People v. Norada

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 849 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 849
him are made or; (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor,
female or a public official.
Same; Same; The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the
actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of
the accused to effect it.—“The essence of the crime of kidnapping is
the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the
intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the
imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in
whatever form and for whatever length of time.”
Remedial Law; Evidence; Speculations; Courts should not
indulge in speculation no matter how strong the guilt of the
accused.—The totality of the prosecution’s evidence failed to
sufficiently establish the offense of kidnapping in this case. There
was no concrete evidence whatsoever to establish or from which it
can be inferred that appellant and his cohorts intended to actually
deprive the victim of his liberty for some time and for some
purpose. There was also no evidence that they have thoroughly
G.R. No. 218958. December 13, 2017.* planned the kidnapping of the victim. There was lack of motive to
resort in kidnapping the victim for they were bent to kidnap his
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. friend Truck. The fact alone of waiting for the victim to fall asleep
EDILBERTO NORADA y HARDER, and AGUSTIN SEVA and then and there tying his hands and feet, based on Norada’s
y LACBANES, accused, account, was not determinant of intent to actually detain the
victim or deprive his liberty. As such, the trial court was
EUGENE VILLANUEVA y CAÑALES, accused-appellant. indulging in speculation when it held that the victim “will either
be taken away or simply be kept in the hotel and thereafter
Criminal Law; Kidnapping; Elements of.—Kidnapping is ransom will be demanded from the Canadian Ray Truck for his
defined and punished under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code release.” Courts should not indulge in speculation no matter how
(RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7659. The crime has strong the guilt of the accused. Hence since the offense of
kidnapping was not sufficiently established, the trial court erred
_______________ in holding appellant liable for attempted kidnapping.
Criminal Law; Justifying Circumstances; Self-Defense; Before
* * Designated additional member per Raffle dated October 18, 2017.
the plea of self-defense may be appreciated, appellant must prove
* FIRST DIVISION.
by

75
76
VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 75

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Villanueva
the following elements: (1) the accused is a private individual;

(2) the accused kidnaps or detains another or in any manner clear and convincing evidence the following indispensable
deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the appellant.—
detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by There is no dispute that the victim was killed. Appellant however,
simulating public authority; (c) any serious physical injuries are invokes the justifying circumstance of self-defense to exculpate
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill himself. By invoking self-defense, appellant in effect admitted his
part in killing the victim. However, before the plea of self-defense
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/20
may be appreciated, appellant must prove by clear and convincing when there is no evidence that the accused had resolved to
evidence the following indispensable elements: (a) unlawful commit the crime prior to the moment of the killing or that the
aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of death of the victim was the result of premeditation, calculation or
the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of reflection.” In the present case, the mode or manner of the attack
sufficient provocation on the part of the appellant. “In self-defense on the victim did not appear to have been consciously and
and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is a primordial deliberately adopted.
element, a condition sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression Same; Conspiracy; Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts
attributed to the victim is established, self-defense and defense of of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime
strangers are unavailing because there would be nothing to suggesting concerted action and unity of purpose among them.—
repel.” We find that conspiracy in killing the victim was duly established.
Same; Qualifying Circumstances; Treachery; To constitute “Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before,
treachery, two (2) conditions must concur: (1) the employment of during and after the commission of the crime suggesting
means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the concerted action and unity of purpose among them.” In the case at
offender’s safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of bar, the evidence showed that appellant did not prevent Norada
the offended party; and (2) the offender’s deliberate or conscious from striking the head of the victim with the piece of wood. When
choice of the means, method or manner of execution.—“Treachery the latter fell unconscious with blood oozing from his head,
cannot be presumed [for] the circumstances surrounding the appellant even helped in wrapping the body with a bedsheet and
[killing] must he proved as indubitably as the crime itself.” loaded him on the Suzuki multicab. To completely end the life of
Treachery is present ‘‘when the offender commits any of the the victim, they did not bring the victim to the hospital despite his
crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in still being alive but instead, dumped the body in a sugarcane field
the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure at Villa Angela Subdivision. These acts of appellant during and
its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense after the killing indubitably show that he acted in concert for a
which the offended party might make.” “To constitute treachery, joint purpose and a community of interest with his co-accused in
two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means, killing the victim. Thus, applying the basic principle in conspiracy
methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender’s that “the act of one is the act of all,” appellant is guilty as a
safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the coconspirator and regardless of his participation, is liable as
offended party; and (2) the offender’s deliberate or conscious coprincipal.
choice of the means, method or manner of execution.” Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Abuse of Superior
Same; There must be a conscious and deliberate adoption of Strength; The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
the mode of attack for a specific purpose.—Indeed, the victim was strength is “present if the accused purposely uses excessive force
struck on the head by Norada with a piece of wood which resulted out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person
to his death. However, the records is bereft of any evidence that attacked, or if there is notorious inequality of forces between the
appellant and his co-accused made some preparation to kill the victim and aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of superior
victim in such strength.”—The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength is “present if the accused purposely uses excessive force
out of proportion to the means of

