3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 661

People vs. Salvador

by an improper motive, identification of the accused-appellants as

the offenders should be given full faith and credit; (c) Conspiracy
need not be established by direct proof of prior agreement by the
G.R. No. 201443. April 10, 2013.* parties to commit a crime but that it may be inferred from the
acts of the accused-appellants before, during and after the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
commission of the crime which indubitably point to a joint
BETTY SALVADOR y TABIOS, MONICO SALVADOR,
purpose, concerted action and community of interest; and (d) The
MARCELO LLANORA, JR. y BAYLON, ROBERT
respective alibis proffered by the accused-appellants cannot
GONZALES y MANZANO, RICKY PEÑA y BORRES @
prevail over the unequivocal testimony of the victim categorically
RICK, ROGER PESADO y PESADO @ GER, JOSE
and positively pointing to them as his abductors, and for the
ADELANTAR y CAURTE, LOWHEN ALMONTE y
defense of alibis, to be given full credit, they must be clearly
PACETE, JUBERT BANATAO y AGGULIN @ KOBET,
established and must not leave room for doubt.
and MOREY DADAAN, accused-appellants.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; The test to determine the
Criminal Law; Kidnapping for Ransom; Elements of.―People value of the testimony of a witness is whether such is in conformity
v. Uyboco, 640 SCRA 146 (2011), enumerated the elements of the with knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind;
crime of kidnapping for ransom, viz.: In order for the accused to whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and
be convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under lies outside of judicial cognizance.—The test to determine the
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution is value of the testimony of a witness is whether such is in
burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the conformity with knowledge and consistent with the experience of
crime, namely: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he mankind; whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes
kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance. It defies logic to
of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be figure out why Engr. Vargas was informed that Robert was
illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any of the implicated in Albert’s kidnapping only on October 2003, or around
following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or one and a half years after the latter’s indictment. If Robert’s alibi
detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by were true, it would have been more in accord with human
simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are experience if he promptly told Engr. Vargas about his
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill predicament for the latter was then in the best position to
him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped and kept in detained is corroborate the former’s allegations. It is likewise perplexing why
a minor, the duration of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if Robert, who had been driving for Engr. Vargas for five years, was
the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of in Taguig on April 11, 2002 and so lightly regarded his
extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is immaterial. commitment to the latter that he would be back in two days. No
explanations were offered to justify Robert’s unreasonable
Same; Same; Judgments; Settled Doctrines in Affirming the
omissions.
Conviction of the Accused-Appellants.—In affirming the conviction
of the accused-appellants, we are guided by four-settled doctrines Same; Criminal Procedure; Arrests; Irregularities attending
enunciated in People v. Martinez, 425 SCRA 528 (2004), viz.: (a) the arrest of the accused-appellants should have been timely raised
The trial court[’]s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses must in their respective motions to quash the Informations at any time
be accorded great respect owing to its opportunity to observe and before their arraignment, failing at which they are deemed to have
examine the witnesses conduct and demeanor on the witness waived their rights to assail the same.—It is settled that
stand; (b) When there is no evidence to show that the prosecution irregularities attending the arrest of the accused-appellants
witness is actuated should have been timely raised in their respective motions to
quash the Informations at any time before their arraignment,
failing at which they are deemed to have waived their rights to
_______________
assail the same. No such motions were
* FIRST DIVISION.
662

661

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/48

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED People vs. Salvador

People vs. Salvador

one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in
the commission of the crime.—We stress though that conspiracy
filed by the accused-appellants. Further, without meaning to
transcends companionship. Mere presence at the locus criminis
downplay or take the allegations of the accused-appellants lightly,
cannot by itself be a valid basis for conviction, and mere
we, however, note that these were unsubstantiated as to the
knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to cooperate, is not
identities of the offenders and uncorroborated by other pieces of
enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any
evidence. To date, no complaints against the supposed abusive
active participation in the commission of the crime. In the case at
police officers had yet been filed by the accused-appellants. If the
bar, Monico’s assistance extended to Albert when the latter
abuses were indeed committed, we exhort the accused-appellants
descended the basement stairs and Betty’s visit to the safehouse
to initiate the proper administrative and criminal proceedings to
to bring food could not automatically be interpreted as the acts of
make the erring police officers liable. We stress that while the
principals and conspirators in the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
criminal justice system is devised to punish the offenders, it is no
less the State’s duty to ensure that those who administer it do so Same; Same; Kidnapping for Ransom; In a conspiracy to
with clean hands. commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the place where the
victim is to be detained is logically a primary consideration.—In a
Same; Evidence; Witnesses; The most natural reaction of
conspiracy to commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the
victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the features and faces
place where the victim is to be detained is logically a primary
of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime is
consideration. In the case of Betty and Monico, their house in
committed. It is also settled that the victim’s in-court identification
Lumbang Street, Amparo Subdivision has a basement. It can be
is more than sufficient to establish the identities of accused-
reasonably inferred that the house fitted the purpose of the
appellants as among the malefactors, and previously executed
kidnappers. Albert’s detention was accomplished not solely by
affidavits are generally considered inferior to statements that the
reason of the restraint exerted upon him by the presence of
victim gives in open court.—This Court has held that the most
guards in the safehouse, but by the circumstance of being put in a
natural reaction of victims of criminal violence is to strive to see
place where escape became highly improbable. In other words,
the features and faces of their assailants and observe the manner
Betty and Monico were indispensable in the kidnapping of Albert
in which the crime is committed. It is also settled that the victim’s
because they knowingly and purposely provided the venue to
in-court identification is more than sufficient to establish the
detain Albert. The spouses’ ownership of the safehouse, Monico’s
identities of accused-appellants as among the malefactors, and
presence therein during Albert’s arrival on the evening of April 7,
previously executed affidavits are generally considered inferior to
2002 and Betty’s visits to bring food reasonably indicate that they
statements that the victim gives in open court. Hence, we hold
were among those who at the outset planned, and thereafter
that notwithstanding Albert’s failure to identify Betty and Monico
concurred with and participated in the execution of the criminal
from the police line-up presented on April 12, 2002, in which the
design.
spouses were allegedly included, no reasonable doubt is cast upon
the complicity of the latter two in the kidnapping. Further, Betty APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
and Monico’s postulation that if they were indeed involved, they    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
should not have proceeded to the scene of the rescue operations   Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
and to the police station, likewise deserves scant consideration.   Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellants.
There is no established doctrine to the effect that, in every
instance, non-flight is an indication of innocence. It is possible for 664
the culprits to pursue unfamiliar schemes or strategies to confuse
the police authorities.
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Criminal Law; Conspiracy; Mere presence at the locus
People vs. Salvador
criminis cannot by itself be a valid basis for conviction, and mere
knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to cooperate, is not
enough to constitute REYES, J.:
This is an appeal1 from the Decision2 rendered by the
663 Court of Appeals (CA) on February 25, 2011 in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 03279 affirming, albeit with modifications, the
conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 663 City, Branch 219 of Betty Salvador y Tabios (Betty),

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/48

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

Monico Salvador (Monico), Marcelo Llanora, Jr. y Baylon named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
(Marcelo), Robert Gonzales y Manzano (Robert), Ricky one another, with the use of firearms, threats and intimidation
Peña y Borres @ Rick (Ricky), Roger Pesado y Pesado @ Ger did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap
(Roger), Jose Adelantar y Caurte (Jose), Lowhen Almonte y and take away PINKY GONZALES y TABORA against her will;
Pacete (Lowhen), Jubert Banatao y Aggulin @ Kobet That in the process, she was forced to board a Toyota Hi-Ace van
(Jubert), and Morey Dadaan (Morey) (herein accused- which transported her, until finally she was brought to an
appellants) for having conspired in kidnapping Albert Yam undisclosed location in Caloocan City where she was kept for six
y Lee (Albert) for the purpose of extorting ransom. The (6) days; That she was finally rescued on April 12, 2002 by police
RTC sentenced the accused-appellants to suffer the penalty operatives from the Philippine National Police.4
of reclusion perpetua and ordered them to solidarily pay
Albert the amount of PhP 100,000.00 as moral damages.3 (b) In Criminal Case No. Q-02-108835 against Jose,
The CA Decision dated February 25, 2011 concurred with Lowhen, Betty, Monico, Morey, Jubert, Marcelo, Robert,
the RTC’s factual findings but expressly stated in its Ricky, Roger and nine other John Does for the kidnapping
dispositive portion the accused-appellants’ non-eligibility of and demanding from Albert USD 1,000,000.00 as ransom
for parole. The CA further ordered the accused-appellants money, the Information states:
to solidarily pay Albert PhP 50,000.00 as civil indemnity
That on or about April 7, 2002 at around 7:30 in the evening, in
and PhP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages. The RTC and
the vicinity of the Cainta Cockpit Arena, Cainta, Rizal, the above-
the CA, however, acquitted accused-appellants of
named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
kidnapping a certain Pinky Gonzales (Pinky), who, from
one another, with the use of firearms, threats and intimidation
the account of some of the prosecution
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap
and take away ALBERT YAM y LEE; That in the process, he
_______________ was forced to board a Toyota Hi-Ace van which transported him,
1 The Regional Trial Court, then presided by Judge Bayani V. Vargas, passing through the areas of U.P. Balara and Fairview in Quezon
and the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals convicted ten of the City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, until
accused. Seven of them filed notices of appeal (Rollo, pp. 29-31, 87-89; CA finally he was brought to an undisclosed location in Caloocan City
Rollo, pp. 897-899). On the other hand, Jose Adelantar y Caurte, where he was kept for six
intending to seek executive clemency, filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal
(Rollo, pp. 90-92). No notices of appeal were filed by Betty Salvador and _______________
Monico Salvador. 4 Id., at pp. 20-21.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate
666
Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo,
concurring; Rollo, pp. 2-28.
3 CA Rollo, p. 291. 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Salvador
665

(6) days; That ransom in the amount of $1,000,000.00 was

VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 665 demanded in exchange for his safe release until he was finally
People vs. Salvador rescued on April 12, 2002 by police operatives from the Philippine
National Police.5

witnesses, was likewise taken with Albert during the same During arraignment, the accused-appellants pleaded not
abduction incident. guilty to the charges.
The charges against the accused-appellants stemmed On June 14, 2002, pre-trial was terminated without the
from the following Informations dated April 15, 2002: parties having entered into stipulations.
(a) In Criminal Case No. Q-02-108834 against Betty,
Monico, Marcelo, Robert, Ricky, Roger and nine other John The Case for the Prosecution
Does for the kidnapping and serious illegal detention of
Pinky allegedly lasting for six days, the Information, in During the trial, the prosecution witnesses, with their
part, reads: corresponding testimonies, were:
(a) Albert, married to Evangeline Lim-Yam
That on or about April 7, 2002 at around 7:30 in the evening, in (Evangeline), holds a Marketing degree from De La Salle
the vicinity of the Cainta Cockpit Arena, Cainta, Rizal, the above- University. He also took some units under the Ateneo de
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

