SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 257175. March 21, 2022.]

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

ABUCAY y TUMINO @ BALA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 21 March 2022 which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 257175 (People of the Philippines v. Blas Abucay y

Tumino @ Bala) . — This appeal 1 challenges the October 29, 2020 Decision
2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12976, which affirmed
the June 28, 2013 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 208,
Mandaluyong City. The CA found accused-appellant Blas Abucay y Tumino
(Blas) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping for Ransom, in violation
of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act
No. (RA) 7659. 4
The Antecedents:
In November 2005, Blas, together with 12 others namely Sozimo
Lauzon @ Sosing (Sozimo), Alejandro Aldas @ Ali (Alejandro), Feliciano
Esposa @ Pili (Feliciano), Efren Abucay (Efren), Juan Casanas @ Pusong
(Juan), Ponciano Esposa @ Mamo/Palopako (Ponciano), Gregorio Dela Cruz @
Gorio (Gregorio), Iluminada Aldas, Jr. @ Oni (Iluminado), Efren Patcho
(Patcho), Alias Noel, Alias Nono and Alias Kapitan, was charged with
Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended by RA
7659. The accusatory portion of the Information 5 reads:
That on or about 11:30 a.m. of March 11, 2002, in the City of
Mandaluyong, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously kidnap and deprive IMELDA E. BENGZON of her liberty
and against her will by means of threat and intimidation with the use
of firearms, and then bring her to a safe house in Naic, Cavite,
wherein she was detained for a period of two (2) days, and that the
abduction of said victim was for the purpose of extorting ransom from
her family, as in fact, the amount of Three Million Pesos
(Php3,000,000.00) and three watches consisting of one (1) Rolex and
(2) Bulovas were actually delivered to the above-mentioned accused
in exchange for the release of the victim to the damage and prejudice
of Imelda E. Bengzon in whatever amounts may be awarded her
under the provision of the new Civil Code.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Blas and the other accused pleaded not guilty during their
arraignment. 7 The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely: (1) Imelda
Bengzon (Imelda); (2) Augusto Bengzon (Augusto), husband of Imelda; (3)
William Jaducan (Jaducan); and (4) Police Senior Inspector Roy Michael Malixi
(PSI Malixi). 8 On the other hand, the defense presented Sozimo, Ponciano,
Gregorio, Alejandro, Jaducan, and Blas. 9
Version of the Prosecution:
Imelda recalled that she was in her office in Mandaluyong City until
10:00 a.m. of March 11, 2002. Thereafter, she and her driver Efren drove to
San Juan City using a green CR-V vehicle. Along Addition Hills, she noticed a
motorcycle following them, then two men who were wearing police uniform
flagged them and one tried to unlock the car's door. She instructed Efren to
proceed but the latter did not follow her. Imelda tried to escape but two men
brought her back to the car. 10
Imelda was made to wear sunglasses covered with tape. The
perpetrators were carrying firearms and talking to someone on a cellular
phone for directions. They were taken to a place where she heard sounds of
water and the ground was full of sand. They were subsequently brought to a
nipa hut where Imelda sensed and heard numerous people talking, and that
a certain individual said they have to call general to inform that Imelda was
already there. 11
After 10 to 15 minutes, a certain General arrived and told Imelda not to
worry because she would be released, as they only wanted to get the
ransom. He asked for her cellphone so that he could call Imelda's husband
Augusto. Over the phone, he demanded P10,000,000.00 from Augusto.
Imelda was told to sit or lie down and wait, and that they would give her
anything she wanted because she was six months pregnant during that time.
After 24 hours of being detained, Imelda was informed that Augusto already
paid for her ransom in the amount of P3,000,000.00 and that she would
already be released. 12
Imelda and Efren were taken back to her car. After driving for an hour,
Imelda and Efren were made to alight from the car and were given P1,000.00
for their transportation. She discovered that they were in Parañaque after
taking off the sunglasses covered with tape. 13
Meanwhile, Augusto narrated that he was in a coffee shop in Makati at
around 1:15 p.m. of March 11, 2002 when he then received a call from a
man demanding P10,000,000.00 as ransom in exchange for his wife.
Augusto appealed for them not to hurt Imelda and asked if he could talk to
her. Imelda was able to say hello but the man took back the phone and
reminded Augusto to cooperate if he wanted his wife back. Augusto
reiterated his plea but the man turned off the phone. 14
Augusto then sought the assistance of the Police Anti-Crime and
Emergency Response Unit (PACER). They waited for further instructions from
the perpetrators. At around 5:45 p.m., the perpetrators reiterated their
demand for a P10,000,000.00 ransom but Augusto needed time to raise said
amount. 15
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Eventually, the ransom money was decreased to P3,000,000.00 and
one Rolex and two Bulova watches. At about 9:30 p.m., Augusto received a
call instructing him to proceed to South Expressway and park at Shell Select
Station South Bound. Since Augusto already passed by said gas station, they
were just ordered to park at Petron. The same was aborted because the
perpetrators assumed that police officers were following them. 16
Augusto then received another call instructing him to proceed to
Alabang-Zapote road and exit the highway. At the Kabihasnan area in
Parañaque, Augusto was ordered to pull over and meet the perpetrators. He
gave the black bag containing the money and watches to a man who then
headed to a residential area in Kabihasnan. 17 At 1:00 a.m. of March 13,
2002, Augusto arrived home. After 15 minutes, Imelda was also back home.
At 1:30 a.m., the perpetrators called and informed them that Imelda's car
was parked at McDonald's Quezon City and that the keys were inside the
exhaust pipe. 18
As for Jaducan, he testified that he was a rent-a-car driver. At around
8:00 a.m. of March 11, 2002, Sozimo, Alejandro, Feliciano, Gregorio, alias
Nono, and Juan visited him in his home in Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City
because they needed a driver. He agreed so they boarded a Lite Ace van
and went to San Rafael Street in Mandaluyong City. In front of a warehouse,
they had snacks in a carinderia. Alejandro instructed Juan to check the car
owned by Imelda inside the warehouse. When Juan returned, they boarded
the van and headed to Acacia Lane where Feliciano changed his clothes to a
police uniform. Feliciano and alias Nono prepared the .45 caliber firearms
while Juan took out a baby armalite. Jaducan was ordered to keep quiet
when he asked why there are guns. 19
They followed a Honda CR-V vehicle that passed them. They stopped
at Gomez Street where Feliciano boarded a motorcycle driven by alias Nono.
Feliciano and Nono followed the Honda CR-V while the Lite Ace van tagged
along. The motorcycle overtook the Honda CR-V in Addition Hills. Imelda
tried to escape but alias Nono caught her and brought her back to the CR-V.
Juan instructed Efren to move to the back seat. At the back seat, alias Nono
and Juan secured Imelda and Efren. Alejandro ordered Jaducan to drive the
Honda CR-V, then Juan put the sunglasses covered with tape on Imelda and
Efren. 20
Jaducan further disclosed that after capturing Imelda, they headed to
Shaw Boulevard but Feliciano ordered him to stop along the way so that Juan
could change the Honda CR-V's plate number. Their trip ended in Naic,
Cavite, particularly in a house near the seashore. After a while, the Lite Ace
van likewise arrived. Inside the house, Blas, alias Kapitan and Iluminado were
already waiting for them. Alejandro approached the Honda CR-V and asked
Imelda for her name, number, address and the name and number of her
husband. Juan took Efren and said that the latter should keep up so that
Imelda would not be suspicious. After around 30 minutes, Jaducan was
tasked to hide the Honda CR-V so he drove the car to Dasmariñas, Cavite
and parked thereat then went home. 21