77

78
VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 77
a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or to make
it impossible or hard for the victim to defend himself. In People v.
Antonio, 335 SCRA 646 (2000), it was held that “[i]t is not only defense available to the person attacked, or if there is
the sudden attack that qualifies a killing into murder. There must notorious inequality of forces between the victim and aggressor,
be a conscious and deliberate adoption of the mode of attack for a and the latter takes advantage of superior strength.” However, as
specific purpose.” Similarly, in People v. Catbagan, 423 SCRA 535 none of the prosecution witnesses saw how the killing was
(2004), the Court ruled that “[t]reachery cannot be considered

perpetrated, abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated in City, Branch 50, convicting him of the complex crime of
this case. attempted Kidnapping with Murder.
Same; Homicide; Penalties; Under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), the penalty prescribed for the crime of homicide The Antecedent Facts
is reclusion temporal.—Considering that none of the
circumstances alleged in the information, i.e., treachery and In the afternoon of February 12, 2004, Police Inspector
abuse of superior strength was proven during the trial, the same Bonifer Gotas (PI Gotas), Precinct Commander of Precinct
cannot be appreciated to qualify the killing to murder. Appellant VI, Bacolod City received a report that a dead person was
can only be held liable for homicide. Under Article 249 of the RPC, recovered in a sugarcane field at Villa Angela Subdivision.
the penalty prescribed for the crime of homicide is reclusion The deceased was identified as Reggie Pacil y Nojas
temporal. In view of the absence of any mitigating circumstance (victim), a 42-year-old bachelor and was the school
and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of principal of the Alijis Elementary School in Valladolid,
the sentence should be within the range of reclusion temporal in Bacolod City.
its medium period which has a duration of fourteen (14) years, During the investigation, PI Gotas was informed that
eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and tour the victim was killed at the Taculing Court Apartelle. An
(4) months, while the minimum should be within the range of inquiry from a roomboy revealed that in the evening of
prisión mayor which has a duration of six (6) years and one (1) February 11, 2004, three men onboard a Suzuki multicab
day to twelve (12) years. Thus, appellant should suffer an rented and spent some time at Room 106 of the apartelle.
indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years of prisión mayor, as PI Gotas inspected the room and saw bloodstains scattered
minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion inside and on its wall. He was informed that one of the
temporal, as maximum. occupants of the room was Edilberto Norada y Harder
(Norada). Days after the incident, Norada was arrested
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals. followed by appellant Villanueva and Agustin Seva y
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Lacbanes (Seva).
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Rosalina Pacil (Rosalina), mother of the victim, testified
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant. that the latter received a monthly salary of P12,837.00 as
school principal. Rosalina further testified that appellant
DEL CASTILLO, J.: was a friend of her son. Appellant frequently visited their
house since the victim finances the former’s fruit buying
Eugene Villanueva y Cañales (appellant) seeks in the and selling business. On February 11, 2004, appellant was
present appeal, the reversal of the January 14, 2015 in their house waiting for the arrival of the victim. The
Decision1 of victim arrived early in the evening with a Canadian friend,
Ray Truck (Truck).
_______________
_______________

1 CA Rollo, pp. 213-231; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine 2 Id., at pp. 15-38; penned by Judge Roberto S. Chiongson.
Azcarraga-Jacob, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L.
Hernando and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.

