Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 178771 June 8, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.

ALBERTO ANTICAMARA y CABILLO and FERNANDO CALAGUAS FERNANDEZ a.k.a. LANDO CALAGUAS,

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00556, affirming
the trial court's judgment finding appellants Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (Lando) and Alberto Cabillo
Anticamara (Al) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 4498-R and
of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention in Criminal Case No. 4481-R.

Lando, Al, Dick Tañedo (Dick), Roberto Tañedo (Bet), Marvin Lim (Marvin), Necitas Ordeñiza-Tañedo
(Cita), and Fred Doe are charged with the crimes of Murder and of Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention
in two separate Informations, which read:

For Murder (Criminal Case No. 4498-R)

That on or about the early morning of May 7, 2002, in Sitio Rosalia, Brgy. San Bartolome, Municipality of
Rosales, Province of Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being then armed with a hand gun, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, with intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation and superior strength, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take Sulpacio Abad, driver of the Estrellas, hog tied (sic) him,
brought (sic) to a secluded place, shoot and bury in a shallow grave, to the damage and prejudice of the
heirs of the victim.

Contrary to Article 248, Revised Penal Code.

For Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention (Criminal Case No. 4481-R)

That on or about the 7th day of May 2002, more or less 3:00 o'clock in the early morning, at the Estrella
Compound, Brgy. Carmen East, Municipality of Rosales, Province of Pangasinan, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who are private persons, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with firearms, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Sulpacio Abad and AAA,2 both employees of the Estrellas, thereby
depriving them of their liberty, all against their will for a period of twenty-seven (27) days.

That in the course of the kidnapping, Sulpacio Abad was killed and buried in Brgy. Carmen, Rosales,
Pangasinan and AAA was raped for several times by her abductors.

Contrary to Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to RA 7659.

When arraigned of the aforementioned crimes, Lando, Al and Cita all pleaded not guilty, while Dick, Bet,
Marvin and Fred Doe remained at-large. Thereafter, a joint trial ensued.

As summarized in the People's brief, the facts as established by the evidence of the prosecution are as
follows:

About 3 o'clock in the early morning of May 7, 2002, househelper AAA and driver Abad Sulpacio were
sleeping in their employers' house located in Barangay Carmen East, Rosales, Pangasinan. Their
employers, Conrado Estrella and his wife, were out of the house at that time (TSN, December 4, 2002,
pp. 4-7). Momentarily, AAA was jolted from sleep when she heard voices saying, "We will kill her, kill her
now" and another voice saying, "Not yet!" Hiding under her blanket, AAA later heard someone saying,
"We only need money, we only need money." Thereafter, she heard someone talking in Ilocano which
she could not understand. Then she heard somebody say, "Cebuana yan, Cebuana yan, kararating lang
galing Cebu." AAA heard the persons conversing which she estimated about four to five meters away
(TSN, ibid., pp. 11-12).
Thereafter, AAA observed about six (6) persons enter the house, who she later identified as accused Dick
Tañedo, Marvin Lim, Bert Tañedo, a certain Fred and appellants Alberto Anticamara alias "Al Camara,"
and Fernando Fernandez alias "Lando Calaguas." One of the intruders approached her and told her not
to move (TSN, ibid., p. 8).

Later, when AAA thought that the intruders were already gone, she attempted to run but to her
surprise, someone wearing a bonnet was watching her. Someone, whom she later recognized as Dick
Tañedo, tapped her shoulder. AAA asked Tañedo, "Why Kuya?" Tañedo replied, "Somebody will die."
After a brief commotion, appellant alias "Lando Calaguas" asked the group saying, "What shall we do
now?" They then decided to tie AAA. Later, AAA was untied and led her outside the house. Outside, AAA
saw Abad, who was also tied and blindfolded, seated inside a vehicle (TSN, April 26, 2004, pp. 6-10).

The group later brought AAA and Abad to the fishpond owned by their employers. AAA saw Cita Tañedo
there. The group brought Abad outside the vehicle and led him away (TSN, December 2, 2002, pp. 13-
18; TSN, February 17, 2003, pp. 5-8).