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 At around 7:00 p.m. of March 12, 2002, Alejandro called Jaducan to get
the Honda CR-V. He did as ordered and fetched Alejandro and others in
Juan's store in Fort Bonifacio. They proceeded to Kabihasnan, Parañaque
where Alejandro's group and Augusto met. Ponciano took the black bag from
Augusto. Alejandro then instructed him to drive to Naic, Cavite where Imelda
was detained and ordered him to take Imelda to a 7-11 Store in Sucat,
Parañaque. They passed by C-5 where Feliciano alighted and headed to
Quezon City where the Honda CR-V was left. Jaducan gave the car keys to
Blas who placed them inside the exhaust pipe of the car. Jaducan received
P5,000.00 from Blas for his services and went home. 22
Lastly, PSI Malixi testified that he was assigned at the National Anti-
Kidnapping Task Force in Camp Crame, Quezon City on March 11, 2002. He
received a call from Augusto regarding the kidnapping of the latter's wife
Imelda. A team was organized to help Augusto's family. He recounted that
the initial ransom money was P10,000,000.00 which was reduced to
P3,000,000.00 and three watches. The ransom was paid on March 12, 2002
then Imelda was released and came back home safely in the morning of
March 13, 2002. 23
Version of Blas:
Blas testified that he was residing at Veterans Village, Barangay Holy
Spirit, Quezon City in March 2002. He knew Feliciano, Ponciano and Jaducan
because they were all from his hometown in Eastern Samar. On the date
surrounding the incident, Iluminada fetched him and he accompanied
Iluminado to Naic, Cavite. When they arrived, it was his first time to meet
alias Kapitan who wanted to hire him to make fiberglass boats. He saw
individuals alighting from a vehicle and a woman wearing sunglasses. Juan
told him to look after their companions, a woman and a man. Out of fear, he
followed and did not say anything. He knew that Juan was a former military
man who had a bad reputation due to his involvement in crimes. When Juan,
Ponciano and Alejandro left, he, together with Feliciano and Iluminado,
guarded the victims for two days. Thereafter, he was informed that the
victims would be released. He was with them when they were released in
Parañaque. Then he was taken to Philcoa where he alighted, and was given
P100,000.00 as his payment for looking after Imelda and Efren. Blas justified
that he did not escape in Naic, Cavite out of fear that he might die while
doing so. Juan threatened to kill him if he refused to guard Imelda and Efren.
24