80

79
VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 79
People vs. Villanueva Not long enough, the victim and appellant left, leaving
behind Truck. That was the last time Rosalina saw her son
the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00686 alive.
which affirmed with modifications the July 21, 2006 In his Post-Mortem Autopsy findings, Dr. Eli Cong (Dr.
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod Cong), the medico-legal officer of the Bacolod City Health

Office, found lacerated wound and contusion hematoma on Reggie Pacil rented a room in the Taculing Court
the body of the victim and gave the cause of death as Apartelle and said that they will wait there for Pacil’s other
“Uncal Erniation, secondary to contusion hemorrhage brain friends who will be joining them. As they were waiting, the
parietal area, a secondary. Fracture with laceration of the two of them drank beer while Norada stayed outside of the
skull parietal area, head, secondary to trauma by blunt room. At about 2:00 in the morning, the friends of Pacil was
instrument head, contusion hemorrhage, multiple”3 which (sic) not able to arrive, so Villanueva x x x decided to go out
could have been caused by a blunt instrument like a piece alone. Pacil, however, would not allow him to leave.
of wood. Villanueva x x x at that time x x x was beginning to realize
Appellant admitted that he was a close friend of the that Pacil was intending to use him. When he held Pacil’s
victim. His narration of the event which served as his hand to enable him to leave, he slipped and fell on the floor.
defense and synthesized by the courts below is as follows: Pacil placed himself over him and as they struggled,
Edilberto Norada entered the room. Norada tried to pacify
x x x On February 8, 2004, he met Reggie Pacil [who] told them but he was boxed by Pacil. Norada left and returned
him that he will treat him to a disco on February 11, 2004 with a piece of wood and he hit Pacil on the head several
to celebrate in advance his forthcoming birthday. Mr. Pacil times. Pacil fell unconscious. There was blood flowing out of
instructed him to look for a car that they can hire to be used Pacil’s head so he and Norada panicked. They wrapped
for that occasion. When he met the accused Edilberto Pacil in a bedsheet and loaded him on the Suzuki multicab.
Norada[,] a taxi driver[,] who is an old acquaintance the They went around Bacolod City not knowing what to do.
following day, he told him to look for a car. Norada Eventually they dumped the body of Pacil at Villa Angela
succeeded in leasing a red Suzuki multicab owned by Cecile Subdivision.4
Pioquinto, a girl friend of the accused Agustin Seva.
On February 10, 2004, [a]ccused Villanueva x x x and his The testimony of accused Norada, on the other hand, was
co-accused Edilberto Norada, took the car from the house of summarized by the trial court as follows:
Cecile Pioquinto. At that time, the accused Agustin Seva
was in the house of Pioquinto. He paid rental in the amount Accused Edilberto Norada declared that he and Agustin
of P2,000.00 for the use of the car. Seva for sometime, have been hatching to organize a kidnap
Leaving behind the car and Norada, Villanueva x x x went for ransom group in Bacolod City. This plan did not
to Valladolid to fetch Reggie Pacil. Reggie Pacil was not in materialize as they have no money to fund the operation.
his house so he waited for him until about 7:30 in the Later, in 2003, he met Eugene Villanueva, security guard of
evening. When Pacil arrived onboard a taxi, he was with his the Riverside Hospital. Eugene Villanueva
friend from Canada a person named Ray Truck.
_______________
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 21-22.
3 Id., at p. 18.

82
81

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 81
revealed that he is a close friend of Reggie Pacil, a
He and Pacil took that same taxi for Bacolod City while the schoolteacher at the town of Valladolid. Reggie Pacil has a
Canadian was left behind in Pacil’s house. friend, a Canadian national named Ray Truck. This Ray
Eugene Villanueva further declared that they met Truck has plenty of money x x x. The three (3) of them,
Edilberto Norada at a designated place in the Golden Field namely, himself, Agustin Seva and Eugene Villanueva,
Complex but instead of proceeding directly to a disco house, made a plan to kidnap Ray Truck.
Pacil suggested that they first find a place to spend the rest To carry out their plan, accused Norada revealed that
of the night. they rented the car of Cecile Pioquinto, who was the