Later, alias "Fred" returned telling the group, "Make the decision now, Abad has already four bullets in
his body, and the one left is for this girl." When Cita Tañedo made a motion of cutting her neck,
appellant alias "Lando Calaguas" and "Fred" boarded the vehicle taking along with them AAA. They later
proceeded towards San Miguel Tarlac, where Lando Calaguas resided. They stayed in Lando's house
where they kept AAA from May 7 to May 9, 2002 (TSN, December 4, 2002, pp. 18-22; TSN, February 17,
2003, pp. 7-9).

On May 9, 2002, appellant Lando Calaguas told AAA that Fred and Bert Tañedo would kill her. Lando
then brought AAA to a hotel in Tarlac, telling AAA that he would leave her there as soon as Fred and Bert
Tañedo leave the place. However, once inside the hotel room, appellant Lando Calaguas sexually
molested AAA. Lando told AAA to follow what he wanted, threatening her that he would turn her over
to Fred and Bert Tañedo. After Lando raped AAA, he brought her back to his house. Later, Fred, Bert
Tañedo and Lando Calaguas transferred AAA to Riles, Tarlac (TSN, ibid., pp. 9-13).

AAA was brought to the residence of Fred's niece, a certain Minda, where Fred kept AAA as his wife. At
nighttime, Fred would repeatedly ravish AAA, threatening her that he would give her back to appellant
Lando Calaguas who, AAA knew, killed Abad Sulpacio. She was afraid Lando might also kill her (TSN,
ibid., pp. 14-16).

On May 22, 2002, Fred brought AAA to Carnaga (should be Kananga), Leyte, together with his wife
Marsha and their children. AAA stayed in the house of Marsha's brother Sito, where she was made as a
house helper (TSN, ibid., p. 17).
On June 4, 2002, AAA escaped from the house of Sito. She proceeded to Isabel, Leyte and sought the
help of her friend Susana Ilagan. After hearing AAA's plight, Susana called AAA's brother in Cebu, who
later fetched AAA in Isabel, Leyte and brought her to Mandaue City. When they arrived in Mandaue City,
they immediately reported the incident to the police authorities. On June 23, 2002, AAA executed a
Sworn Statement (Exh. "D," TSN, ibid., pp. 18-20).

Meanwhile, Dr. Ronald Bandonil, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of Sulpacio Abad. Dr. Bandonil prepared Autopsy Report No. N-T2-
23-P (Exh. "A") which contains the following findings, to wit:

x Remains placed in a sealed metal coffin, wrapped in two (2) layers of black, plastic garbage bags, and
covered in (sic) a red-stripped cotton blanker. A thick layer of lime embeds the whole torso.

x Remains in a far advanced state of decomposition, with the head completely devoid of soft tissue. A
cloth is wrapped around the eyesockets and tied to the back of the skull. The skull does not show any
signs of dents, chips nor fractures. The other recognizable body part is the chest area which retained a
few soft tissues and skin, but generally far advanced in decomposition. The whole gamut of internal
organs have undergone liquefaction necrosis and have been turned into grayish-black pultaceous
masses. Worn on top of the remaining chest is a sando shirt with observable holes at the left side, both
front and back. A large hole is seen at the area of the left nipple, with traces of burning at its edges and
inward in direction. A tied cloth is also observable at the remnants of the left wrist.

x At the upper chest, which is the most recognizable, remaining and intact part of the torso, a hole, 1.0
cm. x 2.0 cms., with signs of burning, edges inverted, is seen at the left anterior axillary line just below
the left nipple. Another hole is seen 1.5 cms. x 2.5 cms. in diameter, edged averted (sic) at the right
chest, along the right anterior axillary line, 5.0 cms. below the right nipple. A 3rd hole, almost
unrecognizable is seen at the left groin area.

x The other parts of the cadaver are too far advanced in decomposition to have remarkable findings.

CAUSE OF DEATH:

GUNSHOT WOUNDS, TRUNK3

In his defense, Lando denied having committed the crimes charged and interposed alibi as a defense. He
claims that at the time of the incident on May 7, 2002, he was in Barangay Maligaya, San Miguel, Tarlac,
with his family. He denied ever going to the Estrella farm in Sitio Rosalia, Barangay San Bartolome,
Rosales, Pangasinan.

