Supreme Court of the Philippines

G.R. No. 189820

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO M. BASAO

ALIAS DODONG, JOVEL S. APOLE, MELQUIADES L. APOLE, ESTRELITA[1] G.
APOLE, ROLANDO A. APOLE ALIAS BEBOT, VICENTE C. SALON, JAIME
TANDAN, RENATO C. APOLE ALIAS BOBOY, ROLANDO M. OCHIVILLO ALIAS
ALLAN, LORENZO L. APOLE, JOHN DOE, PETER DOE AND MIKE DOE,
ACCUSED, JOVEL S. APOLE, ROLANDO A. APOLE, AND RENATO C. APOLE,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

On appeal is the Decision[2] dated May 29, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
00428-MIN, which affirmed with modification the Joint Decision[3] dated April 20, 2006 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41 of Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, finding accused-appellants Jovel
S. Apole, Renato C. Apole, and Rolando A. Apole guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case
Nos. C-368 (Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons by a Band) and C-369
(Kidnapping [for Ransom] and Serious Illegal Detention).

Accused-appellants, together with seven identified co-accused, namely, Alberto M. Basao (Basao),
Melquiades L. Apole, Estrelita G. Apole, Lorenzo L. Apole, Vicente C. Salon (Salon), Jaime Tandan
(Tandan), and Rolando M. Ochivillo (Ochivillo), plus three other unidentified persons, were charged
under the following criminal Informations:

Criminal Case No. C-368

For Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons by a Band

That on or about the 23rd day of January, 2003 at about 7:30 oclock in the evening, more or less, at
Barangay Bunga, municipality of Lanuza, province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, and armed with a short caliber unlicensed
firearms, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take and carry away from spouses
YASUMITSU YASUDA HASHIBA and EMELIE LOPIO HASHIBA cash money amounting to
Forty[-]Eight Thousand Pesos (P48,000.00), one (1) eighteen gold carats Sapphire ring, one (1) carat
emerald ring, color green, eighteen carats gold ruby ring, color red, two (2) eighteen carats wedding
rings (engraved with initial E to Y and Y to E) and eighteen carats gold necklace, and other personal
belongings worth more or less Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), in the total amount of Seventy[-
]Eight Thousand Pesos (P78,000.00), against their consent, to the damage and prejudice of Mr. and
Mrs. Emelie Lopio Hashiba in the aforestated amount.

Criminal Case No. C-369

For Kidnapping (for Ransom) and Serious Illegal Detention

That on the 23rd day of January 2003 at about 7:30 oclock in the evening, at Barangay Bunga,
municipality of Lanuza, province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, armed with unlicensed firearms, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
kidnap one YASUMITSU YASUDA HASHIBA, 48 years old and a Japanese National to
undisclosed place for the purpose of extorting ransoms, wherein the latter was detained and
deprived of his liberty for the period of more than five (5) days to the damage and prejudice of said
victim.[4]

Accused-appellants and their identified co-accused, except for Tandan, were arraigned. They
pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges against them.[5] After the pre-trial proceedings, trial
ensued.[6]

The prosecution called to the witness stand private complainant Emelie Lopio Hashiba[7] (Emelie)
and her brother Crisologo Pamad Lopio (Crisologo),[8] who testified as follows:

Witness, Emelie Hashiba testified that on January 23, 2003 at 7:30 oclock in the evening, she and
her maid were cooking supper at their house at Bgy. Bunga, Lanuza, Surigao del Sur. At the sala
were her husband, her three (3) children Hashiba Yuri, Hashiba Yu and Hashiba Hisayu, her mother
and the son of their housemaid Loloy, five (5) men entered their house with gun pointed to her
younger brother, Crisologo Lopio. One of them announced and said; Dont worry, we are NPA
(New Peoples Army) and continued to say; Huwag kayo matakot, pera lang ang kailangan namin,
which means, (Do not be afraid, we only need money.) Hindi kayo maano. (You will not be
harmed.) All of them were terrified seeing the armed men with their guns and a hand grenade. She
identified the armed men, with their height, built, complexion and the faces, except one who was
wearing bonnet mask. Although she does not know their names at the time of the incident on
January 23, 2003, she recognized them during the trial and identified each one of them, Jovel Apole,
Renato Apole and Rolando Apole except the two (2), whom she failed to recognize as she forgot
them.