girlfriend of the accused Seva. They also rented a room at In the present case, the crime of Kidnapping was only in
the Taculing Court Apartelle. The accused Villanueva its Attempted Stage as the offenders only commenced the
would bring both Reggie Pacil and the Canadian Ray Truck execution of the felony directly by overt acts but they failed
at the Apartelle on the evening of February 11, 2004 and to perform all the acts of execution x x x by reason of the
they will then execute their kidnap plan. resistance of Reggie Pacil. Article 267 of the Revised Penal
On the appointed day, Accused Villanueva fetched Code defines and penalizes Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Reggie Pacil and Ray Truck in the house of Pacil in detention as a single felony such that all other offenses
Valladolid but only Reggie Pacil came. Ray Truck remained committed by reason of or on occasion of it are absorbed by
in the house of Reggie Pacil in Valladolid. The it by express mandate of the law. But the absorption rule
nonappearance of Ray Truck made them change their plan. will not apply when the Kidnapping is only Attempted or
They decided to just kidnap Reggie Pacil as they were Frustrated, as Article 267 does not so provide. [W]hen
convinced that Rey Truck will pay ransom for his release. Kidnapping is attempted or Frustrated and another crime is
They decided that the kidnapping will take place as soon as committed arising out of the same act of attempted or
Reggie Pacil falls asleep. frustrated kidnapping, the provision of the ordinary
Inside their rented room in the Taculing Court Apartelle, complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
Seva, Villanueva and Pacil [drank] liquor. Norada x x x shall apply. An ordinary complex crime under Article 48 is
slept [in] the car in the garage of the Apartelle. committed when a single act results to two or more grave or
In the early morning of the following day Norada said less grave felonies. The act which constituted as an attempt
that Villanueva woke him up and told him that Pacil was to kidnap was also the same act that caused the death of
already asleep. They began tying up Pacil but somehow he Reggie Pacil. x x x
woke up and resisted. Norada said that he hit Pacil [on] the It should be stressed that the Information against the
head with a piece of wood. Pacil was rendered unconscious accused fully and completely alleges the commission of the
only briefly and he again struggled. Norada hit him again crime of Murder, with the killing of the victim qualified by
and this time Pacil stayed motionless but snoring. Then treachery and abuse of superior strength.
Seva taped the mouth of Pacil while he and Villanueva tied Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when
x x x his hands and feet. They wrapped Pacil [in] a blanket, a single act produces two (2) or more grave or less grave
and loaded him into the car. Then they dumped his body at felonies, the penalty for the graver offense shall be imposed,
Villa Angela subdivision. Thereafter, they parted ways. the same to be applied in its maximum period. The
x x x5 maximum penalty for Murder is death but since the

_______________

84
5 Id., at pp. 23-24.

83
penalty of death had already been abolished, the penalty is
VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 83 Reclusion Perpetua.6

Thus, on July 21, 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision,
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court the dispositive part of which stated:

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, this Court finds all the
The RTC gave probative value to the narration of
three (3) accused, namely, Eugene Villanueva y Canales,
Norada respecting the conspiracy to kidnap the victim and
Edilberto Norada y Harder and Agustin Seva y Lacbanes,
how he was killed. The RTC further ruled that the killing
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of
was attended by treachery and abuse of superior strength.
Attempted Kidnapping with Murder, all as conspirators and
The court a quo ratiocinated that:
all as Principals by Direct participation. All of them are

sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION damages. Interest on all damages awarded is imposed at
PERPETUA with all its accessories. the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this
By way of civil liability, the three (3) above named judgment until fully paid.
accused are held solidarily liable to pay to the heirs of the SO ORDERED.8
late Reggie Pacil the sum of P1,950,967.20 as compensatory
damages; the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity. And to
Mrs. Rosalina Pacil, the accused are solidarily liable to pay Dissatisfied with the CA’s Decision, appellant elevated
the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.7 the case to this Court.

Our Ruling
Norada did not appeal his conviction. Seva filed a Notice
of Appeal but the same was denied for having been filed out The appeal is partly meritorious.
of time. Hence only the appeal of appellant Villanueva will
be resolved in this proceedings. The crime of kidnap-
ping was not satisfac-
Ruling of the Court of Appeals torily established.