Al claimed that he acted as a lookout and was tasked to report to his companions if any person or
vehicle would approach the house of the Estrellas. He said that he was forced to follow what was
ordered of him and did not report the matter to the police because he was threatened to be killed,
including the members of his family who were in Cebu.

On August 23, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53, rendered its
Decision,4 the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

I. In Criminal Case No. 4498-R for Murder:

A. Accused Nicetas "Cita" Tañedo is hereby acquitted of the crime charged for insufficiency of evidence;

B. Accused Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (alyas Lando Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara (alyas Al
Camara) are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Murder qualified
by treachery, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering the
presence of aggravating circumstance of pre-meditation, with no mitigating circumstance to offset the
same, the penalty of DEATH is hereby imposed upon the two (2) accused Fernando Calaguas Fernandez
(Lando Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara (Al Camara). They are also ordered jointly and severally [to]
pay the heirs of the victim Abad Sulpacio the following:

1) Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as moral damages;

2) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00) as indemnity for the death of the victim;

3) Fifty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Two Pesos and Thirty Centavos (₱57,122.30) as actual
damages; and
4) The cost of suit.

II. Criminal Case No. 4481-R for Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention:

A) Accused Nicetas "Cita" Tañedo is hereby acquitted of the crime charged for insufficiency of evidence;

B) Accused Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (alyas Lando Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara (alyas Al
Camara) are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of
Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention of the victim AAA as charged, defined and penalized under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659. Considering that the victim AAA was raped
during her detention, the maximum penalty of DEATH is hereby imposed upon the two accused,
Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (Lando Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara (Al Camara). The two accused
are also ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the victim AAA the amount of:

1) One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱100,000.00) as moral damages;

2) Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) as exemplary damages; and

3) Cost of suit.

As to the rest of the accused who are still at-large, let this case be set to the archives until they are
apprehended.

SO ORDERED.5

In light of the Court’s ruling in People v. Mateo,6 the records of the cases were forwarded by the RTC to
the CA for its review. The CA rendered a Decision dated December 15, 2006, affirming the decision of
the RTC in Criminal Case Nos. 4498-R and 4481-R. However, in view of the abolition of the death penalty
pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, which was approved on June 24, 2006, the appellants were
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
On January 9, 2007, Lando, through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), appealed the Decision of the CA
to this Court. Lando had assigned the following errors in his appeal initially passed upon by the CA, to
wit:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTED BETWEEN AND AMONG THE
ALLEGED PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIME.

II

ASSUMING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY, THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING HIM OF THE CRIME OF MURDER INSTEAD OF HOMICIDE.

III

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT THE SUPREME
PENALTY OF DEATH FOR THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING/SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION, AGGRAVATED BY
RAPE, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE CRIME OF RAPE WAS NOT DULY PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.

IV

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING SCANT CONSIDERATION TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHICH IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN THAT OF THE PROSECUTION

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF CONVICTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT
THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.7
On January 9, 2007, Al, through the PAO, appealed the Decision of the CA to this Court. Al had assigned
the following errors, to wit:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
KIDNAPPING/SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION IN SPITE OF THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE CONSPIRED WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED TO COMMIT THE CRIME
CHARGED.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON THE ACCUSED THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH
FOR THE SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF KIDNAPPING/SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION WITH RAPE, IN SPITE
OF THE FACT THAT HE HAD NO PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMISSION OF [TWO] SEXUAL ABUSES
AGAINST THE VICTIM.

III

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
MURDER IN SPITE OF THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
THAT HE CONSPIRED WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED TO COMMIT THE SAME.8

In capsule, the main issue is whether the appellants are guilty of the crimes charged.

