G.R. No. 204061 - Lutap vs. People

Accused-appellant Danilo Sinoc was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two consolidated criminal cases for:

a) Kidnapping with murder (Criminal Case No. 3564) and b) Kidnapping with frustrated murder (Criminal Case No. 3565).

The cases were tried under amended informations dated January 23, 1992, which also named five other accused persons—Vicente Salon, Benjamin Espinosa, Jaime Jornales, Victorino Delegencia, and Roger Doe. However, only Sinoc and Salon were arraigned; the others remained at large.
Vicente Salon was acquitted, as conspiracy was not proven and the only evidence implicating him was Sinoc's affidavit of confession. Thus, only Sinoc’s conviction was appealed.

On September 20, 1991, Isidoro Viacrusis (manager of Taganito Mining Corporation) and driver Tarcisio Guijapon were stopped near the public cemetery of Claver by armed men claiming to be New People’s Army (NPA) members.
The assailants forcibly boarded their Mitsubishi Pajero and ordered the driver to proceed. At Barobo, Surigao del Norte, Viacrusis and Guijapon were bound, taken to a nearby coconut grove, made to lie face down, and shot. Guijapon died instantly, but Viacrusis survived.
Viacrusis identified Danilo Sinoc as one of the attackers from his recollections shortly after the incident.

On September 21, 1991, a civilian informant reported that the stolen Pajero was parked behind an apartment in Poblacion, Monkayo, Davao del Norte.
Police found the Pajero and arrested Sinoc when he attempted to retrieve the vehicle. He carried the keys and was acting on instructions from companions who were absent at the time.
Sinoc was brought to the 459th Mobile Force and later to the Public Attorney’s Office in Butuan City to make a voluntary affidavit of confession, assisted by attorney Alfredo Jalad and sworn before City Prosecutor Ernesto Brocoy.

Sinoc admitted participating in the plan to kidnap and rob Viacrusis, describing the conspiracy involving others and the use of weapons. He stated he was promised P20,000 for his role.
He described the events, including identifying accomplices, the route, and the shooting of the victims (which he protested).
His defense was an alibi claiming he was in Sibagat, Agusan del Sur, selling tableya in Tagum on the dates in question.
He alleged illegal detention and torture during interrogation, including denial of the right to counsel, physical abuse, and coercion to sign the confession.
His wife and a witness corroborated his presence at the CIS and his instruction to remain silent.

The prosecution presented witnesses who testified about the incident and recovery of the vehicle.
The victim Viacrusis did not testify, and his affidavit was not formally admitted due to hearsay rules.

Whether or not conspiracy was proven to exist among Danilo Sinoc and his co-accused to commit the crimes charged.
Whether the warrantless arrest of Sinoc was lawful.
Whether Sinoc’s confession was valid considering allegations of custodial investigation without counsel and coercion.
Whether the crimes charged (kidnapping with murder and kidnapping with frustrated murder) were correctly classified and charged under applicable laws.
Whether Sinoc could be held liable for both complex crimes charged simultaneously.