Manila University’s Masters in Business Administration noticed having passed by the vicinity of SM Fairview. They
program. He is engaged in printing and financing business. arrived in their destination 10 to 15 minutes after and
He is also a breeder of fighting cocks and race horses. On were handcuffed separately. Albert and Pinky stayed in the
February 2002, he took over, with a partner, the operations house and were fed food mostly bought from Jollibee until
of the New Cainta Coliseum (Coliseum), a cockpit arena. they were rescued on April 12, 2002.
Albert testified6 that the lens grade of his eye glasses is
275. With eye glasses on, his vision is normal. Without the _______________
glasses, he can clearly see objects one to two meters away 8  Id., at p. 228.
from him, but beyond that, his vision becomes blurry.7 9  Yam testified that he knew Pinky as the cousin of a certain Ana, one
On April 7, 2002, at around 7:30 p.m., Albert rode his of his staff in the Coliseum. He had seen Pinky around 15 times and had
Toyota Prado (Prado) with Plate No. UTJ-112 and drove talked to her in some occasions. However, he was not aware that at the
out of the Coliseum’s parking lot. Ahead was a white time he was about to be abducted, Pinky was the driver of the Civic, which
Honda Civic car (Civic), while behind was a Toyota Hi-Ace was in between his Prado and the Hi-Ace in which some of the accused-
van (Hi-Ace). Upon reaching Imelda Avenue, the Hi-Ace appellants were then riding. (Id., at pp. 227-228.)
overtook the Civic. Albert was about to follow suit, but the 10 Id., at p. 228.
Hi-Ace suddenly stopped and blocked the Civic. Six men
with long firearms alighted from the Hi-Ace. Jubert and 668
Morey approached the
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________
5 Id., at p. 24.
People vs. Salvador
6 Id., at pp. 220-234.
7 Id., at pp. 233-234. Albert described the house as “half constructed”.11 They
were made to stay in the basement around three and a half
667 by four meters in size, with a stairway, small sofa, bed,
table and four chairs. Behind the table was a sink and a
comfort room. There was a large window about three by
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 667
five feet in size, but it was covered with a blanket and a
People vs. Salvador plastic sack. Albert identified Monico as the person who
was beside him, pulling him up when he fell while
Civic, which was just about two to two and a half meters descending the basement stairs.12 Albert claimed that he
away from Albert,8 pointed their guns at the driver, who was still handcuffed then and was made to wear dark eye
turned out to be Pinky,9 and motioned for her to step out of glasses. The kidnappers allowed him to remove the dark
the car and ride the Hi-Ace. Two men ran after the “watch- eye glasses when he laid down in bed on the first night of
your-car” boy in a nearby parking lot, but Albert no longer their detention.13 On April 8, 2002, his own eye glasses
noticed if the two still returned to the Hi-Ace.10 Roger and were returned to him upon his request.14
Robert came near the Prado and gestured for Albert to Albert told the men that he was the only person they
likewise alight from the vehicle and ride the Hi-Ace. should talk to if they wanted ransom money. The men
When Albert rode the Hi-Ace, he saw Marcelo in the inquired how much he can give. Albert replied that he can
driver’s seat and beside him was Ricky. Morey was behind shell out PhP 500,000.00. The men asked for Albert’s phone
the driver. So too were Jubert. Roger and Robert rode the and pin number to be able to call the latter’s wife. He was
Hi-Ace after Albert did. ordered to write a letter to his wife informing her that he
Albert and Pinky were handcuffed together and made to was abducted and indicating therein the names of persons
wear dark sunglasses. The men took Albert’s wallet from whom she could borrow money to be paid to the
containing PhP 9,000.00, his driver’s license and other accused-appellants as ransom. Albert also claimed that he
documents. They also took his Patek Philippe watch which got to talk, through the telephone, to the person, whom the
costs PhP 400,000.00. accused-appellants seemed to consider as their boss. The
While inside the Hi-Ace, Albert and Pinky were ordered boss demanded USD 1,000,000.00 for Albert’s release. One
to duck their heads. Notwithstanding the position, Albert of the persons posted as guards in the safehouse
saw the lights emanating from the blue eagle figure at the threatened Albert that the latter would be killed unless
Ateneo gym. He also heard one of the men telling the driver ransom money be paid by Friday, April 12, 2002.15 
to pass by Balara. After around 20 minutes, Albert also
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

_______________ 24 Id., at p. 51.

11 Id., at p. 222. 25 Id., at p. 54.
12  Id., at p. 233; TSN, Vol. I, June 28, 2002, pp. 35-37; TSN, Vol. I, 26 Id., at pp. 55-58.
September 13, 2002, p. 35.
13 TSN, Vol. I, June 28, 2002, p. 40; TSN, Vol. I, July 26, 2002, p. 24. 670

14 TSN, Vol. I, June 28, 2002, p. 41.

15 CA Rollo, p. 225.  670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
669 People vs. Salvador

then a gun shot. Albert and Pinky stayed inside the

VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 669
comfort room until a uniformed man brought them out.
People vs. Salvador One person, who acted as among those guarding Albert and
Pinky while they were detained, was killed in the rescue
Albert had seen Jose a few times in the Coliseum. Albert operations. He was subsequently identified as Nelson.
also recalled that immediately prior to his abduction, Jose Another guard left in the evening of April 10, 2002 and he
accompanied him to his Prado and had asked for “balato”.16 never went back.27 Albert did not see Betty and Monico in
Albert identified Jose as the “tipster” who acted as a look- the premises of the safehouse on the day the rescue
out during the abduction incident.17 Albert likewise stated operations were conducted by the police. He only saw the
that he had seen Ricky in the Coliseum on April 7, 2002 couple in Camp Crame around 5:00 p.m. while the former
and on several other instances as the latter worked as a was making a statement.28
“kristo” or bet taker.18 Albert recognized Marcelo as a Albert and Pinky were brought to Camp Crame between
bettor. 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. of April 12, 2002. Some time after
Albert identified Betty as the person who brought them lunch, a police line-up with about 15 men was presented.29
food and who, in one occasion, had inquired from the guard Albert identified seven persons, to wit, Marcelo, Ricky,
how Albert and Pinky were faring in the basement.19 Jubert, Morey, Jose, Robert and Roger, as among his
On April 11, 2002, at around 6:00 a.m.,20 seven persons abductors. At that time, he was not yet able to pinpoint the
came down to the basement to threaten Albert and Pinky.21 rest of the accused-appellants because they were not
Albert later identified them as Jubert and Morey,22 presented to him in the police lineup.30
Marcelo, Ricky, Lowhen and Jose,23 and Nelson Ocampo y (b) Senior Inspector Arnold Palomo (S/Insp. Palomo),
Ruiz @ Joselito Estigoy24 (Nelson). Thereafter, the men left who is assigned at the Anti-Organized Crime for
behind Nelson and Lowhen to remain as guards, who took Businessmen’s Concern Division of the Criminal
their posts in the stairway.25 At around lunch time, Betty Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), Camp Crame,
gave food to one of the guards, who in turn handed the testified that on April 12, 2002, at around 6:30 a.m., he was
same to Albert and Pinky. Albert was then sitting in the in the vicinity of No. 3, Lumbang Street, Amparo
sofa, which was just a little over a meter away from the Subdivision, Caloocan City, where they had just rescued
stairway.26 Pinky, a victim of kidnapping. Around an hour later, Betty
Albert remembered having stayed in the basement until arrived and introduced herself as the owner of the house.
the early hours of April 12, 2002. On that day, he heard the She inquired why the police officers were shooting at her
ferocious barking of a dog, footsteps in the second floor, and house. She was invited by the police to Camp Crame to
answer queries anent why a crime was committed in her
_______________ house. While in Camp Crame, Albert and Pinky identified
16 Id.; TSN, Vol. I, July 5, 2002, p. 75. her
17 Id., at p. 230.
18 Id., at p. 227. _______________
19 Id., at pp. 232-233; TSN, Vol. I, August 30, 2002, p. 59; TSN, Vol. I, 27 CA Rollo, p. 231.
September 13, 2002, pp. 36-37. 28 Id., at p. 232; TSN, Vol. I, August 30, 2002, pp. 64-67.
20 TSN, Vol. I, July 5, 2002, p. 53. 29 TSN, Vol. I, July 26, 2002, pp. 69-70.
21 Id., at pp. 42-45. 30 CA Rollo, pp. 224-225, 230; TSN, Vol. I, July 5, 2002, pp. 71-73, 76;
22 Id., at p. 47. TSN Vol. I, August 30, 2002, pp. 26, 30, 67.
23 Id., at p. 50.
671

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/48

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 671 from theirs chests down.37 Thereafter, P/Insp. Ferdinand
People vs. Salvador Vero (Major Vero) approached the car and informed her
that they were able to apprehend three suspects. She went
home. The next morning, she received a call, got to talk to
as the person who brought them food while they were Albert, and thereafter proceeded to Camp Crame.
detained in the safehouse. Betty was thus arrested.31 (e) PO1 Paul Pacris (PO1 Pacris) stated that he and
(c) Police Inspector Marites Bugnay (P/Insp. Bugnay), four other police officers from the CIDG were the ones who
Assistant Chief of the Firearms Identification Division of assisted Evangeline when she met with Albert’s kidnappers
the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, in Jollibee along EDSA Guadalupe. They arrived in the
testified that at around 9:30 a.m. of April 12, 2002, she and area at around 11:00 a.m. and after about two hours, they
her team, with six members, went to Amparo Subdivision arrested Ricky, Jose and Marcelo who tried to forcibly open
where a rescue operation had just taken place. They Evangeline’s car. They recovered from Jose a .38 caliber
recovered a 5.56 mm Elisco rifle without serial number, a 9 Armscor with six live ammunitions. The policemen frisked
mm Chinese made pistol, two long and three short the three without opposition from the latter.38
magazines for a caliber 5.56 mm rifle, 188 live (f) PO3 Manuel Cube (PO3 Cube) corroborated39 PO1
ammunitions, 24 pieces of cartridges fired from four Pacris’ testimony relative to the arrest of Ricky, Jose and
different caliber 5.56 mm rifles, two lifted latent prints, Marcelo. PO3 Cube further stated that while it was not his
among others. She made a Spot Report of the physical team which arrested the suspects, after Jose and Ricky
evidence recovered by her team. P/Insp. Bugnay, however, were turned over to them, they brought the two to Camp
stated that some of the police officers, who participated in Crame.40 While in the investigation room, he heard Jose
the rescue operations, also carried caliber 5.56 mm and Ricky admit knowledge of Albert’s abduction.41 Jose
firearms.32 and Ricky were then not assisted by counsel.42 Chief Police
(d) Evangeline, Albert’s wife, testified33 having Superintendent Zolio M. Lachica (Col. Lachica) briefed PO3
received seven phone calls34 between April 7, 2002 and Cube and the other policemen that the arrested suspects
April 11, 2002 from the kidnappers informing her that they divulged an information that the Hi-Ace with Plate No.
took Albert and demanding USD 1,000,000.00 as ransom WNW-180 used in Albert’s abduction was going to pass by
money.35 On April 11, 2002, she was instructed by the Road C-5, Common-
kidnappers to go to Jollibee along EDSA Guadalupe. The
kidnappers were supposed to hand to her a letter from her
_______________
husband. A police operative acted as her driver. She and
37 Id., at pp. 40, 69-70.
the police operative got to the place between 11:30 and
11:45 in the morning.36 The kidnappers called her and 38  CA Rollo, pp. 242-243; TSN, Vol. I, November 22, 2002, pp. 14-38;

ordered her driver to go to the restrooms to retrieve a letter TSN, Vol. I, December 13, 2002, pp. 6-25.
taped in one of the toilet bowls. Evangeline went back to 39 Id., at pp. 243-247; TSN, Vol. I, January 17, 2003, pp. 3-16; TSN,
her car. While she was inside, three men tried to forcibly Vol. I, January 24, 2003, pp. 3-15; TSN, Vol. I, February 7, 2003, pp. 8-62.
open her car. She panicked, bowed down and screamed. 40 TSN, Vol. I, January 17, 2003, p. 15; TSN, Vol. I, February 7, 2003,
She was, however, only able to see the suspects pp. 37-38.
41 TSN, Vol. I, January 17, 2003, p. 16.
42 CA Rollo, p. 246.
_______________
31 Id., at pp. 235-237; TSN, Vol. I, September 27, 2002, pp. 8-47. 673
32 Id., at pp. 237-238; TSN, Vol. I, October 11, 2002, pp. 6-36.
33 Id., at pp. 238-242; TSN, Vol. I, November 8, 2002, pp. 6-93.
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 673
34 TSN, Vol. I, November 8, 2002, p. 60.
35 Id., at p. 18. People vs. Salvador
36 Id., at p. 63.
wealth Avenue on April 12, 2002.43 PO3 Cube, Major Vero
672
and other police officers riding four to five vehicles went to
the place. At around 5:45 a.m., they spotted the Hi-Ace,
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED chased it and blocked it with a police car.44 Robert and
Roger were inside the Hi-Ace, and the former had a
People vs. Salvador
shotgun. After the policemen drew their guns, the suspects
surrendered.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