In Criminal Case No. 4498-R for Murder:

Circumstantial Evidence

The trial court found that although there was no direct eyewitness in the killing of Sulpacio in the early
morning of May 7, 2002 at Sitio Rosalia, Barangay San Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan, the prosecution
adduced sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish with moral certainty the identities and guilt of
the perpetrators of the crime.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence
of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience .9 Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.10 A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial
evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.11

In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, when analyzed and taken
together, lead to the inescapable conclusion that the appellants are responsible for the death of
Sulpacio. The Court quotes with approval the lower court's enumeration of those circumstantial
evidence:

The testimony of AAA had clearly established the following facts:

1. At about 3:00 in the early morning of May 7, 2002, while she and the victim Abad Sulpacio were
sleeping inside the house of the Estrella family in Barangay Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan several persons
entered to rob the place;

2. Inside the house, she saw and recognized the accused Lando Calaguas and Dick Tañedo, and heard
the latter uttering "somebody will die";

3. Bringing her outside the house, Lando pushed her into the Revo where she saw inside Abad Sulpacio
who was blindfolded and with his hands tied;

4. Inside the Revo, she recognized the accused Dick Tañedo, Lando Calaguas, Marvin Lim, Roberto
Tañedo, Alberto Anticamara and Fred;

5. The Revo then proceeded towards the fishpond owned by the Estrellas in Sitio Rosalia, Brgy. San
Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan;

6. The last time that she saw Abad Sulpacio was when he was dragged out from the vehicle by Lando,
Fred, Marvin and Al upon reaching Sitio Rosalia. At that, time Dick Tañedo stayed with her in the vehicle;
7. Thereafter, when Fred returned to the vehicle, she heard him uttered (sic): "Make a decision now.
Abad has already four (4) bullets in his body, and the one left is for this girl."12

In addition to these circumstances, the trial court further found that AAA heard Fred utter "Usapan natin
pare, kung sino ang masagasaan, sagasaan." (Our agreement is that whoever comes our way should be
eliminated). Moreover, NBI Agent Gerald V. Geralde testified that on June 23, 2002, appellant Al
admitted his participation as lookout and naming his companions Dick, Lando, Fred, Marvin and Bet as
the ones who took AAA and Sulpacio from the house of the Estrellas and brought them to the fishpond.
Al also pointed and led the authorities to a shallow grave in Sitio Rosalia, Barangay San Bartolome,
Rosales, Pangasinan, where the remains of Sulpacio were buried. The autopsy conducted on the body,
prepared by the Medico Legal Officer Dr. Bandonil, shows that several holes were found on various parts
of the body of the victim and Dr. Bandonil concluded that the cause of the victim's death was the
gunshot wounds. The report also indicates that a piece of cloth was found wrapped around the eye
sockets and tied at the back of the skull, and another cloth was also found tied at the remnants of the
left wrist.

In the case at bar, although no one directly saw the actual killing of Sulpacio, the prosecution was able to
paint a clear picture that the appellants took Sulpacio away from the house of the Estrellas, tied and
blindfolded him, and brought him to another place where he was repeatedly shot and buried.

Conspiracy

Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused
before, during or after the commission of the crime which, when taken together, would be enough to
reveal a community of criminal design, as the proof of conspiracy is frequently made by evidence of a
chain of circumstances.13 To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution;
he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the
others in the execution of the conspiracy. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks
which may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve
their common criminal objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since
all the conspirators are principals.14

In the present case, prior to the commission of the crime, the group met at the landing field in Carmen,
Pangasinan and discussed their plan to rob the house of the Estrellas with the agreement that whoever
comes their way will be eliminated.15 Appellant Al served as a lookout by posting himself across the
house of the Estrellas with the task of reporting any movements outside. Fred then climbed the old
unserviceable gate of the Estrella compound and then opened the small door and the rest of the group
entered the house of the Estrellas through that opening.16 After almost an hour inside the house, they
left on board a vehicle with AAA and Sulpacio. AAA and Sulpacio were brought to Sitio Rosalia, Brgy. San
Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan. In that place, Sulpacio was killed and AAA was brought to another place
and deprived of her liberty. These circumstances establish a community of criminal design between the
malefactors in committing the crime. Clearly, the group conspired to rob the house of the Estrellas and
kill any person who comes their way. The killing of Sulpacio was part of their conspiracy. Further, Dick's
act of arming himself with a gun constitutes direct evidence of a deliberate plan to kill should the need
arise.

