He wanted to nish him before the next day. At this
point I plead [sic] with him, "Please don't do it." And I said, I told him that
Dong if that is your problem, I will help you. Just don't 'salvage.'
Q. And what did Lorenzo told [sic] you?
A. He said that he was going to use the Datsun to salvage a man because he
said he wanted to nish him before the next day. At this point I said, 'Dong
don't do that. If you have a problem I will go there and I will talk to you.' To
the extent I also told him, 'We will give money. I will not do anything to you.'
But he said (that) he has to nish this man because if the man will not be
eliminated he will be in hot water. It was a very long conversation.
Atty. Ceniza:
Q. By the way, what did Lorenzo tell you about this man hanging in one of the
buildings of the company?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 A. He said he is [sic] a thief. So I said, 'But why did you have to bring him
there?' and he said, 'He has stolen something.' I said, 'Why did you not ask
the assistance of the security guard instead of you yourself handling that
fellow?' Then he did not say anything. So I shifted [the topic], I told him 'I
will be the one to take care if he will just release him.' He said, 'No, I will
have to salvage him.'"

Furthermore, appellant's self-serving negative defense of denial cannot be given

greater weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testi ed on a rmative
matters. 3 4 Jurisprudence teaches us that "a rmative testimony has greater value than a
negative one, for the reason that he who denies a certain fact may not remember exactly
the circumstances on which he bases his denial." 3 5
Appellant also cites inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution. Banzon
insisted that Victim Mercado was in yellow short pants when he last saw the latter alive;
when recovered, Mercado was in orange short pants. 3 6 Appellant further points out the
following inconsistencies: there was a discrepancy in the names of those who invited
Mercado to a drinking session; the duty shift of Banzon was actually 8:00 p.m. to midnight;
appellant was arrested on February 11, 1987, not February 12, 1987; and Banzon called up
the security agency regarding the matter of bloodstains on February 7, 1987, not February
14, 1987 as testified to by him. 3 7
Again, we hold that these insigni cant lapses do not taint the credibility of the
witnesses. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to
minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance, veracity or weight of their
declarations. In fact, these inconsistencies reinforce rather than weaken their credibility,
for they lessen the prospect of a rehearsed testimony. Au contraire, such discrepancies
serve to add credence and veracity to their categorical, straightforward and spontaneous
testimonies. 3 8
Appellant next assails the credibility of Dr. Ceniza. He alleges that Dr. Ceniza's
behavior towards the incident was surprising, for upon learning of the presence of the
victim inside the company premises, she did her usual rounds at the hospital instead of
checking on the unusual occurrence. 3 9
Admittedly, Company President Ceniza's reaction at a time of crisis is open to
criticism. However, this does not lessen the weight of her testimony. Different people react
differently to startling occurrences. In any event, she did testify that she kept in touch with
the personnel at GF at that time. LLphil

Second Issue : Sufficiency of the Prosecution's Evidence

In deciding this appeal, we emphasize that the burden of proof in criminal cases is
on the prosecution. Thus, a nding of guilt must rest on the strength of the prosecution's
own evidence, not on the weakness or even absence of evidence for the defense. 4 0
Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient
to Convict Appellant of Murder?
Because there were no eyewitnesses to the killing, the trial court's resort to
circumstantial evidence was inevitable. A conviction may rest purely on circumstantial
evidence, provided the following requisites concur: 4 1
"(a) There is more than one circumstance;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a

conviction beyond reasonable doubt." 4 2

Hence, the Supreme Court has held:

". . . a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be
upheld only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which
leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, as the guilty person, that is, the circumstances proved
must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis
except that of guilty." 43