Like the trial court, the CA gave probative weight to the Kidnapping is defined and punished under Article 267 of
sworn statement of Norada and sustained its admissibility the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act
considering that its contents were reiterated affirmatively (RA) No. 7659. The crime has the following elements:
in open court thus transposing it as a judicial admission. (1) the accused is a private individual;
The CA rejected appellant’s plea of self-defense for his (2) the accused kidnaps or detains another or in
failure to prove the element of unlawful aggression arising any manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
from the victim. Thus the CA did not find any reason to
reverse the RTC’s _______________
8 Id., at p. 230.
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 36-37.

7 Id., at pp. 37-38.
86

85
VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 85

(3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal;
People vs. Villanueva and
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of the
Decision. Hence, on January 14, 2015, the CA rendered its following circumstances is present:
assailed Decision with the decretal portion reading as (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more
follows: than three days;
(b) it is committed by simulating public
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal authority:
is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted
21 July 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, 6th upon the person kidnapped or detained or
Judicial Region, Bacolod City, in Criminal Case No. 04- threats to kill him are made or;
26009 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a
As modified, all three accused are held solidarily liable to minor, female or a public official. 9
pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of P75,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 “The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual
as exemplary damages and P25,000.00 as temperate deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of
the accused to effect it. It includes not only the appellant in effect admitted his part in killing the victim.
imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his However, before the plea of self-defense may be
liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of appreciated, appellant must prove by clear and convincing
time.”10 evidence the following indispensable elements: (a) unlawful
The totality of the prosecution’s evidence failed to aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable
sufficiently establish the offense of kidnapping in this case. necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
There was no concrete evidence whatsoever to establish or (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
from which it can be inferred that appellant and his cohorts appellant.12 “In self-defense and defense of strangers,
intended to actually deprive the victim of his liberty for unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a condition
some time and for some purpose. There was also no sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the
evidence that they have thoroughly planned the victim is established, self-defense and defense of strangers
kidnapping of the victim. There was lack of motive to resort are unavailing because there would be nothing to repel.”13
in kidnapping the victim for they were bent to kidnap his The courts below correctly found that appellant failed to
friend Truck. The fact alone of waiting for the victim to fall discharge the burden of proving unlawful aggression on the
asleep and then and there tying his hands and feet, based part of the victim. Both the RTC and the CA held that his
on Norada’s account, was not determinant of intent to version of the event was not only uncorroborated but crude
actually detain the victim or deprive his liberty. As such, and clumsy prevarication. We agree that appellant’s
the trial court was indulging in speculation when it held evidence relative to unlawful aggression fell far short of
that the victim “will either be taken away or simply be kept being “clear and convincing.” His claim of having been
in the hotel and thereafter ransom will be demanded from boxed by the victim did not show that he suffered any
the Canadian Ray Truck for his release.”11 injury and no allegation on
_______________ _______________
9 See People v. Mamantak, 582 Phil. 294, 302; 560 SCRA 298, 306-307
(2008). 12 See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 11, Section 1.
10 Id., at p. 303; p. 307. 13 People v. Del Castillo, 679 Phil. 233, 250; 663 SCRA 226, 242-243
11 CA Rollo, p. 35. (2012).

87 88
VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 87 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villanueva People vs. Villanueva
Courts should not indulge in speculation no matter how what part of his body was hit. More importantly, the
strong the guilt of the accused. Hence, since the offense of punching if it was true, did not place the life of appellant in
kidnapping was not sufficiently established, the trial court danger. Thus, appellant’s claim of self-defense deserves no
erred in holding appellant liable for attempted kidnapping. merit at all.