Sozimo, Ponciano, Gregorio and Alejandro proffered their respective

alibi. Sozimo claimed that he was in Barangay Haro, Tacloban, Leyte on
March 11, 2002 because his mother was sick. 25 Ponciano was in Bloomfields
Subdivision in Imus, Cavite on said date when he was called to drive for
Feliciano, Jaducan and two others to Mandaluyong, and that he went back to
Cavite thereafter. 26 Gregorio was in Guiguinto, Bulacan where he lives. 27
Finally, Alejandro could not recall where he was or what he was doing on
said date, but he was in Bicol before the case was filed. He only visited
Manila to do scrap work. He denied being involved in the kidnapping case. 28
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 In a Decision 29 dated June 28, 2013, the RTC found Blas, Sozimo,
Alejandro and Gregorio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping for
Ransom. The prosecution proved the existence of each element of the crime.
The defenses of denial and alibi forwarded by the perpetrators were
disregarded because they failed to demonstrate that it was physically
impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime. Moreover, the
alibis were not corroborated by any other evidence or testimonies. 30 The
RTC observed unity of purpose and that their concerted actions pointed to a
single intent — to deprive Imelda of her liberty in exchange for ransom.
Hence, the act of one is the act of all. 31
The fallo of the RTC Decision reads in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered finding Accused Sozimo Lauzon, Accused Alejandro Aldas,
Accused Gregorio Dela Cruz, and Accused Blas Abucay GUILTY of the
crime of Kidnapping for Ransom as defined and penalized under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
Accordingly, Accused Sozimo Lauzon, Accused Alejandro Aldas,
Accused Greogrio Dela Cruz, and Accused Blas Abucay are hereby
each sentenced to reclusion perpetua with no possibility of parole and
ordered to pay, jointly and severally, P100,000 moral damages,
P100,000 exemplary damages and Three Million Pesos
(P3,000,000.00) and the value of the three watches consisting of one
(1) Rolex and (2) Bulovas, if the same can no longer be retrieved
from the Accused, as actual damages.
SO ORDERED. 32

Aggrieved, Blas appealed 33 the case to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its October 29, 2020 Decision, 34 the CA affirmed the RTC's findings
and convicted Blas of the crime charged. The CA held that inconsistencies as
to minor details did not impair the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses.
35 As to the defense of denial, Blas did not present corroborative evidence to

support his denial. Blas even volunteered the information that he received
P100,000.00 for his participation in the crime. Blas benefited from the fruit
of the illegal act and did not even bother to report the incident to the
authority. His acts were contrary to his contention that he was forced or
threatened to participate to the crime. 36
The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED and
the decision dated June 28, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 208, Mandaluyong City in Criminal Case No. MC05-9674-H is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 37

