G.R. No. 138500 - Quel vs. VHF Philippines

The case involves the People of the Philippines as plaintiff-appellee and the accused-appellants Vicente Lugnasin and Devincio Guerrero.
The charge is kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
The Information was filed on October 15, 1999, by the Department of Justice against Vicente, Devincio, and four others (with five additional unidentified co-accused) for kidnapping the person of Nicassius Cordero with the intent of extorting ransom money.

On April 20, 1999, in Quezon City, armed men abducted Nicassius Cordero while he was opening the garage door of his residence.
The abduction was executed with criminal and malicious intent using force, threat, intimidation, and firearms.
During the commission of the crime:

Cordero was approached by at least three men—a man with a revolver (later identified as Devincio Guerrero), another man driving the car (later identified as Tito Lugnasin), and a third who was later identified as Vicente Lugnasin (dubbed “Commander” after the jeepney driver intervened).
Cordero was divested of his money and taken in a car, then later made to walk barefooted to a small house where he was detained for four days.
While detained, the kidnappers negotiated with his sister-in-law Saleena for the payment of ransom money, although ultimately no ransom was paid.

Cordero, the lone prosecution witness, provided a detailed account of his abduction that included:

Observation of the faces of his abductors before he was blindfolded.
Specific details on their actions, weapons, and the sequence of events during the crime.
His identification of Vicente Lugnasin and Devincio Guerrero as two of the abductors, both during out-of-court procedures (line-up, photographic identification) and later in open court.

Despite the passage of 26 days between the incident and his identification in court, Cordero’s recollections were described as clear and convincing.

He first saw Cordero at the Department of Justice and contended that Cordero could not have identified him earlier.
His prior encounters with law enforcement (such as his arrest in connection with a robbery case and subsequent detention for illegal possession of firearms) were mentioned to explain his presence before Cordero’s identification.

Accused-appellant Devincio Guerrero similarly denied involvement, maintaining that:

He encountered Cordero for the first time in the courtroom.
His narrative included details about his arrest by uniformed policemen, his detentions in different jails, and his routine as a fish vendor.

Both accused made no stipulation at pre-trial conferences regarding their participation in the crime apart from recognizing their identities and the jurisdiction of the court.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), in its March 24, 2003 Decision, found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt based primarily on Cordero’s testimony and identification.
The RTC imposed the penalty of death on each accused and ordered joint and several liability for moral damages awarded to the victim.
On January 23, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction with modification:

The death penalty was amended to reclusion perpetua without the possibility of parole in compliance with Republic Act No. 9346.
The convictions were upheld on the basis of the credible and consistent identification made by Cordero.

Whether the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Nicassius Cordero.
Whether the identification by Cordero, despite indications of suggestiveness, was flawed or unreliable.
Whether the court erred by not deeming Devincio’s warrantless arrest illegal.
Whether the court erred in failing to find that Devincio’s rights under Republic Act No. 7438 were violated during custodial investigation.

Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting Vicente despite the prosecution’s allegedly insufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The sufficiency and credibility of out-of-court identification procedures and their compliance with constitutional due process.
The waiver of constitutional objections by failing to raise issues such as the alleged irregularity of the arrest before arraignment.