There is no unlawful Treachery did not
aggression on the part of attend the killing.
the victim hence the jus-
tifying circumstance of However, we cannot agree that the qualifying
self-defense is untenable. circumstance of treachery attended the killing. According
to the trial court, “it was necessary for the accused to
There is no dispute that the victim was killed. subdue [the victim] and they attempted to perform this act
Appellant, however, invokes the justifying circumstance of in a treacherous manner, tying up the victim] while he was
self-defense to exculpate himself. By invoking self-defense, asleep. [The victim] however, resisted and this prompted

the accused to hit him inflicting serious injuries on his killing or that the death of the victim was the result of
person that caused his death.’’14 Clearly, this is the only premeditation, calculation or reflection.” In the present
context in which the trial court appreciated the qualifying case, the mode or manner of the attack on the victim did
circumstance of treachery and the appellate court not appear to have been consciously and deliberately
concurred with this finding without laying any basis or adopted.
explanation for its concurrence.
Contrary to the findings of the courts below, our review Conspiracy was established
of the evidence shows that the killing of the victim was not among the accused.
attended by treachery.
“Treachery cannot be presumed [for] the circumstances As regards the matter of conspiracy, we note that the
surrounding the [killing] must he proved as indubitably as appellate court did not make any discussion or a finding of
the crime itself.”15 Treachery is present ‘‘when the offender fact on the presence of conspiracy among the accused
commits any of the crimes against the person, employing despite holding them solidarily liable for the payment of
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which damages. However, we take this opportunity to tackle this
tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without issue following
risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make.”16 “To constitute treachery, two _______________
conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means,
methods or manner of 17 People v. Garcia, 577 Phil. 483, 503; 554 SCRA 616, 636 (2008).
18 See People v. Nitcha, 310 Phil. 287, 303-304; 240 SCRA 283, 295-
_______________ 296 (1995).

19 390 Phil. 989, 1017; 335 SCRA 646, 670 (2000).
14 CA Rollo, p. 35. 20 467 Phil. 1044, 1081-1082; 423 SCRA 535, 564-565 (2004).
15 People v. Nueva, 591 Phil. 431, 446; 570 SCRA 449, 465-466 (2008).
16 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 14, paragraph 16.

90

89
VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 89
People vs. Villanueva the principle that an appeal throws the whole case wide
open for review.
execution that would ensure the offender’s safety from any We find that conspiracy in killing the victim was duly
defense or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party; established. “Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of
and (2) the offender’s deliberate or conscious choice of the the accused before, during and after the commission of the
means, method or manner of execution.”17 crime suggesting concerted action and unity of purpose
Indeed, the victim was struck on the head by Norada among them.”21 In the case at bar, the evidence showed
with a piece of wood which resulted to his death. However, that appellant did not prevent Norada from striking the
the records is bereft of any evidence that appellant and his head of the victim with the piece of wood. When the latter
co-accused made some preparation to kill the victim in such fell unconscious with blood oozing from his head, appellant
a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or to even helped in wrapping the body with a bedsheet and
make it impossible or hard for the victim to defend loaded him on the Suzuki multicab. To completely end the
himself.18 In People v. Antonio,19 it was held that “[i]t is not life of the victim, they did not bring the victim to the
only the sudden attack that qualifies a killing into murder. hospital despite his still being alive but instead, dumped
There must be a conscious and deliberate adoption of the the body in a sugarcane field at Villa Angela Subdivision.
mode of attack for a specific purpose.” Similarly, in People These acts of appellant during and after the killing
v. Catbagan,20 the Court ruled that “[t]reachery cannot be indubitably show that he acted in concert for a joint
considered when there is no evidence that the accused had purpose and a community of interest with his co-accused in
resolved to commit the crime prior to the moment of the killing the victim. Thus, applying the basic principle in

conspiracy that “the act of one is the act of all,” appellant is mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
guilty as a coconspirator and regardless of his months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
participation, is liable as coprincipal.22 Anent appellant’s civil liability, the Court finds a need to
modify the same to conform to recent jurisprudence.24 The
No abuse of superior Court modifies the awarded amount of P75,000.00 as civil
strength. indemnity by the CA by reducing it to P50,000.00. Anent
the award of moral damages, the CA correctly imposed the
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior amount of P50,000.00. The award of P30,000.00 as
strength is “present if the accused purposely uses excessive exemplary damages is deleted in view of the failure of the
force out of proportion to the means of defense available to prosecution to prove that the killing was attended by
the person attacked, or if there is notorious inequality of treachery and abuse of superior strength.
forces between the victim and aggressor, and the latter
takes advantage of superior strength.”23 However, as none _______________
of the prosecution

24 People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331,
_______________
386-387.
21 People v. Robelo, 699 Phil. 392, 401; 686 SCRA 417, 426 (2012).
22 Id.
23 Supra note 13 at p. 255; p. 247.

92

91
VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 91

With respect to actual damages, the parties stipulated
People vs. Villanueva the amount of P40,000.00 for the funeral, burial and other
incidental expenses and dispensed with the presentation of
witnesses saw how the killing was perpetrated, abuse of proof thereof. However, prevailing jurisprudence dictates
superior strength cannot be appreciated in this case. an award of P50,000.00 as temperate damages, in lieu of
actual damages, when no documentary evidence of burial
The crime committed or funeral expenses is presented in court.25 Hence, we
was homicide. award P50,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual
damages.
Considering that none of the circumstances alleged in As to the deletion of the indemnity for loss of earning
the information, i.e., treachery and abuse of superior capacity by the CA, we restore the award by the RTC of the
strength was proven during the trial, the same cannot be sum of P1,950,967.26 as unearned income as appearing
appreciated to qualify the killing to murder. Appellant can from the Pay Slip26 submitted in evidence which the CA
only be held liable for homicide. Under Article 249 of the plainly overlooked. The figure was arrived at based on the
RPC, the penalty prescribed for the crime of homicide is net earning capacity of the victim, to wit:
reclusion temporal. In view of the absence of any mitigating
circumstance and applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the maximum of the sentence should be within the
range of reclusion temporal in its medium period which has
a duration of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one
(1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, while
the minimum should be within the range of prisión mayor
which has a duration of six (6) years and one (1) day to The victim was 42 years old at the time of his death. His
twelve (12) years. Thus, appellant should suffer an annual gross income was P154,044.00 computed based on
indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years of prisión his monthly income of P12,837.00. His necessary living
expenses is deemed to be 50% of his gross income. His life
expectancy is assumed to be 2/3 of age 80 less 42, his age strength; Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of
when he was killed. Thus, using the above formula, the the presence of this circumstance. (People vs. Beduya, 627
indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the victim is SCRA 275 [2010])
P1,950,967.26.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED.
The Decision dated January 14, 2015 of the Court of ——o0o——
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00686 is hereby
VACATED and SET ASIDE. A new one is entered as
follows: _______________
* * Designated as additional member per October 18, 2017 Raffle vice J.

_______________
Jardeleza who recused from the case due to prior participation as Solicitor
25 Id., at p. 388. General.
26 Records, p. 154.
27 Supra note 17 at p. 508; p. 640.

93 © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 93

1) appellant Eugene Villanueva y Cañales is hereby

found GUILTY of the crime of Homicide and sentenced to
an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prisión mayor,
as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of
reclusion temporal, as maximum.
2) appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim
the following amounts:
a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity;
b) P50,000.00 as moral damages;
c) P50,000.00 as temperate damages; and,
d) P1,950,967.26 as indemnity for loss of earning
capacity.
In conformity with current policy, we impose interest on
all the monetary awards for damages at the rate of 6% per
annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully
paid.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,** Leonardo-De

Castro and Tijam, JJ., concur.
Appeal partly granted.
Notes.—The general rule is that the prosecution is

burdened to prove lack of consent on the part of the victim
of kidnapping. (People vs. Siongco, 623 SCRA 501 [2010])
The presence of two assailants, one of them armed with
a knife, does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior

People v. Norada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Norada

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Norada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 849 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 849

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 75

the following elements: (1) the accused is a private individual;

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/20 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/20

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/20 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/20

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/20 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/20

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Villanueva

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/20 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/20

6 Id., at pp. 36-37.

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 85

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 87 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/20 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/20

_______________ 296 (1995).

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/20 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4a89c46f24d40c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/20

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 91

* * Designated as additional member per October 18, 2017 Raffle vice J.

VOL. 849, DECEMBER 13, 2017 93

1) appellant Eugene Villanueva y Cañales is hereby

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,** Leonardo-De

Appeal partly granted.

Notes.—The general rule is that the prosecution is

You might also like