Unrelenting, Blas appealed 38 before this Court. In his brief, 39 Blas

insists that Jaducan's testimony was full of inconsistencies which tainted his
credibility as a witness, hence, the prosecution failed to prove Blas' guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. 40 In addition, Blas contends that he should have
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 been exempted from criminal liability under Article 12 (5) and (6) of the RPC
because he was only compelled by an irresistible force to look after Imelda.
41 Lastly, mere presence at the scene of the crime did not amount to

conspiracy that would link him directly to the crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom. 42 Hence, Blas prays that he be acquitted of the crime charged.43
The People, in its brief, 44 maintains that Blas was a co-conspirator for
the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and that the prosecution adequately
established the elements of the crime. The conduct of Blas during and after
the commission of the crime showed adherence to a common purpose and
design, and he was not merely a passive participant to the crime. 45 As to
the exempting circumstance, the People argues that duress or intimidation
must be characterized as imminent and impending, excluding a threat of
future injury. 46 Additionally, even the minor inconsistent statements were
sufficiently explained. 47 Finally, the defenses of denial and lack of motive
could not prevail over the prosecution's positive testimonies. 48
All told, the sole issue before this Court is whether Blas is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
This Court affirms the conviction of Blas for Kidnapping for Ransom.
It is a hornbook doctrine that the trial court's factual findings as well as
its conclusion pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses should be
accorded great weight and respect. Evidently, trial courts hold the lenses to
personally examine and observe the demeanor, manner and body language
of the witnesses as they testified during trial. 49 In this case, the RTC found
the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses to be credible and sufficient
to prove every element of the crime charged. 50 The perpetrators, including
Blas, implemented their plan to deprive Imelda of her liberty and be released
in exchange for ransom money. 51
These findings of fact by the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, and
absent any reason that would impel Us to overturn or disregard the same,
deserve due respect. It is noteworthy to echo the pronouncement in People
v. Nocido 52 that minor inconsistencies even enhance the credibility of a
witness for the same showcase lack of scheming and spontaneity.
This Court likewise finds that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of Kidnapping for Ransom. Article
267 of the RPC provides:
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any
private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other
manner deprive him [or her] of his[or her] liberty, shall suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than
three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public
authority.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted
upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall
have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a
minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female
or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death penalty where the
kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if
none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in
the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts,
the maximum penalty shall be imposed. (Emphasis supplied)
People v. Fajardo 53 sets forth the particular elements of said crime
that must concur: (1) that the offender is a private individual; (2) said
offender kidnaps or detains another person, or deprives the latter of his or
her liberty; (3) the detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) the
commission of the crime must be in any of the circumstances: (a) the
detention lasts for more than three days; (b) the crime was committed by
simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries were inflicted upon
the person kidnapped or threats to kill him or her were made; or (d) the
individual kidnapped or detained is a minor, a female or a public officer. 54
The first and second elements were evidently present in this case. Blas,
as well the other accused, was a private individual. He detained and guarded
Imelda and Efren for about two days until they were released after the
ransom money was delivered. 55 As for the third and fourth elements,
Imelda, a woman, was deprived of her liberty and against her will, which was
contrary to law and simply illegal. Imelda was detained for about two days,
and was only released after the perpetrators received the ransom money
amounting to P3,000,000.00 and three watches. 56 Since all the elements
were clearly established by the prosecution, it cannot be gainsaid that the
perpetrators, including Blas, are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of said
crime.
In his attempt for exoneration, Blas argues that conspiracy was not
established and the exempting circumstance under Article 12 (5) 57 of the
RPC applies as to him.
We are not convinced.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons agreed to the
commission of an offense and they decided to commit the same. This Court,
however, emphasizes that conspiracy may also be inferred from the acts of
the perpetrators such as when their overt acts display adherence to a
common purpose and design, and community of interests. As in People v.
Fajardo, 58 the meeting of minds need not be express so long as the same
could be inferred from the concerted actions of each perpetrator. In this
case, Blas was proven to have participated in achieving a common design
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 and purpose when he, together with Feliciano and Iluminado, guarded
Imelda and Efren for two days in Naic, Cavite. Such fact was elicited from
Blas' himself. 59 Even more, Jaducan also received the amount of P5,000.00
from Blas for the former's services. 60 Worse, Blas accepted P100,000.00 as
payment for guarding Imelda and Efren. These overt acts affirm conspiracy
and negate Blas' outcry for exemption from criminal liability allegedly due to
compulsion of an irresistible force. This Court reiterates its pronouncement
in People v. Paredes, Jr.: 61
The argument of accused-appellant that he only acted under
the compulsion of an irresistible force which consequently exempts
him from criminal liability is of no moment and cannot be given
credence by this Honorable Court. Under Article 12 of the Revised
Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts under
the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such person
does not act with freedom. However, it was held that for such a
defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear, or intimidation
must be present, imminent and impending, and of such
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or
serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future
injury is not enough. We have held that in order for the
circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary
that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal combat. 62
(Emphasis supplied) (Citations omitted)
Blas claims that he was threatened with death if he would not guard
Imelda and Efren, and that he was fearful of Juan who had a reputation for
his involvement in crimes. However, all these are bare assertions wanting in
any substantiation. Besides, Blas' actions manifest his willingness to perform
the tasks assigned to him. He continued to guard Imelda until her release
and even received P100,000.00 for doing so.
All matters considered, the prosecution's evidence prevail over the
contentions of Blas. He is, therefore, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Kidnapping for Ransom. While the penalty for this crime is death
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty to be imposed is
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in view of the passage of RA
9 3 4 6 . 63 Likewise, the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court,
correctly ordered the payment of P100,000.00 moral damages, P100,000.00
exemplary damages, and actual damages in the amount of P3,000,000.00
and the value of the three watches, if the same could no longer be retrieved
and returned, as imposed jointly and severally against the perpetrators
namely Sozimo, Alejandro, Gregorio and Blas. 64 Moreover, all these
monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed October 29,
2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12976
finding accused-appellant Blas Abucay y Tumino @ Bala guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Kidnapping for Ransom and sentencing him to suffer the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole 65 is AFFIRMED
with modification in that all the monetary awards shall earn interest at the
rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution
until full payment. DETACa

SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., on official leave; Hernando, J.,

Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2882 dated March 17, 2022).

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo , pp. 3-4.

2. Id. at 8-24. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and
concurred in by Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Tita
Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.

3. Id. at 26-36; penned by Presiding Judge Esteban A. Tacla, Jr.

4. Entitled "AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS
CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS
AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved:
December 13, 1993.
5. Records pp. 2-4.
6. Id. at 2-3.

7. Rollo , p. 9.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 16.
10. Id. at 10-11.
11. Id. at 10.

12. Id. at 10-11.

13. Id. at 11.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 11-12.
16. Id. at 12.

17. Id.
18. Id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 19. Id. at 13.
20. Id.
21. Id. at 13-14.
22. Id. at 14.

23. Id. at 15-16.

24. Id. at 19.
25. Id. at 16-17.
26. Id. at 17-18.
27. Id. at 18.

28. Id. at 18-19.

29. CA rollo, pp. 72-82.
30. Id. at 79-80.
31. Id. at 81.

32. Id. at 81-82.

33. Id. at 17-18.
34. Rollo , pp. 8-24.
35. Id. at 20-23.
36. Id. at 23.

37. Id. at 23-24.

38. Id. at 3-4.
39. CA rollo, pp. 52-70.
40. Id. at 63-65.
41. Id. at 65-66.

42. Id. at 66-68.

43. Id. at 68.
44. Id. at 92-118.
45. Id. at 103-107.

46. Id. at 108-110.

47. Id. at 110-114.
48. Id. at 114-116.
49. People v. Jagdon, Jr., G.R. No. 242882, September 9, 2020.
50. CA rollo, pp. 73-76. See also pp. 79-80.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 51. Id. at 80.
52. G.R. No. 240229, June 17, 2020.
53. 830 Phil. 289 (2018).
54. Id. at 300.
55. Rollo , p. 19.

56. Id. at 10-16.

57. ARTICLE 12. Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal Liability. — The
following are exempt from criminal liability:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
58. Supra note 53 at 292.
59. Rollo , p. 19.

60. Id. at 14.

61. G.R. No. 238745 (Notice), January 30, 2019.

62. Id.
63. Entitled, "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE
PHILIPPINES." Approved: June 24, 2006.

64. Rollo , p. 82. See also People v. Niegas , 722 Phil. 301, 313-314 (2013); People
v. Pepino, 636 Phil. 297, 310-312 (2010).
65. A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC or the Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase
"Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties: "If at all, the
qualification of "without eligibility for parole" may be applied to qualify
reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the appellant should have
been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com