Appellant Al attempts to evade criminal liability by alleging that he was only forced to participate in the
commission of the crime because he and his family were threatened to be killed. Al's defense fails to
impress us. Under Article 1217 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal liability if he
acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
equal or greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom.18 To avail of this exempting
circumstance, the evidence must establish: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) that the fear
must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than, or at least equal to, that
committed.19 For such defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present,
imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or
serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough.20

There is nothing in the records to substantiate appellant Al's insistence that he was under duress from
his co-accused while participating in the crime that would suffice to exempt him from incurring criminal
liability. The evidence shows that Al was tasked to act as a lookout and directed to station himself across
the house of the Estrellas. Al was there from 7:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.21 of the following day, while the
rest of the group was waiting in the landing field. Thus, while all alone, Al had every opportunity to
escape since he was no longer subjected to a real, imminent or reasonable fear. However, he opted to
stay across the house of the Estrellas for almost six (6) hours,22 and thereafter returned to the landing
field where the group was waiting for his report. Subsequently, the group proceeded to the Estrellas’
house. When the group entered the house, Al stayed for almost one (1) hour outside to wait for his
companions. Later, when the group left the house aboard a vehicle, Al rode with them in going to Sitio
Rosalia, Brgy. San Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan, bringing with them Sulpacio and AAA.23 Clearly,
appellant Al had ample opportunity to escape if he wished to, but he never did. Neither did he request
for assistance from the authorities or any person passing by the house of the Estrellas during the period
he was stationed there. Clearly, Al did not make any effort to perform an overt act to dissociate or
detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof that
would exempt himself from criminal liability.24 Therefore, it is obvious that he willingly agreed to be a
part of the conspiracy.

Alibi and Denial

Appellant Lando denied having committed the crime charged and interposed alibi as a defense. He
claims that at the time of the incident he was in his house at Tarlac, together with his family. On the
other hand, the appellants were positively identified by AAA, as two (2) of the six (6) malefactors who
forcibly took her and Sulpacio from the Estrella house in the early morning of May 7, 2002. Both the trial
court and the CA found the testimony of AAA credible. The Court gives great weight to the trial court’s
evaluation of the testimony of a witness because it had the opportunity to observe the facial expression,
gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while testifying; thus, making it in a better position to determine
whether a witness is lying or telling the truth.251avvphi1

Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witness, on one hand, and the bare denial of the
appellant, on the other, the former must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a
negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Alibi and denial, if
not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving
of weight in law. They are considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because
they are inherently weak and unreliable but also because they are easily fabricated and concocted.26
Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have
any ill-motive to testify against the appellants.27

As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant Lando that he was in Tarlac at the time
of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for Lando to be at the
scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was
somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime.Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the
appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of
access between the two places.28 Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the
crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.29 During the trial of the case, Lando testified that the
distance between his house in Brgy. Maligaya, San Miguel, Tarlac to the town of Rosales, Pangasinan is
only around forty (40) kilometers. Such distance can be traversed in less than 30 minutes using a private
car and when the travel is continuous.30 Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant Lando
to be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the
defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and
categorical.31

Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances

In convicting the appellants, the courts a quo appreciated treachery in qualifying the killing to murder
and evident premeditation in imposing the penalty of death. There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense that the offended party might make.32 Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist,
namely, (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously
adopted.33

In the case at bar, it was proven that when AAA boarded the vehicle, she saw Sulpacio tied and
blindfolded. Later, when they reached the fishpond, Sulpacio, still tied and blindfolded, was led out of
the vehicle by the group. When the remains of Sulpacio was thereafter found by the authorities, the
autopsy report indicated that a piece of cloth was found wrapped around the eye sockets and tied at the
back of the skull and another cloth was also found tied at the left wrist of the victim. There is no
question therefore, that the victim's body, when found, still had his hands tied and blindfolded. This
situation of the victim when found shows without doubt that he was killed while tied and blindfolded;
hence, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was present in the commission of the crime.
In People v. Osianas,34 the Court held that:

x x x In the case at bar, the means used by the accused-appellants to insure the execution of the killing
of the victims, so as to afford the victims no opportunity to defend themselves, was the act of tying the
hands of the victims. Teresita saw the accused-appellants hog-tie the victims and take them away with
them. Later that night, Dionisio Palmero saw the victims, still hog-tied, walking with the accused-
appellants. The following day, the victims were found dead, still hog-tied. Thus, no matter how the stab
and hack wounds had been inflicted on the victims in the case at bar, we are sure beyond a reasonable
doubt that Jose, Ronilo and Reymundo Cuizon had no opportunity to defend themselves because the
accused-appellants had earlier tied their hands. The fact that there were twelve persons who took and
killed the Cuizons further assured the attainment of accused-appellants' plans without risk to
themselves.35

