Case Digest (G.R. No. 105954-55)
Facts:
Petitioners Ireneo Fajardo and Ruperto Fajardo were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna in Criminal Case No. 4371-B for Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention, and each was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The information involved the kidnapping of Nobuyuki Wakaoji after a golf outing on November 15, 1986, carried out by armed men using a vehicle convoy; the victim was later found being transferred blindfolded and with his hands tied, and the prosecution also alleged ransom payment.On appeal, the trial court had acquitted Simpliciano Atienza, dismissed the case as to the deceased co-accused, and declared that it lacked jurisdiction over those who remained at large; hence the appeal concerned only Ireneo Fajardo and Ruperto Fajardo.
Issues:
- Whether the convictions were based on false, procured, and rehearsed testimony and inadmissible statements.
- Whether the identity of the appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether cons
Case Digest (G.R. No. 105954-55)
Facts:
- Charges and parties in the trial court
- The Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna convicted appellants to each suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
- Appellants were charged and convicted for the crimes of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention.
- The information charged “Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention.”
- The dispositive portion adjudged Ireneo Fajardo and Ruperto Fajardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals of Kidnapping for Ransom under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the attendant aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicles and no mitigating circumstances.
- The dispositive portion sentenced Ireneo Fajardo and Ruperto Fajardo to reclusion perpetua, citing Sec. 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution which proscribes the death penalty, and imposed the accessories provided by law plus costs.
- The trial court ordered restoration of $3,000,000.00 allegedly extorted from the victim or friends of the victim, ordering it returned.
- The trial court declared Simplicio Atienza acquitted for insufficiency of evidence and ordered cancellation of his bailbond and relief of his surety.
- The trial court ordered immediate commitment of the two convicted accused to the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.
- For the remaining accused, the information included: Ireneo Fajardo, Simplicio Atienza, Domingo Hinggan, Guillermo Panganiban, Julian Tercero, Eustacio Onate, Ruperto Fajardo, Benigno Lumbres, Bonifacio Demapilis, Tirso Maranan, Quintin Fajardo, Ben Natividad, and several John Does.
- Of those accused, only Ireneo Fajardo, Simpliciano Atienza, and Ruperto Fajardo were arraigned and tried.
- The other accused remained at large.
- Bonifacio Dimapilis died during pendency of the case and the indictment against him was dismissed.
- Because the other accused remained at large, the trial court declared it had no jurisdiction over them.
- The decision was appealed by Ireneo Fajardo and Ruperto Fajardo.
- Appellate posture and undisputed background
- The appeal was without merit.
- The incident occurred in the early morning of November 15, 1986, involving Japanese executives of Mitsui & Co. and other Japanese companies.
- The executives left Makati, Metro Manila to enjoy a game of golf at the Canlubang Golf Club, Canlubang, Laguna.
- Nobuyuki Wakaoji headed the group.
- The group arrived in a convoy of five cars.
- Drivers parked at the golf club while executives played golf.
- The round of golf lasted about four hours, followed by lunch at the clubhouse.
- It was about 3:00 p.m. when the executives left the golf club.
- The convoy of five cars was led by the car driven by Emiliano Ordona.
- In that lead car was Nobuyuki Wakaoji.
- The fourth car was driven by prosecution witness Ernesto Escobar.
- The abduction at the golf club and immediate circumstances
- Five minutes after the convoy started, the convoy was overtaken by two cars.
- One of the overtaking cars was a blue Toyota Cressida.
- The two cars blocked the lead car.
- Two men came out of one car and approached the lead car.
- A third man, allegedly appellant Ireneo Fajardo, remained standing near the door of the blue Cressida.
- The two men forcibly took Wakaoji out of the lead car.
- Wakaoji was shoved into the blue Cressida.
- The Cressida then sped away toward the highway.
- Evidence relied upon by the trial court to support detention and transfer
- The trial court relied on the testimonies of Mario Palig and Jimmy Lasam to support its finding of detention.
- Lasam testified that around 2:00 p.m. on November 25, 1986, while he was looking for a grass cutting job in Aya, Talisay, Batangas, he saw Wakaoji being escorted by three armed men from the house of accused Lumbres to a waiting white car.
- Lasam described Wakaoji as blindfolded, with his hands tied behind his back.
- Lasam supposed the three armed men were accused Maranan, Dimapilis, and appellant Ruperto Fajardo.
- Palig testified that around 2:00 p.m. on November 25, 1986, in Tarangka, Talisay, Batangas, he saw appellant Ruperto Fajardo in the house of accused Lumbres.
- Palig testified that a helicopter boarded by Japanese nationals arrived.
- The Japanese nationals alighted, talked to Lumbres, and took pictures.
- Palig stated that Wakaoji was escorted by appellant Ruperto Fajardo, accused Lumbres, and Maranan to a white car, and they boarded it.
- Both Palig and Lasam testified that three other unidentified armed men boarded a passenger jeep and followed...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Witness credibility and claims of procurement, perjury, and rehearsal
- Whether the trial court erred in finding guilt solely on allegedly procured, perjured, and rehearsed testimony.
- Whether the trial court relied on statements of persons who were not presented as witnesses for the State.
- Whether appellants proved that the witnesses were motivated by improper motive.
- Whether appellants’ mere allegations, without proof, could undermine witness testimony.
- Admissibility of written statements and their effect
- Whether the trial court seriously erred by considering written statements of persons not presented as witnesses.
- Whether any error in admitting such statements required reversal, or whether convictions could still stand based on admissible evidence.
- Conspiracy and admissibility of evidence used to infer it
- Whether the trial court erred in finding conspiracy between appellants or with others.
- Whether the evidence for conspiracy was inadmissible.
- Identity and reliability of positive identification
- Whether the trial court erred in finding that identities of appellants were clearly established.
- Whether the testimonies were “highly incredible,” “perjured,” “procured,” “manufactured,” and “unreliable.”
- Whether Escobar’s ability to identify Ireneo Fajardo was doubtful because Escobar was about twenty meters away.
- Whether identification required prior personal acquaintance between witness and accused.
- Whether alibi and denial could prevail over positive identification.
- Defense evidence, including alibi
- Whether the trial court erred in discrediting entirely the defense testimony and the defense of alibi.
- Whether the defense of alibi should negate the positive identification.
- Newly discovered evidence and reopening of the case
- Whether the trial court erred in denying appellants’ motion for leave to introduce material and newly discovered evidence.
- Whether newspaper reports containing confessions of different persons constituted newly discovered evidence....(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)