(g)PO2 Arvin Garces (PO2 Garces), a field operative and house and a billiard hall. He also renders mechanical
an in-house bomb technician assigned at the CIDG’s Anti- services. He claimed that from 12:00 noon until 9:00 p.m. of
Organized Crime and Businessmen’s Concern Division, April 7, 2002, he was repairing a motor bike at home.
testified45 that on April 12, 2002, between 8:00 a.m. and Marcelo was with a certain Bogs, the owner of the motor
8:30 a.m., he and 20 policemen went to Sitio GSIS, bike, and Jober, the former’s helper.55
Barangay San Martin de Porres, Parañaque to arrest From April 8 to 9, 2002, Marcelo just stayed home with
Lowhen, Jubert and Morey. Their team leader knocked on his daughter.56
the door of the target house, which was partially open. On April 10, 2002, at around 7:00 a.m., Marcelo was in
Lowhen came out. Jubert and Morey were in the adjacent his bedroom making an accounting of the earnings of his
room, which was about five meters away from where beer house. He heard knocks at the door of his billiard hall.
Lowhen was.46 PO2 Garces was uncertain though if the Thereafter, around six unidentified men entered, punched,
said adjacent room was part of the same house where tied him up, and threw him at the back of a white Revo
Lowhen was found.47 The three suspects were informed without a plate. Even when Rosario, Marcelo’s daughter,
that they were being implicated for Albert’s kidnapping was slapped
and would thus be taken for investigation.
Following were among the object evidence likewise _______________
offered by the prosecution: (a) sketches prepared by Albert 51 Id., at pp. 186-187.
depicting the (1) exact location where the kidnapping took 52 Id., at p. 195.
place,48 (2) positions of Albert and Pinky relative to the 53  Here, Albert identified nine of the accused-appellants, except
kidnappers while inside the Hi-Ace,49 and (3) interior of the Lowhen, as involved in his kidnapping; id., at pp. 196-199.
basement room where Albert and Pinky were detained;50 54  Here, Albert identified Lowhen as one of the two guards who
(b) dark glasses wrapped with black tape and handcuffs watched over him on April 11, 2002, the fifth day of the former’s
worn by Albert and detention; id., at p. 200. Albert did not see Lowhen yet in the CIDG office
when the former executed his first affidavit, hence, the latter was not
_______________ promptly pinpointed; CA Rollo, p. 233.
43 TSN, Vol. I, January 24, 2003, pp. 5-6. 55  TSN, Vol. I, June 20, 2003, pp. 11-57; TSN, Vol. I, September 3,
44 Id., at pp. 7-8. 2003, pp. 3-31.
45  CA Rollo, pp. 247-248; TSN, Vol. I, February 14, 2003, pp. 4-33; 56 Id., at pp. 42-43.
TSN, Vol. I, March 28, 2003, pp. 3-32.
46 TSN, Vol. I, February 14, 2003, p. 13. 675

47 Id., at p. 29.
48 Records, p. 192. VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 675
49 Id., at p. 193.
People vs. Salvador
50 Id., at p. 194.

674 and kicked by the unidentified men after she inquired

about their identities, she insisted that she be taken with
her father. Marcelo and Rosario were brought to Camp
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Crame. They were made to sit down in a room with a hazy
People vs. Salvador glass window. Rosario was thereafter ordered to leave the
room and when she refused, she was dragged out. The men
Pinky while they were detained;51 (c) Albert’s handwritten started showing Marcelo photographs and asking him
note dated April 10, 2002 addressed to “Vangie” and signed questions. When he denied knowing any of the persons in
by “Boogs”;52 and (d) Sinumpaang Salaysay53 and the photographs, he was blindfolded with a packing tape
Supplemental Affidavit54 executed by Albert on April 13, and got kicked every time he refused to answer the men’s
2002 and April 15, 2002, respectively. queries. A plastic bag was likewise placed over his head
making it difficult for him to breathe. His ordeal lasted for
The Case for the Defense an hour, after which somebody told him that if he had PhP
100,000.00, he would be released.57
The defense witnesses with their testimonies were: At around 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., Marcelo asked Rosario
(a) Marcelo, resident of Sta. Ana Compound, Manila to go home and look for a lawyer. At around 10:00 a.m. of
East Road, Taytay, Rizal, testified that he owns a beer the following day, April 11, 2002, Rosario came back with a
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

certain Atty. Platon. Marcelo narrated to Atty. Platon the fresh abrasions in both hands of the latter, but he did not
circumstances surrounding his arrest.58 Atty. Platon reduce his observations into writing.69 To stop Marcelo’s
informed Marcelo that the latter was being charged of manhandling, Dr. de Vera sought audience with the PNP
kidnapping.59 Not long after, at around 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 Chief, but the latter was not around.70
a.m., a certain Dr. Arnold de Vera (Dr. de Vera) arrived
and conducted an examination of Marcelo’s injuries and _______________
bruises.60 Marcelo asked Atty. Platon if he can file a 63 Id., at pp. 34-35.
complaint against the men who mauled him. Atty. Platon 64 TSN, Vol. I, September 3, 2003, pp. 9-10.
replied in the affirmative, but as of even date, no complaint 65 Id., at pp. 16-17.
had been filed yet as Marcelo had to attend to other 66 Id., at p. 27.
pressing matters relative to the kidnapping case.61 Atty. 67 Id., at p. 15.
Platon and Dr. de Vera left while Marcelo and Rosario
68 TSN, Vol. I, October 1, 2003, pp. 5-28.
stayed in Camp Crame for two nights.62
69 Id., at pp. 7-10.
70 Id., at p. 12.
_______________
57 Id., at pp. 14-26. 677
58 Id., at pp. 28-30.
59 Id., at p. 32.
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 677
60 Id., at p. 31; CA Rollo, pp. 252-253.
People vs. Salvador
61 Id., at pp. 46-48.
62 Id., at p. 33. 
During cross-examination, Dr. de Vera stated that once
676 in a while, he sings and drinks in Marcelo’s beer house in
Taytay.71
SPO2 Eduardo Peñales’ testimony was dispensed with
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
since the parties stipulated that he was the officer who, on
People vs. Salvador April 10, 2002, at around 8:35 a.m., received and recorded
in the logbook of the Taytay Police Station a report from a
On April 12, 2002, at around 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m., certain Jover Porras y Perla that Marcelo was abducted by
Marcelo was brought to a building in Camp Crame and was unidentified men earlier at 7:20 a.m.72
made to stand up alongside nine people with whom he was (b) Ricky is a “kristo” or bet taker in Araneta Coliseum
not acquainted. There were cameras around and a Chinese and U-Cap Cockpit in Mandaluyong, and “mananari” or
man and a woman started pointing at them.63 gaffer residing in San Luis Street, Valenzuela, Metro
Marcelo denied personal acquaintance with Albert,64 Manila.73 He was still asleep in bed with his wife on April
PO1 Pacris,65 Jubert, Monico and Betty.66 He admitted 10, 2002, at around 9:45 a.m.74 when he heard somebody
having been to the Coliseum as he was into cock fighting. knocking on the door. When he opened it, a man pointed a
The Coliseum, located in Cainta, is only about two gun at him and told him not to ask any questions but just
kilometers away from Taytay.67 to go with them. There were two men and they brought him
Marcelo offered the testimony of Dr. de Vera,68 a plastic to a white Revo where he saw three other people. The
surgeon from St. Luke’s Medical Center, Quezon City, to owner of the house saw Ricky being taken.75
prove that in the morning of April 11, 2002, the former was Ricky was brought to Camp Crame, was asked if he
already under the CIDG’s custody. The foregoing is knew certain persons from the photographs shown to him,
contrary to the prosecution’s claim that between 11:30 a.m. and was mauled when he replied in the negative.76
and 12:00 noon of the said date, Marcelo was arrested in In the morning of April 12, 2002 while still detained in
Jollibee along EDSA Guadalupe while trying to forcibly Camp Crame, one of the men, who forcibly took Ricky from
open Evangeline’s car. Dr. de Vera stated that in the his rented room on April 10, 2002, informed the latter that
afternoon of April 10, 2002, Marcelo’s daughter called if he had PhP 20,000.00, he would be released. In the
asking for his help as her father was allegedly being afternoon of April 12, 2002, Ricky was handcuffed and
manhandled. Dr. de Vera went to the CIDG office in the placed in a police
morning of April 11, 2002. He made a visual examination of
Marcelo’s body and saw hematoma in the sternum and _______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/48