The aggravating circumstance of superior strength cannot be separately appreciated because it is

absorbed by treachery.36

The circumstance of evident premeditation requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused
determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his
determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him
to reflect upon the consequences of his act.37 The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the
act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent
during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.38 From the time the group met at the
landing field at around 6:30 p.m. of May 6, 2002, and discussed the possibility of killing anyone who
stands on their way, up to the time they took Sulpacio away from the Estrellas’ house and eventually
killed him thereafter at around past 3:00 a.m., more than eight hours had elapsed – sufficient for the
appellants to reflect on the consequences of their actions and desist from carrying out their evil scheme,
if they wished to. Instead, appellants evidently clung to their determination and went ahead with their
nefarious plan.

In Criminal Case No. 4481-R for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.

The Court finds appellant Lando guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with rape, defined in and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The
elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code39 are:
(1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner
deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the
commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or
detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any
serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are
made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.40

The crime of kidnapping was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Appellants Lando and
Al, both private individuals, forcibly took AAA, a female, away from the house of the Estrellas and held
her captive against her will. Thereafter, appellant Lando brought AAA to his house in San Miguel Tarlac,
whereby she was deprived of her liberty for almost one month. It is settled that the crime of serious
illegal detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also in detaining him or
depriving him in any manner of his liberty.41 For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is
restrained from going home.42 Its essence is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with
indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.43 Although AAA was not
confined in an enclosure, she was restrained and deprived of her liberty, because every time appellant
Lando and his wife went out of the house, they brought AAA with them. The foregoing only shows that
AAA was constantly guarded by appellant Lando and his family.

The crime of rape was also established by the prosecution. Appellant Lando succeeded in having carnal
knowledge of AAA through the use of threat and intimidation. AAA testified that on May 9, 2002,
appellant Lando brought her to a hotel to hide her from Fred and Bert, who intended to kill her.
Appellant Lando told her to follow his orders, otherwise, he will give her to Fred and Bert. While in the
hotel, appellant Lando raped her.44 Clearly, for fear of being delivered to Fred and Bert and of losing her
life, AAA had no choice but to give in to appellant Lando's lustful assault. In rape cases, the credibility of
the victim's testimony is almost always the single most important factor. When the victim's testimony is
credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused's conviction.45 This is so because owing to the nature
of the offense, in many cases, the only evidence that can be given regarding the matter is the testimony
of the offended party.46
The last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides that if the victim is killed or dies as
a consequence of the detention, or is raped or subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum
penalty shall be imposed. In People v. Larrañaga,47 this provision gives rise to a special complex crime.
Thus, We hold that appellant Lando is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape in Criminal Case No. 4481-R.

However, the Court does not agree with the CA and trial court's judgment finding appellant Al liable for
Rape in Criminal Case No. 4481-R. In People v. Suyu,48 We ruled that once conspiracy is established
between several accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable
for the rape committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of them
proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing rape.49 Also, in People v. Canturia,50
the Court held that:

x x x For while the evidence does convincingly show a conspiracy among the accused, it also as
convincingly suggests that the agreement was to commit robbery only; and there is no evidence that the
other members of the band of robbers were aware of Canturia's lustful intent and his consummation
thereof so that they could have attempted to prevent the same. x x x

The foregoing principle is applicable in the present case because the crime of robbery with rape is a
special complex crime defined in and penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code, and the crime of kidnapping with rape in this case is likewise a special complex crime as held in
the case of People v. Larrañaga.51 There is no evidence to prove that appellant Al was aware of the
subsequent events that transpired after the killing of Sulpacio and the kidnapping of AAA. Appellant Al
could not have prevented appellant Lando from raping AAA, because at the time of rape, he was no
longer associated with appellant Lando. AAA even testified that only Fred and appellant Lando brought
her to Tarlac,52 and she never saw appellant Al again after May 7, 2002, the day she was held captive.
She only saw appellant Al once more during the trial of the case.53 Thus, appellant Al cannot be held
liable for the subsequent rape of AAA.