Let us consider the chain of circumstances proven by the prosecution. Banzon

testi ed that appellant detained Mercado in his (appellant's) room by tying his hands to a
brace in the ceiling with the apparent intention of "salvaging" or killing the victim, a
suspected robber. Appellant threatened Banzon and warned him not to report the incident
to Dr. Ceniza. Appellant took the Datsun pickup on February 6, 1987 and claimed the next
day that he had already "disposed" of the man. Banzon saw the Datsun pickup stained with
blood. He also noticed traces of blood on the canal near the parked Datsun. Appellant
himself asked permission from Dr. Ceniza to use the pickup in order to "salvage" a man. He
later told Dr. Ceniza that he was going to confess because he was feeling bad after he had
killed a man. 4 4
These circumstances, at rst glance, may create a strong suspicion that appellant
did commit the alleged killing. Nevertheless, a closer examination reveals that the facts
from which this inference was derived do not prove beyond reasonable doubt that
appellant was the author of the killing.
Appellant draws attention to the con ict between the testimonies of Dr. Ceniza and
Banzon 4 5 regarding the time when the victim was taken out of the GF premises and the
time when he was killed. According to Dr. Ceniza, appellant told her on February 6, 1987
that he was going to confession in the afternoon because he was feeling bad. Dr. Ceniza
took appellant's statement to mean that the victim had already been taken out of the GF
premises and killed. Banzon, on the other hand, testi ed that appellant told him in the
morning of that same day that the victim was still in the company premises. Furthermore,
he testi ed that it was only around four o'clock in the afternoon of February 6, 1987 when
appellant brought the pickup out of the premises of GF. In other words, Banzon's
testimony sought to establish that the victim was taken out of the GF premises after office
hours on February 6, 1987. 4 6 The inconsistencies in their testimonies are evident from the
following: 4 7
"Atty. Ceniza:

Q. How about on the following day, February 6, 1987, do you recall anything
unusual that happened relative to that man hanging behind the GF
International Building?
[Dr. Ceniza]

A. The rst thing that I know that one of the supervisors told me that the man
was no longer there. On the 6th I went to the o ce and proceeded upstairs.
Then when I was upstairs we met, Lorenzo and I, upstairs and he followed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 up (sic) and then he told me it is all nished. So, I said then I asked him,
'What about the rattan?' because we have to look for rattan. Then he
followed me to my o ce and then I sat down my o ce and he sat in one
of the chairs and he said, will go to Sto. Nono (sic) because I am going to
confess. Because I feel bad. That is the way when you have killed. This
afternoon I will go to Sto. Niño tp (sic) confess.'"

Based on the above, appellant was assumed to have killed Mercado in the morning
of February 6, 1987. However, this was contradicted by Banzon: 48
"Atty. Ceniza:

Q. That was February 5 in the evening. On February 6, 1987 in the morning do

you recall any unusual incident that happened?

A. Yes, sir. On the following day that was February 6, I was already on duty at
8:00 o'clock and after a while he (appellant) about 9:00 o'clock Lorenzo
Pedorsa (sic) passed and I asked him, 'Boss, is the man still there?' and he
said, 'Yes.'(sic) because Boy Saragoza did not come back for him.'
Atty. Ceniza:

Q. What else transpired in your conversation?

A. I asked if it is not dangerous for him and he said it is not.

Q. What else transpired?

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Was there any other unusual incident that happened in the evening of
February 6?

A. I don't know anything.

Q. How about the following day, February 7, 1987, do you recall anything
unusual that happened?

A. On February 7 when I was on duty again Lorenzo passed by about 9:00

o'clock in the guardhouse. And then I asked Lorenzo what happened to
him, and he said, 'I had already disposed of him.' And I said, What
'happened to your arm? There is showing that it was bitten by human
teeth.'"

This Court cannot rest easy with this discrepancy. Such glaring and material
inconsistency creates a reasonable doubt whether it was appellant himself who took
Mercado, the victim, out of the GF premises and consummated the killing.
The two testimonies are clearly inconsistent. It is possible to conjecture that the
victim was killed between the time when Banzon spoke with Appellant Reyes that morning
of February 6, 1987 about 9:00 a.m. and the time when appellant told Dr. Ceniza that he
would go to confession in the afternoon of that day because he felt guilty about having
killed the victim. However, we nd this thought di cult to accept, because the prosecution
failed to establish the time when Dr. Ceniza talked to appellant. Furthermore, from the
supposition of the prosecution, it would follow that the victim was killed inside the GF
premises and that, after o ce hours, the body was transported from the premises with
the use of the Datsun. It is undisputed, however, that a spent .45 caliber shell was found
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 beside the body, indicating that the victim was shot in the place where his body was found,
i.e., outside the GF premises. Clearly, there are unexplained missing links in the prosecution
account. Where was the victim killed? Inside or outside the GF premises? Was he dead or
alive when his body was taken out of the premises? Who took the victim out of the GF
premises? Was the Datsun pickup used in transporting the victim from the premises?
Where was appellant between the time he talked to Banzon and the time he talked to Dr.
Ceniza on February 6, 1987? Who actually killed Mercado?
In the light of these unexplained questions, the trial court erred in nonetheless
holding that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution shows, beyond
moral certainty, that appellant was guilty of murder. In so doing, the lower court
transgressed the basic rule that "when the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of
the accused and the other or others consistent with his guilt, then the evidence, in view of
the constitutional presumption of innocence, has not ful lled the test of moral certainty
and is thus insu cient to support a conviction." 4 9 Parenthetically, when the prosecution's
case is anchored only on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must be
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime sought to be proven,
and no other. In addition, the circumstances under consideration must not support any
rational hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. 5 0 Consequently,
appellant may not be held criminally liable for killing the victim.
Kidnapping Was Sufficiently Proven
The trial court did not nd appellant liable for serious illegal detention under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code on the ground that the period of detention was less than
ve days: This Court, however, nds that the totality of the evidence presented by the
prosecution su ciently proves beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the
crime of slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 268 of
the Code provides:
"ART. 268. Slight illegal detention. — The penalty of reclusion temporal
shall be imposed upon any private individual who shall commit the crimes
described in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated therein. The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone
who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.
cdasia

If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or

detained within three days from the commencement of the detention, without
having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal
proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding 700 pesos."

The evidence presented by the prosecution, which was sustained by the trial court,
clearly established that appellant had in fact detained the victim without authority to do so.
Banzon testi ed that he witnessed the victim hanging by the arms in appellant's room.
Banzon's testimony signi cantly jibes with the physical evidence showing that the victim
sustained multiple abrasions in both arms. 5 1 Furthermore, Dr. Ceniza narrated that several
employees called her up in the morning of February 5, 1987 asking for permission to go
home, because there was a "man hanging at the back in one of the buildings of GF
International." 5 2 Dr. Ceniza's testimony was urrebutted. All these ineludibly prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the victim was deprived of his liberty by appellant.
It must be emphasized that appellant was charged with the special complex crime
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of kidnapping with murder, not of two independent charges of kidnapping and murder. "In
a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only
one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender." 5 3 Hence, in
deciding this appeal, the Court is not con ned to the conviction for murder; rather, the
scope of its review encompasses the offense charged in the information, which the
prosecution sought to prove. It is a well-settled doctrine that an appeal "throws the whole
case wide open for review and empowers (even obligates) the appellate court to correct
such errors as may be found in the appealed judgment even if they have not been
assigned." 5 4 When an accused appeals, he stands for a new trial of the whole case. 5 5
Since the information charged the complex crime of kidnapping with murder, the acts
constituting slight illegal detention were necessarily included in the information, and may
thus be validly taken into account in the resolution of the present appeal. Manifestly,
appellant was fairly apprised of the nature of the crime of slight illegal detention and
granted a fair opportunity to defend himself. At this juncture, we deem it signi cant to
reiterate that the trial court merely made a nding that appellant could not be convicted of
serious illegal detention for the sole reason that the victim's detention did not exceed ve
days. 5 6 The court a quo, however, found that appellant illegally detained the victim for at
least one day, 5 7 which act by itself constitutes slight illegal detention. Besides, the trial
court appreciated the act constituting slight illegal detention as a qualifying circumstance,
i.e., employing means to weaken the defense. While we nd no proof beyond reasonable
doubt to sustain a conviction for murder, the records indisputably prove culpability for
slight illegal detention.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is MODIFIED. Appellant Judy Reyes is
hereby CONVICTED of slight illegal detention and SENTENCED to the intermediate penalty
of ten years of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of
reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. He is acquitted of murder. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Romero, Melo and Francisco, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Penned by Judge Jose P. Burgos.

2. Rollo, pp. 15-26.
3. Rollo, p. 5.
4. Rodolfo V. Perez.

5. It was not proven that Bienvenido Mercado, after being shot "through and through" his
head, was still able to survive a few days after the shooting.

6. Record, p. 54.
7. Ibid., pp. 13-19.
8. Ibid., p. 77.
9. Record, p. 95.

10. Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center located at Lahug, Cebu City.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 11. Husband of one of the witnesses for the prosecution, Dr. Jovita Ceniza.
12. Record, pp. 96-97.

13. Rollo, pp. 25-26.

14. Record, p. 269.
15. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 122.

16. Rollo, p. 2.
17. The case was deemed submitted for resolution upon receipt by this Court on February
6, 1996 of the confirmation of appellant's confinement at the NBP.

18. Appellee's Brief, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 126-127.

19. Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 19.

20. TSN, November 24, 1987, pp. 33-35.

21. Appellant's Brief filed by Atty. Bert M. Vega, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 58-59.
22. Decision, p. 11; Rollo, p. 25.

23. Ibid., pp. 11-12; Rollo, pp. 25-26.

24. People vs. So, 247 SCRA 708, 716, August 28, 1995, per Kapunan, J .
25. People vs. De Guzman, 188 SCRA 405, 410-411, August 7, 1990, per Cruz, J .
26. Records, p. 165.
27. Ibid., p. 156.
28. Rollo, pp. 62-63.
29. TSN, November 24, 1987, p. 26.
30. Rollo, p. 63.
31. Ibid., p. 68.
32. TSN, November 24, 1987, pp. 26-28.

33. TSN, December 7, 1987, pp. 25-26.

34. People vs. Ballagan, 247 SCRA 535, 547, August 23, 1995, per Romero, J .
35. People vs. Palomar, G.R. No. 108183-85, p. 18, August 21, 1997, per Panganiban, J .;
citing People vs. Acuña, 248 SCRA 668, 667, October 2, 1995, per Romero, J .

36. People vs. Mendoza, 236 SCRA 666, 673, September 22, 1994, per Regalado, J .
37. Rollo, pp. 63-64.
38. Ibid., pp. 70-71.
39. Rollo, p. 67.
40. See People vs. Paguntalan, 242 SCRA 753, 779, March 27, 1995, per Melo, J.
41. People vs. Fulinara, 247 SCRA 28, 43-44, August 3, 1995, per Romero, J .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 42. Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court.

43. People vs. Binamira, G.R. No. 110397, pp. 17-18, August 14, 1997, per Panganiban, J ;
citing People vs. Adofina, 239 SCRA 67, 76-77, December 8, 1994. See also People vs.
Payawal, 247 SCRA 424, 431, August 16, 1995, per Vitug, J .
44. TSN, December 7, 1987, p. 28.

45. See Appellant's Brief, pp. 15-16; Rollo, pp. 68-69.

46. Rollo, pp. 68-69.
47. TSN, December 7, 1987, pp. 27-28.

48. TSN, November 24, 1987, pp. 29-33.

49. People vs. Agustin, 246 SCRA 673, 681, July 18, 1995, per Regalado, J .
50. See People vs. Casingal, 243 SCRA 37, 44, March 29, 1995, per Quiason, J .
51. See testimony of Dr. Romeo Pregado who conducted the post mortem examination on
the deceased, TSN, p. 6, November 24, 1987.

52. See TSN, pp. 20-21, December 7, 1987.

53. Reyes, J ., The Revised Penal Code, p. 653, Book One (1993).

54. People vs. Alejandro, 225 SCRA 347, 350 August 17, 1993, per Cruz, J .
55. Francisco, Rules on Criminal Procedure, p. 496.
56. Decision, p. 11; Rollo, p. 25.

57. Ibid.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com