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

71 Id., at p. 14. VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 679

72 Id., at pp. 29-41.
People vs. Salvador
73 TSN, Vol. II, November 5, 2003, p. 3.
74 Id., at pp. 7, 14.
During cross-examination, May stated that Ricky was
75 Id., at pp. 9-14.
with her at around 7:00 p.m. of April 7, 2002.87
76 Id., at pp. 15-17.
Ritchelda Tugbo (Tugbo), a 63-year old widow and
678 Ricky’s landlady, testified88 that at around 9:30 a.m. of
April 10, 2002, while she was eating breakfast, three
unidentified men entered her house and took Ricky from
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED his rented room.89
People vs. Salvador Sabina Poliquit (Poliquit), an unemployed 50-year old
widow, and Rodolfo Buado (Buado), a 60-year old retired
employee, who were both Ricky’s neighbors, corroborated
line-up without being informed of the reason for his
Tugbo’s statements.90
inclusion therein.77
(c) Jose is a trainer gaffer, breeder of fighting cocks,
Ricky denied being among those who abducted Albert on
part-time private martial during derbies, and a resident of
April 7, 2002 and being present in the safehouse in Amparo
San Isidro, Fairview, Quezon City. During the trial, he
Subdivision, Caloocan at 6:00 a.m. of April 11, 2002.78 He
stated91 that in the evening of April 9, 2002, he went to U-
did not know Albert personally and had not seen him
Cap Cockpit in Mandaluyong, where a derby sponsored by
before. However, Ricky admitted having been to the
a certain Pol Estrellado was being held, to find prospective
Coliseum and knowing that Albert was renting the same.79
buyers of fighting cocks and to place bets.92 He left the
Ricky was unaware of any grudge Albert, PO1 Pacris or
place at around 1:00 a.m. of April 10, 2002. While waiting
PO3 Cube may have against him.80 Ricky did not have any
for a cab, a white Revo stopped in front of him, and three
document to prove that he was detained in Camp Crame on
gun-toting men alighted therefrom.93 He was shoved in the
April 10, 2002 and his Booking and Arrest Sheet were both
front seat in between the driver and another man. While
dated April 12, 2002.81
inside the Revo, Jose’s eyes were covered with packing
Ricky’s wife, May, testified82 that after the former was
tape. His wallet, money, watch, necklace and ring were
taken by the unidentified men, she went to Valenzuela
taken, and the men stepped on his head to keep him down.
Police Station and an officer opined that her husband may
A plastic bag was placed over his head making it difficult
be in Camp Crame.83 She went as suggested and found her
for him to breathe, and he was repeatedly punched when
husband, who assured her that he would be released.84 She
he denied involvement in Albert’s kidnapping.94
went home but got back to Camp Crame at 12:00 noon of
April 11, 2002, during which time she was not anymore
allowed to talk to Ricky.85 She stayed in Camp Crame until _______________
past 10:00 p.m. and saw from TV Patrol that Ricky was 87 Id., at pp. 29, 33.
involved in a kidnapping incident. She got to talk to her 88 Id., at pp. 50-66.
husband only on April 13, 2002.86 89 Id., at pp. 53-55.
90 TSN, Vol. II, December 10, 2003, pp. 5-37.
_______________ 91 TSN, Vol. II, February 11, 2004, pp. 8-67.
77 Id., at pp. 21-22. 92 Id., at pp. 11-12.
78 Id., at p. 23. 93 Id., at pp. 15-17, 34.
79 Id., at p. 28. 94 Id., at pp. 17-21.
80 Id., at pp. 40-43.
680
81 Id., at p. 45.
82 TSN, Vol. II, December 3, 2003, pp. 5-49.
83 Id., at p. 17. 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
84 Id., at pp. 19-20. People vs. Salvador
85 Id., at p. 22.
86 Id., at pp. 25-27. When Jose regained consciousness, he did not know
where he was but there was a boy of around 16 years of age
679
removing the packing tape from his eyes. Adelantar only
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

learned that he was in Camp Crame when he was brought Igat (Igat), their acquaintance. Betty saw Roger once but
to a room with a police line-up at around 6:00 p.m. of April the latter was wearing sunglasses.104
12, 2002.95 He insisted that from April 10, 2002 onwards, Betty stated that from April 7 to 12, 2002, Monico was
he was held by the police in Camp Crame, hence, he could contracted to build a deep well in Narra Street, Amparo
not have been present at 6:00 a.m. of April 11, 2002 in the Subdivision, Caloocan City. In the morning of April 12,
safehouse where Albert was detained, and at 11:00 a.m. of 2002, Igat told her that the house in Lumbang Street was
the same day in Jollibee along EDSA Guadalupe.96 The boy being fired at by the policemen. She first instructed Monico
who removed the packing tape from his eyes could attest to to report the incident to the police, then, she ran towards
the foregoing, but Jose did not know his name and had not the said house. She was still at a certain distance from the
seen him anymore.97 Further, Jose had never been to the house when the policemen held her by the arms after
Coliseum and had not personally met Albert and Pinky.98 finding out that she owned it. She denied knowledge of the
Jose alleged that he and the rest of the accused-appellants kidnapping incident, but she was still invited by the police
were mere fall guys.99 Jose claimed that he only met officers to go with them to Camp Crame.105
Marcelo after they were both placed in the police line-up Betty was not allowed to go home but was detained by
and in the same detention cell.100 Jose admitted that he the police in Camp Crame. At around 6:00 p.m. of April 12,
was acquainted with Ricky, whom he had recommended to 2002, after Albert and Pinky arrived, Betty, Roger, Jose,
be a “kristo” in Araneta Cockpit.101 Out of fear, Jose had Marcelo, Ricky and other suspects were placed in a police
neither informed his lawyer that he was mauled by the line-up composed of ten people. Monico, Jubert and Morey
policemen nor filed any action against them.102 were not among those in the line-up yet. Albert and Pinky
(d) Betty and her husband Monico have been residing did not pinpoint Betty from the line-up, but a police officer
for about 33 years in 224 Malanting Street, Amparo insisted that she be included because she owned the
Subdivision, Caloocan City. Betty, an elementary school safehouse. Betty identified the officer as SPO1 Polero, but
graduate, is a housewife tending a sari-sari store and a she was uncertain of the name, albeit describing the latter
piggery. Monico is a drilling contractor and plumber. Betty as the one who took Albert
and Monico own the house in Lumbang Street, Amparo
Subdivision, Caloocan _______________
103 TSN, Vol. II, February 18, 2004, pp. 17-40; TSN, Vol. II, March 3,
_______________ 2004, pp. 3-36.
95 Id., at pp. 21-23. 104 TSN, Vol. II, February 18, 2004, pp. 30-34.
96 Id., at pp. 27-29. 105 Id., at pp. 35-40.
97 Id., at pp. 56-57.
682
98 Id., at pp. 30-31, 61, 64.
99 Id., at pp. 52-53.
100 Id., at p. 39. 682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
101 Id., at p. 63. People vs. Salvador
102 Id., at pp. 41-43.

681 and Pinky’s statements.106 Betty did not see Albert and
Pinky being brought out of the house during the rescue
operations on April 7, 2002. Betty did not personally know
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 681 Albert, but first saw him in Camp Crame in the evening of
People vs. Salvador April 12, 2002.107
During cross-examination, Betty stated that Monico and
City, where Albert and Pinky were detained from April 7 to Jubert were included in the police line-up.108
12, 2002. (e) Monico stated109 that he received PhP 3,000.00
Betty testified103 that due to her busy schedule, she had from Roger and handed it to Betty as rental for their house
not visited their house in Lumbang Street during the in Lumbang Street, Amparo Subdivision, Caloocan City.
alleged period of Albert and Pinky’s detention. Betty and The said house is about four streets away from Betty’s sari-
Monico had rented out for PhP 3,000.00 per month the said sari store and piggery in Malanting Street. The amount
house to Roger since the late afternoon of April 7, 2002. was a mere deposit and he was promised that before the
Roger was recommended to the spouses by a certain Pidok end of the month, PhP 6,000.00 would be paid as rental.110
Monico did not visit the house from April 7 to 11, 2002,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

hence, he did not know if Roger actually occupied it. Within house of his uncle, Daniel Balanay (Balanay), in Bicutan,
the same period, Monico was not able to talk to Igat, who Taguig.117
was the person who referred Roger to him and Betty.111 Jubert met Lowhen, a resident of Parañaque, while
Monico testified that he was in Betty’s store in the night applying for a job to make cabinets for Perma Wood
of April 7, 2002 and denied having assisted Albert in Industries on March 27, 2002.118
descending to the basement of the safehouse.112 At around 4:00 p.m. of April 11, 2002, Jubert went to
When their house in Lumbang Street was fired at by the Lowhen’s house to inquire about the requirements in
police in the early morning of April 11, 2002, he was applying as a security guard, but the latter was not home
instructed by Betty to report the matter to the authorities. yet. Lowhen arrived at around 5:00 p.m. Morey, whom
He went to the Novaliches Police, but was informed that Jubert met for the first time, was also there. Lowhen
Amparo Subdivision is not within the said station’s bought drinks for the three of them and Jubert stayed
jurisdiction. overnight in the house of Morey,

_______________ _______________
106  TSN, Vol. II, March 3, 2004, pp. 4-9; In a Counter-Affidavit 113 Id., at pp. 9-12.
executed by Monico, the police officer taking Albert’s sworn statements 114 Id., at pp. 26-27.
was identified as PO1 Arturo M. Fallero, TSN, Vol. II, June 16, 2004, p. 115 TSN, Vol. II, March 17, 2004, pp. 12-43.
28. 116 Id., at p. 15.
107 Id., at p. 17. 117 Id., at pp. 17-18.
108 Id., at p. 25. 118 Id., at pp. 20, 38.
109 TSN, Vol. II, June 16, 2004, pp. 3-30.
110 Id., at p. 7. 684
111 Id., at p. 13.
112 Id., at pp. 8-9. 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
683 People vs. Salvador

VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 683 which was just about 50 meters away. While they were
sleeping, men barged in, ordered them to lay face down,
People vs. Salvador and handcuffed them. Jubert and Morey were taken out of
the house where they saw Lowhen, who was likewise
Monico got to Bagong Silang Police Station at around 9:00 boarded into a car. Out of fear of the men who seemed
a.m., and an officer took notes while talking to him, but the angry, Lowhen, Jubert and Morey were no longer able to
former was not sure if it was a blotter. Monico was ask why they were being taken. They were brought to
instructed to wait. At around 3:00 p.m., a superior officer Camp Crame. Jubert denied being among those who
arrived, asked Monico questions and informed the latter abducted Albert and Pinky on April 7, 2002, and guarding
that he knew about the shooting incident. He stayed in the the latter two who were detained in the basement of Betty
police station until 6:00 p.m. The officer told Monico that and Monico’s house in Amparo Subdivision, Caloocan
the latter would be brought to Camp Crame to be City.119 Jubert insisted that on April 7, 2002, he was fixing
interviewed and will be allowed to go home after.113 In the house of his uncle, Balanay, in Bicutan, Taguig, and
Camp Crame, Monico was informed that he was being with him were the latter’s brother and two ladies.120
implicated in Albert and Pinky’s kidnapping. Although he However, none of the mentioned persons executed
and Betty denied any involvement in the charges against affidavits to corroborate Jubert’s claim as to his
them, to date, for lack of opportunity on their part as they whereabouts on April 7, 2002.121 Jubert vehemently denied
are both detained, no complaints had been filed against the having seen Albert prior to April 12, 2002, the day the
officers who implicated them.114 former was arrested.122
(f) Jubert, a carpenter and a college undergraduate (g) Robert, a farmer from Isabela, a driver since 1986,
from Asibanglan, Pinukpok, Kalinga Province, testified115 and resident of Western Bicutan, Taguig since 1990,
that he came to Manila to look for a job on January 2002.116 alleged123 that on April 7, 2002, he was in Bontoc,
For two months, from February to March 2002, he was Mountain Province.124 From March 4 to April 8, 2002, he
among those who worked in constructing the Globe was driving for Engineer Raymundo Vargas, Sr. (Engr.
Telecommunications tower in Sucat. He resided in the Vargas), a contractor engineer.125 Robert offered as
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

evidence a certification, dated November 6, 2003, issued by Province from February 10 to April 8, 2002. It takes 12 to
the Pines Community Developers and General Services 14 hours to
Corporation, signed by Engr. Vargas, stating that he was
employed from February 10, 1987 to April 8, 2002, and five _______________
cash vouchers showing that he was paid for his services.126 127 Id., at p. 36.
The cash voucher for the payment of PhP 128 TSN, Vol. II, October 13, 2004, p. 60.
129 TSN, Vol. II, September 15, 2004, p. 37.
_______________ 130 Id., at pp. 21, 33.
119 Id., at pp. 20-25. 131 Id., at pp. 41-76; TSN, Vol. II, October 13, 2004, pp. 4-35.
120 Id., at pp. 30, 35-37. 132 TSN, Vol. II, September 15, 2004, pp. 46-47, 67.
121 Id., at p. 37. 133 Id., at pp. 47-52.
122 Id., at pp. 32-34. 134 TSN, Vol. II, October 13, 2004, pp. 40-66.
123 TSN, Vol. II, September 15, 2004, pp. 7-38.
686
124 Id., at p. 15.
125 Id., at pp. 16, 24.
126 Id., at pp. 17-20, 29. 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

685 People vs. Salvador

reach Manila from Bontoc.135 Robert was with Engr.

VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 685
Vargas on April 7, 2002, but the former went to Baguio at
People vs. Salvador 10:00 a.m. of the following day supposedly to collect
rentals. Robert said he would be back in two days, but no
2,500.00, dated April 8, 2002, which was allegedly received longer showed up after. Engr. Vargas only found out in
by Robert himself,127 contained erasures. Engr. Vargas October 2003 that Robert was being implicated in a
justified the erasures by stating that the typewriter, which kidnapping incident after being informed by the latter’s
was initially used, did not yield very clear impressions on wife.136
paper.128 Copies of the cash vouchers were, however, (h) Roger, a businessman residing in Signal Village,
secured by his wife only much later upon his lawyer’s Bicutan, Taguig, claimed137 that on April 11, 2002, at
instructions.129 around 6:00 a.m., he was walking along Bravo Street in
On April 11, 2002, Robert was arrested in his house in Signal Village.138 He was on his way to his brother’s wake
Bicutan by CIDG officers contrary to the prosecution’s when he was taken by four armed men wearing civilian
claim that he was riding the Hi-Ace with Roger and clothes, whom he later found out were police officers from
carrying a shotgun when seized by the police in the CIDG.139 He only met his co-accused-appellants in
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City on April 12, 2002.130 Camp Crame on April 11, 2002.140 He saw Albert for the
Robert is not engaged in cockfighting. first time on April 12, 2002 when the police line-up was
Angelita Alto (Alto), a member of the Barangay presented to the latter.141
Auxiliary Force of Western Bicutan, Taguig, testified131 (i) Morey, a warehouse care taker from Barangay
that at around 7:45 a.m. of April 11, 2002, a van parked in Sinakbat, Bacong, Benguet,stated142 that he was in
the corner of Sunflower and Calantas Streets, Western Burnham, Baguio City tending coconuts on April 7, 2002.
Bicutan, Taguig, and persons clad in dark suits alighted The warehouse closed at 6:00 p.m., after which he went to
therefrom.132 They proceeded to Robert’s house where his uncle’s house in Trinidad, Benguet.143
Alto’s cousin stays as a boarder. The men kicked and broke At 1:00 p.m. of April 8, 2002, Morey and a certain Harris
the door, handcuffed, blindfolded and took Robert to the Batawang (Batawang) left Baguio for Manila. Morey was
van. Alto was about three meters away from where the contracted to watch over a house bought by Batawang in
events transpired. When the van left, Alto took two GSIS Village, Parañaque. They got to Manila at around
pictures of the broken door, called up Robert’s wife and 9:00
recorded the events in page 1056 of the barangay’s
logbook.133 _______________
Engr. Vargas from Baguio City corroborated134 Robert’s 135 Id., at p. 65.
claim that they were together in Bontoc, Mountain 136 Id., at pp. 49-54.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/48

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

137 TSN, Vol. II, November 17, 2004, pp. 5-26. 149 TSN, Vol. II, April 6, 2005, pp. 9-11.
138 Id., at pp. 7, 12.
688
139 Id., at pp. 7, 13, 25.
140 Id., at p. 13.
141 Id., at p. 18. 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
142 TSN, Vol. II, February 23, 2005, pp. 7-46.
People vs. Salvador
143 Id., at pp. 12-13.

687 On April 10, 2002, Lowhen reported for work in Perma

Wood Industries at 7:30 a.m.150 He offered an uncertified
photocopy of his daily time record (DTR) from March 16 to
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 687 31, 2002 with his signature on it.151 Anent the DTR from
People vs. Salvador April 1 to 15, 2002, it was unsigned by Lowhen because at
that time, he was already arrested by CIDG officers.152
p.m., spent the night in Parañaque, and the following Logbook entries signed by Lowhen and a certain “S/G
morning, Batawang called Lowhen and introduced him to Pacete RA,” the outgoing guard, indicating that the former
Morey.144On April 10, 2002, Morey and Batawang bought assumed his posts at 7:00 a.m. of April 4, 6, 8 and 10, 2002
materials for the repair of the latter’s house. At 2:00 p.m. of were likewise presented.153 Lowhen got off from work at
the following day, Batawang returned to Baguio to recruit 7:45 a.m. of April 11, 2002,154 but was no longer able to
workers to help Morey in repairing the former’s house.145 assume duties the next day because he was already taken
In the evening of April 11, 2002, Lowhen called Morey by the CIDG officers.155 He just walked and got home at
and informed him that the latter has a province mate who 8:00 a.m., ate breakfast and went to visit a certain Roger
was staying in the former’s house. Lowhen was referring to Batersal (Batersal) in Malugay Street, Parañaque to have a
Jubert. Morey went to Lowhen’s house. The three drunk picture frame repaired. Batersal, Lowhen’s brother-in-law,
the gin bought by Lowhen. Lowhen slept at 11:00 p.m., was then having coffee, so Lowhen went inside the house,
leaving Morey and Jubert behind. Morey and Jubert slept laid down in the sofa, turned on the television and slept till
in Batawang’s house. The following day, men barged into 4:00 p.m. The picture frame was already assembled and
Batawang’s house and handcuffed Morey and Jubert. The Lowhen went home where he saw Jubert waiting for
men asked if the two knew a certain Lito, ordered them to him.156 Jubert asked Lowhen about the requirements in
surrender their guns, and ransacked Batawang’s house. applying for a security guard position. Lowhen bought gin
Lowhen, Morey and Batawang were boarded into a Revo and while the two were drinking, he found out that Jubert
and brought to Camp Crame.146Morey denied being speaks Kalinga and Ilocano. Lowhen called Morey, who
acquainted with the other accused-appellants apart from hailed from Baguio and who was then a boarder in the
Lowhen and Morey. Morey initially saw Albert during the house of the former’s brother. Morey joined the drinking
first day of hearing of the kidnapping case.147 session but Lowhen left at around 11:00 p.m. as the latter
(j) Lowhen, a resident of Parañaque City, stated148 that was already dizzy and still had to assume his post at 7:00
he had been employed by Regioner Security and a.m. of the following day.157
Investigation Agency (Regioner) as a guard since 1993. He
was posted in Perma Wood Industries Corporation in _______________
Marian Road 2, Parañaque from March 4 to April 11, 2002. 150 Id., at pp. 11-12.
He worked on a 24-hour shift, usually starting at 7:00 151 Id., at pp. 12-13, 18.
a.m.149 152 Id., at pp. 21-24.
153 Id., at pp. 34-52.
_______________ 154 Id., at pp. 54, 59.
144 Id., at pp. 14-16. 155 Id., at pp. 54-55.
145 Id., at pp. 17-18. 156 Id., at pp. 59-60.
146 Id., at pp. 18-24. 157 Id., at pp. 68-74.
147 Id., at p. 34.
689
148 TSN, Vol. II, April 6, 2005, pp. 5-127; TSN, Vol. II, April 20, 2005,
pp. 2-16; TSN, Vol. II, April 27, 2005, pp. 5-39; TSN, Vol. II, May 11, 2005,
pp. 5-9. VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 689

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/48

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

People vs. Salvador could not have been in the basement of the safehouse
where Albert was detained at around the same time.164
At 6:30 a.m. of April 12, 2002, Lowhen’s wife woke him Redentor Pacete (Pacete), a construction worker who
up, but he went back to sleep. Thereafter, Lowhen heard used to work as a reliever guard at Regioner, testified165
noises from the gate of the house, then somebody shouted that he met Lowhen when they were both assigned in
ordering for men to get out. When Lowhen opened his eyes, Perma Wood Industries.166 Pacete’s signatures were affixed
a man wearing black was pointing a long firearm at him. in Regioner’s logbook indicating the times he assumed his
Lowhen went out of the house and was directed to place his posts before or after Lowhen.
hands behind his head and lie face down on the floor. The Domingo De Guzman (De Guzman), Lowhen’s
men searched Lowhen’s house. Lowhen, Morey and Jubert supervisor in Regioner, was called by the defense to the
were taken to the nearby United Parañaque Subdivision witness stand to point out to the court that he was the one
and after about 15 to 20 minutes, they were boarded into a who photocopied the logbook entries and the DTR referred
green Revo without a plate. Lowhen’s wife wanted to tag to by Lowhen and Pacete in their testimonies.167 However,
along but she was informed that she could no longer be the originals cannot anymore be presented to the court
accommodated in the Revo, but she could just proceed on because Regioner had ceased its operations in 2004 and the
her own to Camp Crame.158 records were no longer available.168 De Guzman brought
When they reached Camp Crame, Lowhen, Jubert and two index cards, prepared by Regioner’s secretary,
Morey were separated from each other.159 Lowhen was indicating Lowhen’s assignments from April 27, 1993 to
brought into a room and a police officer asked him if he April 11, 2002,169 and 27 payroll sheets likewise including
knew a certain Lito. Lowhen replied in the negative, then Lowhen’s name covering the period from February 1, 2000
he was questioned if he knew that a man and a woman had to April 15, 2002.170
been kidnapped. The officer stepped out of the room, but he The testimony171 of Elsie Batersal (Elsie), Lowhen’s
came back later with a bald Chinese man.160 The Chinese sister, to the effect that her brother went to her house at
man stood near the door, looked at the officer, shook his around 8:30
head, then left. The officer tapped Lowhen’s shoulder and
asked the latter to cooperate with the police by being a star _______________
witness, for which he would be paid PhP 10,000.00 a 162 Id., at p. 110.
month, or be hanged. The officer typed an affidavit, but 163 Id., at p. 125.
Lowhen refused to receive it. Lowhen told the officer that 164 TSN, Vol. II, April 27, 2005, p. 33.
he could not do what was demanded of him, then the latter 165 TSN, Vol. II, May 11, 2005, pp. 10-29.
left. Lowhen remained in the room until 6:30 p.m. of April 166 Id., at pp. 18, 22.
12, 2002 when he was put alongside more than 10 other 167 TSN, Vol. II, July 13, 2005, pp. 38, 40-41.
persons in a police line-up.161 Albert 168 Id., at p. 32.
169 Id., at pp. 32-33, 47-50.
_______________ 170 Id., at p. 35.
158 Id., at pp. 76-82. 171 Id., at pp. 68-71.
159 Id., at p. 84.
160 Id., at pp. 93-95. 691

161 Id., at pp. 97-104.

VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 691
690
People vs. Salvador

690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

a.m. of April 11, 2002 and slept there until 4:00 p.m., was
People vs. Salvador dispensed with after the prosecution agreed to stipulate
and admit the same.
did not point at Lowhen in the line-up.162 Prior to April 11,
2002, Lowhen did not personally know Albert.163 The Ruling of the RTC
During cross-examination, Lowhen stated that he was
The RTC rendered a Decision172 on September 27, 2007.
on duty in the early morning of April 11, 2002, hence, he
In Criminal Case No. Q-02-108834, the accused-appellants
were acquitted from the charges of kidnapping and serious
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

illegal detention of Pinky. The accused-appellants were, the names of eight (8) accused as among those whom he identified
however, convicted of conspiring the kidnapping of, and in the police line-up; x x x Albert Yam explained in his testimony
demanding of ransom from Albert in Criminal Case No. Q- that he also identified the accused Lowhen Almonte after the
02-108835. The RTC imposed upon the accused-appellants police line-up because said accused was not among those included
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a solidary obligation during the police line-up and this is in accordance with a
to pay Albert the amount of PhP 100,000.00 as moral Supplemental Affidavit which Albert Yam identified in court.
damages. The RTC ratiocinated that: x x x The Court was able to deduce from the testimony of Albert
Yam that Monico Salvador and Betty Salvador who are
Very critical in this case is the testimony of Albert Yam. He admittedly the owners of the place where Albert Yam and Pinky
testified about how the kidnapping was perpetrated; he testified Gonzales were kept during the kidnapping ordeal, were not
that a Toyota Hi-Ace van with eight (8) occupants blocked the present at the precise time that the rescue was conducted by the
path of the Honda Civic car colored white driven by Pinky police.
Gonzales; he (Albert Yam) was driving a Toyota Prado vehicle x x x x
that was behind the Honda Civic car of Pinky Gonzales; Albert Where there is no evidence, as in this case, to indicate that the
Yam identified and named before this court four (4) of those who prosecution witness was actuated by improper motive, the
alighted from the van; he testified that accused Morey Dadaan presumption is that he is not so actuated and that his testimony
and accused Jubert Banatao after going down from their van, is entitled to full faith and credit. Also jurisprudence holds that if
approached the Honda Civic car of Pinky Gonzales; he also an accused had really nothing to do with a crime, it would be
identified and named Roger Pesado accompanied by Robert against the natural order of events and human nature and
Gonzales who went down from their van and approached his car; against the presumption of good faith that a prosecution witness
he testified that it was Roger Pesado who told him (Albert Yam) would falsely testify against him. x x x
to come out of his vehicle; he further testified about he and Pinky x x x x
Gonzales being boarded in the Toyota Hi-Ace van and identified Direct Proof of previous agreement to commit an offense is not
accused Marcelo Llanora as the driver of the van, Ricky Peña who necessary to prove conspiracy. It may be deduced from the mode,
is seated beside the driver x  x  x. Albert Yam also testified that method and manner in which the offense is perpetrated, or
after their kidnapping ordeal, he learned that accused Jose inferred from the acts of the accused when such acts point to a
Adelantar acted as look out when they were being kidnapped joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of
along the road coming from the Cainta cockpit; x  x  x he also interest. x x x
testified that when the ransom was being demanded, seven (7) of x x x x
their kidnappers went
693

_______________
172 CA Rollo, pp. 218-291. VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 693

692
People vs. Salvador

Here, we find a closeness of personal association and a

692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
concurrence towards a common [un]lawful purpose. x x x
People vs. Salvador x x x There were very minor loose ends in the chain of events
and the testimony of these other witnesses beside[s] Albert Yam
down to talk to him and in court gave the name[s] of six (6) of the completed the narration of facts for the prosecution. These other
accused, namely: Jubert Banatao, Morey Dadaan, Marcelo witnesses, most of whom are police officers[,] provided the proof[s]
Llanora, Ricky Peña, Jose Adelantar and Lowhen Almonte; Albert for the prosecution as to how the kidnapping case was solved and
also testified that at the instance when he fell down the steps of why the accused were apprehended.
the stairs, it was the accused Monico Salvador who was escorting x x x x
him and held him; in his testimony, he stated that accused Betty Denial is a self[-]serving negative defense that cannot be given
Salvador brought the food that they ate and on one occasion, saw greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who
her asking another accused about their condition; x  x  x Albert testifies on affirmative matters. x x x
Yam testified that the ransom demanded by the accused is in the Settled is the rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak
amount of One Million Dollars and there were possibly fifteen (15) and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful
people who were involved in the kidnapping; he further testified witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. x x x
about the rescue operation and was able to identify seven (7) of x x x x
the accused in the police line-up but mentioned in his testimony
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

Among the documentary evidence presented which gives Albert’s positive testimony relative to Robert’s
credence to the testimony of Albert Yam are the three (3) sketches participation in the abduction. Engr. Vargas only testified
which he prepared x x x for the prosecution. x x x [T]wo (2) pieces on Robert’s employment. Alto merely witnessed the
of dark glasses wrapped with black tape x  x  x, the two sets of circumstances of Robert’s arrest on April 11, 2002.
handcuffs x  x  x, and the handwritten note of Albert Yam Lowhen’s post in Perma Wood Industries was not that
addressed to his wife x  x  x. Elisco 5.56 mm rifle, 9mm pistol, far from the locations where the acts of kidnapping were
Armscor cal. 38 revolver, a shotgun, magazines for the firearms, committed, hence, no physical impossibility to get from one
live cartridges/ammunition and spent shells x x x. place to the other. The logbook, index cards and payroll
x  x  x It must be emphasized that Pinky Gonzales never sheets offered by Lowhen had no evidentiary value for
testified in court so how could the prosecution establish that she being mere photocopies. Lowhen claimed that Albert did
is indeed a kidnap victim. x  x  x173 (Citations omitted and not identify him from the police line-up. However, Albert
underscoring ours) testified that he did not see Lowhen from the line-up.
Besides, even if Lowhen was indeed included in the lineup,
The Appeals Filed Against the RTC Decision and the Albert, at that time, had just been
Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) Opposition
Thereto
_______________
174 175 Please see the Consolidated Brief for the Appellee; id., at pp. 723-
The accused-appellants interposed separate appeals
essentially reiterating their respective factual claims, 765.

which 695

_______________
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 695
173 Id., at pp. 283-290.
174 Id., at pp. 197-215; 292-305; 392-430; 530-561; 667-691. People vs. Salvador

694
rescued, thus, stressed and confused. Albert had modified
his initial lapse by categorically stating in his amended
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED affidavit that Lowhen was among those who went to the
People vs. Salvador
basement in the early morning of April 11, 2002.
The OSG emphasized that Albert remained unfazed and
unwavering in his testimony and so were the rest of the
were in turn refuted175 by the OSG. prosecution witnesses. The OSG likewise stressed that the
The OSG argued that the supposed eye defect ascribed RTC’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses is
to Albert was not severe as to hinder his ability to identify entitled to the highest respect and should be upheld in the
his kidnappers. The dark eye glasses, which the kidnappers absence of proof that the said court had overlooked facts
had ordered Albert to put on, were loose and even slipped which if duly regarded, may alter the result of the case.
as he descended the basement stairs, giving him the chance
to see Monico. Besides, Albert’s eye glasses were returned The Ruling of the CA
to him on April 8, 2002. Further, it is settled that when
thrust into exceptional circumstances, victims of crimes On February 25, 2011, the CA rendered the herein
strive to remember the important details and to see the assailed Decision denying the appeal of the accused-
faces of their assailants. Anent Betty and Monico’s claim appellants. However, the CA modified the RTC ruling by
that it was unnatural for a person involved in the expressly stating the accused-appellants’ non-eligibility for
commission of an offense to proceed to the scene and report parole. Further, the accused-appellants were ordered to
the matter to the police, the OSG interpreted the foregoing solidarily pay Albert PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity and
as defensive acts intended to mislead the authorities in the PhP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages. The CA declared
conduct of the investigation. that:
Jubert offered no corroborative testimonies regarding
his whereabouts from April 7 to 11, 2002. The crucial issue in this case involves the assessment of
Robert’s alibi that he was in Bontoc, Mountain Province credibility of witnesses. Could the version succinctly narrated by
driving for Engr. Vargas should be supported by clear and the victim, his wife and the police officers who participated in the
convincing evidence. The said alibi weighs weaker vis-á-vis
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

operation for the rescue of the kidnap victims possibly be Office (PAO) in behalf of the accused-appellants, except
concocted as so alleged by the appellants? Betty and
x x x [U]nless otherwise specifically required, the testimony of
a single eyewitness if credible and trustworthy is sufficient to _______________
support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And since the 176 Rollo, pp. 22-25.
determination of credibility is within the province of the trial 177 CA Rollo, pp. 912-913.
court which has the opportunity to examine and observe the
178 Rollo, p. 39.
demeanor of witnesses, appellate courts will not generally
179 Id., at pp. 70-80.
interfere in this jurisdiction. x x x
x x x x 697
The most crucial evidence submitted in this case was the
positive testimony of kidnap victim Albert Yam recognizing
appellants as his abductors. Common experience tells us that VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 697
when extraordi- People vs. Salvador

696
Monico. In lieu of a supplemental brief, the OSG filed a
Manifestation180 stating that it is adopting the arguments
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
it had previously raised in the Consolidated Brief181 filed
People vs. Salvador with the CA.
The Issue
nary circumstances take place, it is natural for persons to Whether or not the CA gravely erred in finding the
remember many of the important details. x x x [T]he most natural accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
reaction of victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the the crime of kidnapping for ransom despite the
features and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in prosecution’s failure to overthrow the constitutional
which the crime is committed. presumption of innocence in their favor.182
Yam positively identified appellants as his captors. x x x The Supplemental Brief filed by the PAO once again
x x x x presented the accused-appellants’ factual claims in the
The evidence also shows that the accused-appellants acted in proceedings below relative to the alleged mauling, irregular
concert in perpetrating the kidnapping. x x x arrests and extortion attempts committed by CIDG officers
x x x x against Marcelo and Ricky. The PAO stressed anew the
x x x [T]he fact that accused Betty Salvador’s role was limited alibis that on April 7, 2002, Morey was in his uncle’s
to giving victims their food is immaterial whether she acted as a warehouse in Baguio, Robert was in Bontoc, Mountain
principal or as an accomplice because the conspiracy and her Province driving for Engr. Vargas, while Lowhen assumed
participation therein have been established. In fact, she was the his security guard duties in Perma Wood Industries in
owner of the safehouse where the victims were kept. In Parañaque. The PAO also maintained that Roger was
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all and the conspirators arrested at 6:00 a.m. of April 11, 2002 in Bicutan, and not
shall be held equally liable for the crime. on April 12, 2002 in Commonwealth Avenue.
x x x x
x x x [P]olice officers are presumed to have acted regularly in Our Ruling
the performance of their official functions in the absence of clear
and convincing proof to the contrary or proof that they were The instant appeal lacks merit.
moved by ill will. x  x  x.176 Citations omitted and underscoring The CA correctly found that the essen-
ours) tial elements comprising the crime of
kidnapping for ransom were present
Incidents after the Rendition of the CA Decision
_______________
The records of this case were elevated to us pursuant to 180 Id., at pp. 83-86.
the Resolution177 issued by the CA on February 9, 2012 181 CA Rollo, pp. 723-772.
giving due course to the notices of appeal filed by the
182 Rollo, p. 71.
accused-appellants, except Betty and Monico.
In compliance with our Resolution178 dated July 2, 2012, 698
a Supplemental Brief179 was filed by the Public Attorney’s
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED (b) When there is no evidence to show that the
People vs. Salvador prosecution witness is actuated by an improper
motive, identification of the accused-appellants as the
offenders should be given full faith and credit;187
and that the accused-appellants con-
(c) Conspiracy need not be established by direct
spired in its commission.
proof of prior agreement by the parties to commit a
People v. Uyboco,183 enumerated the elements of the
crime but that it may be inferred from the acts of the
crime of kidnapping for ransom, viz.:
accused-appellants before, during and after the
In order for the accused to be convicted of kidnapping and commission of the crime which indubitably point to a
serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal joint purpose, concerted action and community of
Code, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable interest; and
doubt all the elements of the crime, namely: (1) the offender is a (d) The respective alibis proffered by the accused-
private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any appellants cannot prevail over the unequivocal
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention testimony of the victim categorically and positively
or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the pointing to them as his abductors, and for the defense
offense any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the of alibis, to be given full credit, they must be clearly
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is established and must not leave room for doubt.188
committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical The accused-appellants all denied being personally
injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or acquainted with Albert or having knowledge of any grudge
threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped and kept which the latter may harbour against them. The RTC and
in detained is a minor, the duration of his detention is the CA found Albert’s testimony on the participation of the
immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally accused-appellants as conspirators in the kidnapping
detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his incident, and the manner by which he had subsequently
detention is immaterial.184 identified them, as clear and categorical.
Albert testified:
In the case at bar, the accused-appellants, who were
indicted for forcibly abducting Albert, are all private _______________
individuals. Albert was taken on April 7, 2002 and his 187 See also People of the Philippines v. Garcia, 424 Phil. 158, 184; 373
detention lasted for six days, during which period, threats SCRA 134, 151-152 (2002). (Citations omitted)
to kill him and demand for ransom were made. 188  See also People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010, 622
In affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants, we SCRA 524, 545.
are guided by four-settled doctrines enunciated in People v.
Martinez,185 viz.:186 700
(a) The trial court[’]s evaluation of the credibility
of witnesses must be accorded great respect owing to
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
its
People vs. Salvador
_______________
183 G.R. No. 178039, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 146. PROS. FADULLON:

184 Id., at pp. 161-162. Q: Mr. Witness, will you please tell this Honorable Court where you

185 469 Phil. 558; 425 SCRA 528 (2004). were on April 7, 2002 between the hours of 7:00 and 7:30 in the

186 Id., at pp. 572-574; pp. 537-538. evening?

A: I was at the New Cainta Coliseum.
699 x x x x
Q: Will you please tell us, Sir, if you recall if there was anything
unusual that happened that evening as you were leaving the New
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 699
Cainta Coliseum on your way home?
People vs. Salvador A: I was kidnapped that evening.
x x x x
opportunity to observe and examine the witnesses Q: Now, Sir, will you please tell this Honorable Court what happened
conduct and demeanor on the witness stand; when you notice that the Toyota Hi-Ace van stopped abruptly the
path of the Honda Civic car?

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/48

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

A: I saw six (6) men coming down from the Hi-Ace with long firearms. up was presented and after he had already executed his
x x x x April 12, 2002 affidavit.193
Q: Now tell us, Sir, what happened when six (6) men armed with long In their defense, Marcelo, Ricky, Jubert, Robert, Morey,
firearms alighted from the vehicle, Toyota Hi-Ace van? Lowhen, Jose and Roger offered their respective alibis,
A: I saw two (2) of those people went to the white car and motioned the which fail to persuade.
driver with a gun pointed motioning the driver of the white vehicle Marcelo claimed that from 12:00 noon to 9:00 p.m. of
to go down. April 7, 2002, he was at home repairing a motor bike. On
Q: You mentioned earlier that there were six (6) armed men who his part, Jubert insisted that he was fixing his uncle’s
alighted. You accounted for, two (2) went to the driver side of the house in Bicutan, Taguig on the same day. Morey averred
white Honda Civic car, what about the others, do you know what that he was in a coconut warehouse in Burnham, Baguio
happened? City, and he left the place at around 6:00 p.m. to go to his
A: They were there and two (2) of them I think ran after the watch- uncle’s house in Trini-
your-car boy and two of them went to my car, Sir.189

_______________
When asked to identify the two men who approached the
190 Id., at pp. 11-23.
Civic, Albert pointed to Jubert and Morey. Albert named
those who approached his Prado as Roger and Robert. 191 TSN, Vol. I, July 5, 2002, pp. 42, 45-54.

Roger and Robert gestured for him to alight from the Prado 192 Id., at pp. 71-74.

and 193 TSN, Vol. I, August 30, 2002, pp. 26, 29-30.

702
_______________
189 TSN, Vol. I, June 28, 2002, pp. 4-11.
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
701
People vs. Salvador

VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 701 dad, Benguet. Noticeably, Marcelo, Jubert and Morey
People vs. Salvador offered no corroborative evidence to support their bare
allegations.
Ricky and his wife, May, alleged that they were likewise
brought him to the Hi-Ace, where he saw Marcelo in the
at home on April 7, 2002. However, May’s testimony does
driver’s seat and Ricky in the front passenger’s seat.190
not carry much weight in view of her relation to Ricky.
At around 6:00 a.m. of April 11, 2002, seven men went to
Robert posited that he was in Bontoc, Mountain
the basement of the safehouse where Albert and Pinky
Province driving for Engr. Vargas from February 10, 2002
were detained. They threatened Albert with bodily harm
to April 8, 2002. Robert left at 10:00 a.m. of April 8, 2002
should he not accede to their demand for ransom. Albert
on the pretext that he would just collect rentals in Baguio.
identified them as Jubert, Morey, Marcelo, Ricky, Lowhen,
He informed Engr. Vargas that he would be back in two
Jose and Nelson. Five of the men left but Nelson and
days. Robert testified and Alto corroborated his statement
Lowhen were left behind to guard Albert and Pinky.191
that the former was arrested by CIDG officers in Bicutan,
The overt acts of the accused-appellants Jubert, Morey,
Taguig on April 11, 2002.
Marcelo, Ricky, Robert, Roger, Lowhen and Jose were
The test to determine the value of the testimony of a
undoubtedly geared towards unlawfully depriving Albert of
witness is whether such is in conformity with knowledge
his liberty and extorting ransom in exchange for his
and consistent with the experience of mankind; whatever is
release.
repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies
Albert was able to identify Marcelo, Ricky, Jubert,
outside of judicial cognizance.194 It defies logic to figure out
Morey, Jose, Lowhen, Robert and Roger from a police line-
why Engr. Vargas was informed that Robert was
up of around 15 persons presented to him in Camp Crame
implicated in Albert’s kidnapping only on October 2003, or
on April 12, 2002.192 During cross-examination, Albert
around one and a half years after the latter’s indictment. If
clarified that Lowhen was not among the seven persons he
Robert’s alibi were true, it would have been more in accord
had identified as among his captors from the initial police
with human experience if he promptly told Engr. Vargas
line-up of 15 persons presented to him. Albert justified the
about his predicament for the latter was then in the best
omission by stating that he saw Lowhen only after the line-
position to corroborate the former’s allegations. It is
likewise perplexing why Robert, who had been driving for
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

Engr. Vargas for five years, was in Taguig on April 11, alleged that at around 6:00 a.m. of April 11, 2002, while he
2002 and so lightly regarded his commitment to the latter was walking along Bravo Street, Signal Village, Bicutan,
that he would be back in two days. No explanations were Taguig on his way to his brother’s wake, he was arrested by
offered to justify Robert’s unreasonable omissions. CIDG officers. However, like in the cases of
Lowhen insisted that he assumed his 24-hour duty in
704
Perma Wood Industries in Parañaque from 7:00 a.m. of
April
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ People vs. Salvador
194  People v. Patano, 447 Phil. 168, 186; 399 SCRA 90, 107 (2003),
citing People v. San Juan, 383 Phil. 689, 703; 336 SCRA 588, 598 (2000).
Marcelo, Jubert and Robert, Jose and Roger’s averments
703 were bare and unsupported by any corroborative evidence.
All told, we find that the RTC and the CA did not
overlook essential facts or circumstances which may
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 703 otherwise justify the acquittal of Marcelo, Ricky, Jubert,
People vs. Salvador Robert, Morey, Lowhen, Jose and Roger for having
conspired in kidnapping Albert for the purpose of extorting
10, 2002 to 7:45 a.m. of April 11, 2002. He got home at 8:00 ransom. That no ransom was actually paid does not negate
a.m., ate breakfast, and thereafter proceeded to his sister the fact of the commission of the crime, it being sufficient
Elsie’s house where he slept in the sofa until 4:00 p.m. The that a demand for it was made.195
testimonies of Pacete, De Guzman and Elsie were offered to We note Marcelo, Ricky, Jose and Lowhen’s claims of
support Lowhen’s claims. However, we find more credence having been subjected to mauling, illegal arrest,
in the positive and categorical statements of Albert, against intimidation and extortion attempts committed by the
whom no ill motive was ascribed by the defense, on one police authorities.
hand, than in the testimonies of persons, who are in one It is settled that irregularities attending the arrest of
way or another are related to Lowhen. Further, there is no the accused-appellants should have been timely raised in
proof of absolute physical impossibility for Lowhen to be in their respective motions to quash the Informations at any
Amparo Subdivision in the morning of April 11, 2002, time before their arraignment, failing at which they are
considering that Parañaque is not very far off. In Albert’s deemed to have waived their rights to assail the same.196
testimony, he merely made an estimate of the time in the No such motions were filed by the accused-appellants.
morning of April 11, 2002, when Lowhen, along with six Further, without meaning to downplay or take the
other men, went to the basement. Although Albert testified allegations of the accused-appellants lightly, we, however,
that it was around 6:00 a.m., he could have miscalculated note that these were unsubstantiated as to the identities of
the time considering that he no longer had a watch and the offenders and uncorroborated by other pieces of
they were in a basement. Besides, Lowhen was the link evidence. To date, no complaints against the supposed
between Jubert and Morey, whose participations in the abusive police officers had yet been filed by the accused-
kidnapping incident on April 7, 2002 were clearly appellants. If the abuses were indeed committed, we exhort
established. This renders dubious Lowhen’s claim of having the accused-appellants to initiate the proper administrative
introduced Jubert and Morey to each other only on April and criminal proceedings to make the erring police officers
11, 2002, or four days after the latter two had taken part in liable. We stress that while the criminal justice system is
the abduction of Pinky and Albert near the Coliseum. devised to punish the offenders, it is no less the State’s
Jose and Roger proffered nary an explanation anent duty to ensure that those who administer it do so with
where they were on April 7, 2002. Jose anchored his clean hands.
defense upon his presence at U-Cap Cockpit in
Mandaluyong from the night of April 9, 2002 until 1:00 _______________
a.m. of April 10, 2002. While waiting for a cab going home, 195  Supra note 187, at pp. 177-178, citing People v. Salimbago, 373
Jose claimed that CIDG officers arrested him and brought Phil. 56, 75; 314 SCRA 282, 293 (1999).
him to Camp Crame where he remained under the police’s 196 See People v. Pepino, G.R. No. 183479, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA
custody. He thus claimed that contrary to Albert’s claim, he 293, 303.
could not have been in the basement of the safehouse at
705
6:00 a.m. of April 11, 2002. On the other hand, Roger
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 705 Q: Now, immediately after you catch [sic] the glasses, what exactly did
you do?
People vs. Salvador
A: I told him, “Pare, alalayan mo naman ako ng maayos pababa pala
tayo nun.”
Betty and Monico are to be held Q: You told him that you should be carefully assisted. You told him
as co-conspirators because they that because you were not in a position to see where you were
knowingly provided the venue for walking?
Albert’s detention. A: Yes, Sir.
In implicating Monico, Albert testified: x x x x

PROS. FADULLON: Q: Now, did you try to get hold of the hands of Monico Salvador after

Q: And you said you were first handcuffed according to you, you were the incident?

handcuffed with Miss Gonzales and removed it and a new set of A: Yes, sir.

handcuffs were placed on you. Will you please tell us what Q: And you found out that the hands were “magaspang”?

happened after that? A: Yes, Sir.

A: So with my both hands handcuffed, this time I was asked to get out Q: And that would make you very sure that he was the one who

of the vehicle and I was led to a sort of like underground house assisted you?

something like that, I had to go down a couple of steps. A: Even more sure because I saw him also.

Q: What happened, Sir, as you were going down, as you were led Q: Now, after you get [sic] hold of that [sic] glasses you said to him,

inside, what you claimed to be an underground house and as you “Alalayan mo naman ako.”?

were going down several steps? A: Because I fell already. So, I said, “Pare alalayan mo naman ako ng

A: Because I was handcuffed and I didn’t know where to go to pass at maayos.” That was when he was here beside me.

that time, I fell and a person held on my arm. Q: Besides [sic] you?

Q: What happened to your glasses as you claimed you fell as you were A: Yes.

going downstairs?
_______________
A: My glasses went down also, Sir.
197 TSN, Vol. I, June 28, 2002, pp. 34-37.
Q: And you said that there was a person who held on to you, how close
or how far that person from you, Sir? 707
A: He was just beside me, Sir.
Q: And this person can you give us his description? VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 707
A: About 50s, about 5’9” and has a [sic] very coarse hands, Sir. People vs. Salvador
Q: This person whom according to you held on to you as you slipped
you were being led downstairs, if you will see him again, will you be Q: I thought that he was at your back holding your armpit?
able to recognize him, Sir? A: He was here beside me. How do you carry somebody?
x x x x Q: If he was beside you, you were only able to recognize the left portion
[Witness pointed to Monico in the courtroom.] of his face?
x x x x A: I was able to see his face, Sir.
Q: The whole face?
706
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: I thought that he was beside you?
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
A: He was beside me.
People vs. Salvador
Q: Did you go in front of him and tried to look at the features of his

Q: What happened, Sir, when you slipped and this person now face?

identified as accused Monico Salvador held on to you, what x x x x

happened after that? A: I can see him even on my side.

A: He held me up and led me to the stair[way] proceeding down to the Q: My question is, did you go in front of the person who assisted you?

house, Sir.197 (Underscoring ours) A: No, I did not face him.198 (Underscoring ours)

When asked during cross examination about what When asked who handed him the food that he ate while
transpired while he was descending the basement stairs, in detention, Albert answered:
Albert stated: PROS. FADULLON:

ATTY. MALLABO:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/48

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

Q: Now Mr. Witness, on that day, April 11, 2002[,] right after in the People vs. Salvador
early morning, do you remember if there was any other incident
Q: What question did she ask to the guard if you remember[,] Sir?
that happened in that place where you and Miss Gonzales were
A: “Kumusta sila[?]”.
being kept?
Q: After that[,] what happened?
A: At lunch time[,] I saw a woman who brought down some foods, Sir.
A: She gave the food to the guard, Sir.
Q: Lunch time of what date?
Q: What food was this given to you that evening?
A: April 11, 2002, Sir.
A: That was the only time Jollibbe was not serve[d], it was corn[ed]
Q: April 11 at around lunch time a woman brought down your food?
beef, Sir.
A: Yes, Sir.
PROS. FADULLON:

_______________
Q: That would be dinner time of April 10, 2002?

198 TSN, Vol. I, September 20, 2002, pp. 15-19.

A: Yes, Sir.199 (Underscoring ours)

708 During cross examination, Albert testified having seen

Betty, thus:
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ATTY. MALLABO:
People vs. Salvador
Q: Now, how did you see her at the time that she uttered the words,
“Kumusta na sila?”
Q: Where were you at that time, Mr. Witness, when this woman
A: She was in front of me.
according to you came down and brought down your food?
Q: Right in front of you?
A: At the sofa, Sir.
A: I mean, she was going up the stairway. I can see her.
Q: Tell us, Mr. Witness, what happened when this woman brought
Q: So you want to tell us that she went down?
down your food?
A: I did not say she went down. She was up there in the stairway
A: She gave the food to the guard and the guard gave the food to us,
coming down and she was about to talk to the guard who was
Sir.
guarding us. So, when she saw the guard and said, “Kumusta
Q: How far away from this woman Sir when you saw her handing the
sila?”[,] I was right there at the edge of the, at the foot of the
foods to one of the guard[s]?
stairway. So, I saw her.
A: The stairway was just beside the sofa so you can see her, Sir.
Q: So you saw her?
Q: That would be again approximately 2 meters or little over a meter?
A: Yes, sir.200
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Can you give us the description of this woman Sir who according to Albert categorically stated that on the night of April 7,
you came down and brought down handed over your food in [sic] 2002, Monico assisted him in descending the stairs leading
one of the guards? to the basement of the safehouse. Albert likewise named
A: She was in [her] 50’s, Sir. Betty as the woman who brought him and Pinky corned
x x x x beef for
[Yam pointed to Betty in the courtroom.]
PROS. CHUA CHENG:
_______________
Q: Do you know, Mr. Witness, what kind of food that this accused you
199 TSN, Vol. I, July 5, 2002, pp. 54-60.
identified as Betty Salvador served that lunch time?
200 TSN, Vol. I, September 20, 2002, p. 21.
A: Jollibee, Sir.
Q: Tell us, Sir when for the first time you see accused Betty Salvador? 710
A: The night before, Sir.
Q: The night before referring to what date[,] Sir?
A: April 10, Sir.
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Q: Could you tell us under what circumstances did you see the accused People vs. Salvador
Betty Salvador?
A: I was having a conversation with the guard who was at the dinner on April 10, 2002, and food items from Jollibee
stairway at that time when I heard a woman asking questions to for lunch on April 11, 2002.
the guard, Sir. This Court has held that the most natural reaction of
709 victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the features
and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 709 which the crime is committed.201 It is also settled that the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/48

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

victim’s in-court identification is more than sufficient to Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common:
establish the identities of accused-appellants as among the they know and agree with the criminal design.
malefactors,202 and previously executed affidavits are Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention because
generally considered inferior to statements that the victim they themselves have decided upon such course of action.
gives in open court.203 Hence, we hold that notwithstanding Accomplices come to know about it after the principals have
Albert’s failure to identify Betty and Monico from the police reached the decision, and only then do they agree to
line-up presented on April 12, 2002, in which the spouses cooperate in its execution. Conspirators decide that a crime
were allegedly included, no reasonable doubt is cast upon should be committed; accomplices merely concur in it.
the complicity of the latter two in the kidnapping. Further, Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be
Betty and Monico’s postulation that if they were indeed committed; they merely assent to the plan and cooperate in
involved, they should not have proceeded to the scene of the its accomplishment. Conspirators are the authors of a
rescue operations and to the police station, likewise crime; accomplices are merely their instruments who
deserves scant consideration. There is no established perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense.
doctrine to the effect that, in every instance, non-flight is x x x x
an indication of innocence.204 It is possible for the culprits x  x  x As we have held in Garcia v. CA, “in some exceptional
to pursue unfamiliar schemes or strategies to confuse the situations, having community of design with the principal does
police authorities.205 not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if
We stress though that conspiracy transcends his role in the perpetration of the homicide or murder was,
companionship.206 Mere presence at the locus criminis relatively speaking, of a minor character.” x  x  x.209 (Citations
cannot by itself be a valid basis for conviction, and mere omitted)
knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to cooperate, is
not enough to constitute _______________
207  See People v. Montenegro, 479 Phil. 663, 674; 436 SCRA 33, 42
_______________ (2004).
201 Supra note 185, at p. 570; p. 535. 208 424 Phil. 158; 373 SCRA 134 (2002).
202  See People v. Jalosjos, 421 Phil. 43, 73-74; 369 SCRA 179, 201 209 Id., at pp. 188-189; pp. 155-156.
(2001); supra note 196, at p. 302.
712
203 Supra note 196, at p. 302.
204 People v. Garalde, 401 Phil. 174, 211; 348 SCRA 38, 69-70 (2000).
(Citation omitted) 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
205 Supra note 194.
People vs. Salvador
206 Id., at p. 191.

711 Monico’s assistance to Albert when the latter descended

the basement stairs and Betty’s visit to the safehouse to
bring Jollibee food items were not indispensable acts in the
VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 711 commission of the crime of kidnapping for ransom. If to be
People vs. Salvador solely considered, these acts, being of minor importance,
pertain to those committed by mere accomplices. Betty and
one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active Monico were not among those persons who forcibly
participation in the commission of the crime.207 abducted Albert while the latter was in the vicinity of the
In the case at bar, Monico’s assistance extended to Coliseum. Neither did the spouses perform positive acts to
Albert when the latter descended the basement stairs and actively detain Albert. What spells the difference on why
Betty’s visit to the safehouse to bring food could not we still find the Betty and Monico as principals and co-
automatically be interpreted as the acts of principals and conspirators in the kidnapping is the circumstance that
conspirators in the crime of kidnapping for ransom. their acts coincide with their ownership of the safehouse.
People of the Philippines v. Garcia208 is instructive anent Absent his knowledge, consent or concurrence in the
the distinctions between a conspirator and an accomplice, criminal design, the owner of a place, which was used to
viz.: detain kidnapped victims, cannot necessarily be considered
as either a conspirator or an accomplice in the crime of
In People v. De Vera[,] we distinguished a conspirator from an kidnapping for ransom. However, in the case of Betty and
accomplice in this manner― Monico, their claim of ignorance relative to Albert’s
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/48
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 695

detention in the basement of the safehouse is belied by possession, power, or control by force or stratagem. (People
their presence therein. Albert positively and repeatedly vs. Madsali, 611 SCRA 596 [2010])
testified on the matter. ――o0o――
In a conspiracy to commit the crime of kidnapping for
ransom, the place where the victim is to be detained is _______________
logically a primary consideration. In the case of Betty and 210 Supra note 188.
Monico, their house in Lumbang Street, Amparo
Subdivision has a basement. It can be reasonably inferred
that the house fitted the purpose of the kidnappers.
Albert’s detention was accomplished not solely by reason of
the restraint exerted upon him by the presence of guards in
the safehouse, but by the circumstance of being put in a
place where escape became highly improbable. In other © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
words, Betty and Monico were indispensable in the
kidnapping of Albert because they knowingly and
purposely provided the venue to detain Albert. The spouses’
ownership of the safehouse, Monico’s presence therein
during Albert’s arrival on the evening of April 7, 2002 and
Betty’s visits to bring food reasonably indicate that they
were among those who at the outset planned, and
thereafter
713

VOL. 695, APRIL 10, 2013 713

People vs. Salvador

concurred with and participated in the execution of the

criminal design.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated
February 25, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 03279 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION insofar as the amount of civil indemnity
awarded to Albert Yam y Lee, to be solidarily paid by the
accused-appellants, is increased from PhP 50,000.00 to PhP
75,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.210
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Appeal denied, judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.―Ransom means money, price or consideration

paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person
that would release him from captivity—whether or not the
ransom is actually paid to or received by the perpetrators is
of no moment. (People vs. Reyes, 581 SCRA 691 [2009])
To “kidnap” is to carry away by unlawful force or fraud
or to seize and detain for the purpose of so carrying away,
whereas, to “take” is to get into one’s hand or into one’s
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/48 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f47cf49aa97f937003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/48