The Penalties

In Criminal Case No. 4498-R, the attendant circumstance of treachery qualified the killing to murder. The
penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Since the
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was alleged and proven, the imposable penalty upon
the appellants is death, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code.54 In view,
however, of the passage of R.A. No. 9346,55 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty
of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua,56 without eligibility for parole.57
In Criminal Case No. 4481-R, the penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with rape is death. In view of R.A. No. 9346, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion
perpetua,58 without eligibility for parole.59 Accordingly, the imposable penalty for appellant Lando is
reclusion perpetua.

As to appellant Al, the prescribed penalty for serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the
commission of the offense, the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article
6360 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Damages

In Criminal Case No. 4498-R, the award of civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the
victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.61 In People v. Quiachon,62 even
if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of the prohibition in R.A. 9346, the civil indemnity
of ₱75,000.00 is proper, because it is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but
on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the
commission of the offense. As explained in People v. Salome,63 while R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the
imposition of the death penalty, the fact remains that the penalty provided for by law for a heinous
offense is still death, and the offense is still heinous. Accordingly, the award of civil indemnity in the
amount of ₱75,000.00 is proper.

Anent moral damages, the same are mandatory in cases of murder, without need of allegation and
proof other than the death of the victim.64 However, consistent with recent jurisprudence on heinous
crimes where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.A. No.
9346, the award of moral damages should be increased from ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00.65

The award of exemplary damages is in order, because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances
of treachery and evident premeditation in the commission of the crime.66 The Court awards the amount
of ₱30,000.00, as exemplary damages, in line with current jurisprudence on the matter.67

Actual damages is also warranted. Modesta Abad, the spouse of victim Sulpacio, incurred expenses in
the amount of ₱57,122.30, which was duly supported by receipts.68lawphil

In Criminal Case No. 4481-R, AAA is entitled to civil indemnity in line with prevailing jurisprudence that
civil indemnification is mandatory upon the finding of rape.69 Applying prevailing jurisprudence, AAA is
entitled to ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity.70
In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code,71 without the
necessity of additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape.72 Moral damages is granted in
recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.73 Such award is
separate and distinct from the civil indemnity.74 However, the amount of ₱100,000.00 awarded as
moral damages is reduced to ₱75,000.00, in line with current jurisprudence.75

The award of exemplary damages to AAA in the amount of ₱50,000 is hereby reduced to ₱30,000.00 in
accordance with recent jurisprudence.76

As to appellant Al. In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the accused is individual and not
collective.77 Since appellant Al is liable only for the crime of serious illegal detention, he is jointly and
severally liable only to pay the amount of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity. For serious illegal detention, the
award of civil indemnity is in the amount of ₱50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.78

Along that line, appellant Al's liability for moral damages is limited only to the amount of ₱50,000.00.79
Pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal detention.
This is predicated on AAA's having suffered serious anxiety and fright when she was detained for almost
one (1) month.80

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00556 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS as follows:

(a) In Criminal Case No. 4498-R, appellants Fernando Calaguas Fernandez alias "Lando" and Alberto
Cabillo Anticamara alias "Al" are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole, and to pay, jointly
and severally, the heirs of Sulpacio Abad the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as
moral damages, ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱57,122.30 as actual damages.

(b) In Criminal Case No. 4481-R, appellant Fernando Calaguas Fernandez alias "Lando" is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole, and to
pay the offended party AAA, the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral
damages and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Appellant Alberto Cabillo Anticamara alias "Al" is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is also directed to pay, jointly and severally,
with appellant Fernando Calaguas Fernandez alias "Lando," the victim AAA the amounts of ₱50,000.00
as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA*

Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Second Division, Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice