People v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Agapito de la Cruz, was an overseer for Antonio Yu for ten years. The City Fiscal of Basilan City filed an Amended Information against Agapito de la Cruz and several others for Kidnapping with Robbery in Band and Murder. The Information alleged that on March 6, 1968, the accused, armed with carbine and garand rifles, conspired to kidnap Yu Chi Chong, the younger brother of Antonio Yu, for ransom amounting to P50,000.00. During the kidnapping, they allegedly stole a wristwatch and cash worth P550.00 from Yu Chi Chong. On the way from Basilan to Sulu, Yu Chi Chong was allegedly assaulted and shot with treachery and evident premeditation, causing his death, and his body was dumped into the sea. Procedural History: Of the eleven charged, only Agapito de la Cruz, Jamas Jumaidi, and Oyong Asidin were apprehended. The latter two were discharged to become state witnesses. The prosecution's evidence, mainly from the discharged witnesses and Mohamad Sagap Salip, pointed to Agapito de la Cruz as the mastermind. Mohamad Sagap Salip testified that Agapito proposed the killing of Antonio Yu and kidnapping of Yu Chi Chong for ransom. The discharged witnesses narrated the planning in Agapito's house, the ambush, the kidnapping, the robbery of personal belongings, and the subsequent killing of Yu Chi Chong when he attempted to escape. The trial court found Agapito de la Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, sentencing him to death, with aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence, commission in an uninhabited place, abuse of superior strength, and aid of an outlaw band. The court found the crime to be attended by these circumstances, not offset by any mitigating circumstance. The Petition: Agapito de la Cruz appealed, contending that the trial court erred in discarding the testimony of the discharged accused based on the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, in giving credence to Sagap Salip's testimony, in convicting him as principal by inducement without elements of conspiracy, and in disregarding his defense of alibi. The Supreme Court, in its decision, modified the conviction, finding him guilty of the complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Murder, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua due to lack of votes for the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the discharged witnesses despite inconsistencies. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Mohamad Sagap Salip. Whether Agapito de la Cruz could be convicted as a principal by inducement without direct participation in the commission of the crime and in the absence of conspiracy. Whether the defense of alibi presented by Agapito de la Cruz was sufficient to acquit him. Whether the crime committed was Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, or the complex crime of Kidnapping with Robbery in Band and Murder, or Kidnapping for Ransom with Murder.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Agapito de la Cruz but modified the crime for which he was found guilty. While the trial court convicted him of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, the Supreme Court ruled that the complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Murder was committed. Due to the lack of the required number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty, Agapito de la Cruz was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Yu Chi Chong in the sum of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of discharged witnesses: The Supreme Court held that the rule falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not mandatory and can be disregarded when witnesses are motivated by a desire to exculpate themselves rather than to pervert the truth. Despite inconsistencies in the affidavits of Jamas Jumaidi and Oyong Asidin regarding their direct involvement, their testimonies consistently pointed to Agapito de la Cruz as the mastermind and detailed the planning and execution of the crime. The Court found that the inconsistencies did not pertain to the crucial points of Agapito's role, the details of the plot, the ransom demand, and the distribution of spoils. The death of Yu Chi Chong was also proven by other evidence, such as empty shells, bloodstains, and positive identification by other witnesses. On the testimony of Mohamad Sagap Salip: The Supreme Court found no reason to reverse the trial court's finding that Sagap Salip's testimony was unassailed and sufficient to support the accusation. The testimonies of the discharged witnesses corroborated Sagap Salip's account on substantial points. The Court reiterated the jurisprudence that trial court findings on the credibility of witnesses command great respect and weight, absent any exceptions not present in this case. On conviction as principal by inducement and conspiracy: The Court affirmed that Agapito de la Cruz was a principal by inducement. The requisites for this are that the inducement must be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime, and it must be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material executor. The Court found these requisites present as Agapito laid down the strategy, knew the victims' movements, selected the ambush site, and offered a pecuniary gain (ransom) which was the determining factor for his co-accused. The Court clarified that an inducer need not take part in the material execution of the offense; they are liable as principals even if they did not directly participate. On the defense of alibi: The Supreme Court found the defense of alibi weak. Agapito claimed he was at Alfonso Flores' house, about a kilometer away from his own house where the criminal plans were allegedly hatched. The Court reiterated the doctrine that for alibi to be acceptable, the location must be such that it was well-nigh impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. Given the proximity, it was not impossible for Agapito to have left Flores' house to confer with his co-accused. Furthermore, the alibi was negated by the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who categorically implicated Agapito. On the nature of the crime: The Supreme Court found reversible error in the trial court's conviction solely for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. The Information charged Kidnapping with Robbery in Band and Murder. The Court reasoned that the evidence clearly showed the victim was kidnapped for ransom, and murdered because he attempted to escape. Citing previous cases, the Court held that the killing of the victim in kidnapping cases, when part of the execution of the criminal design or a consequence thereof, leads to the conviction for the complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder. The Court stated that Agapito, as a principal by inducement and with conspiracy evident, should be held guilty of the same crime committed by the material executors. Pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the more serious crime, Kidnapping for Ransom (punishable by death under Article 267), should be imposed. However, due to the lack of votes for the death penalty, the Court imposed reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
A principal by inducement is criminally liable for the acts of his co-conspirators committed in furtherance of the common design, including the complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Murder, even if he did not directly participate in the material execution of the murder, provided conspiracy is evident and the murder is a consequence of carrying the crime into effect.