Joven Apole and his companion brought Emelie Hashiba upstair at the second floor at their
bedroom, which was lighted and there she was divested of money and jewelries, 2 necklace 18 k, 4
rings 14 k, opal, rubi, emerald and sapphire and 2 wedding rings, worth a total of P30,000.00; cash
money from the wallet of P20,000.00 and another P28,000.00 from the collection of their passenger
jeep, samurai sword P4,000.00 and icom radio, P5,000.00. She was asked if that was her only money
and she told them yes. She was also asked about the gun of her husband, which she denied that
her husband does not possess firearm. Then Jovel Apole asked her if that was the only money they
had and she answered in the affirmative.

Dissatisfied with the value of their loot, Jovel Apole and companion demanded three (3) million
pesos from her with the threat that if she will not give the amount demanded they would bring with
them her son.

Shortly thereafter, they went down and back to the sala where YASUMITSU HASHIBA and
companions were gathered. EMELIE HASHIBA informed the accused that they could not bring
her son because he was sick, so she offered herself as the hostage, but brought YASUMITSU
YASUDA HASHIBA instead. Yasumitsu Hashiba vehemently objected and offered to give them
the money as soon as he goes back to Japan, but the group did not agree and insisted on the three
(3) million pesos. Helpless, they brought YASUMITSU HASHIBA with them after hog-tying the
occupants of the house. Before they left, they again threatened EMELIE HASHIBA that if she
failed to produce the three (3) million pesos, YASUMITSU HASHIBA will be killed.

Thereafter, they left riding on the Yasumitsu Hashibas automobile towards the National
Highway. Regaining composures she immediately called Yasumitsu Hashibas father in Japan thru
SMART LINK. She told him that his son was kidnapped and the kidnappers are demanding three
(3) million pesos. She informed him further that if she cannot produce the money, his son will be
killed to which threat the father assured her that he will be sending two (2) million pesos thru the
PNB, Tandag, Surigao del Sur.

On or about 7:00 oclock in the morning of January 24, 2003 the Barangay Captain of Bunga,
Lanuza, Surigao del Sur who learned of the incident visited her house. The latter confronted her
why she did not report the incident to the Police Station to which query she answered that she was
apprehensive her husband would be killed if she reports the incident to the police.

At about 10:00 oclock of the same day she went to the PNB Tandag to verify if the money was
already deposited in the bank, but none was deposited so she went home empty handed. When she
arrived home, policemen from Lanuza and Tandag, Surigao del Sur were already waiting for
her. She was advised to go to Tandag for the execution of her affidavit, which she agreed.

On the 25th day the kidnappers called her but she was not around. On the 26th day of January the
kidnappers again called her and instructed her to buy a cellular phone, which she obliged. With a
cellular phone she was able to talk with the kidnappers while in Tandag, Surigao del Sur. They asked
if the money has arrived, and she was advised not to withdraw the money in the bank and wait for
further instructions. On January 27th and 28th, 2003 they again called but after these dates did not
receive any call from them.
On January 29, 2003[,] a policeman from Dinagat Island informed her that her husband was released
by the kidnappers. Probably thinking that it was a ploy of the kidnappers she did not go to Dinagat
Island, San Jose and instead waited for her husband in a hotel in Tandag, Surigao del Sur.

Emelie Hashibas version of the incident was corroborated by Crisologo Lopio, a younger brother
of the former. He declared that he is the driver of Yasumitsu Hashiba of a passenger jitney. At six
(6) P.M. on January 23, 2003, he was at the house of his parents which is only 15 meters away from
his house at Bunga, Lanuza, Surigao del Sur. He watched T.V. for five (5) to ten (10) minutes and
left proceeding to the house of his sister Emelie about 30 meters from the house of his
parents. Reaching the gate of the house of Emelie, which was lighted, he was met by two (2) armed
men with .45 cal. pistols pointed their guns to him and told him to enter the house so that they will
talk. Entering the sala, they were ordered to sit on the sala, his mother, Yasumitsu Hashiba, the 3
children of Yasumitsu Hashiba, a child of their maid, his nephew, Emelie and Mercedita were all
fetched from the kitchen and brought to the sala. Then another two (2) armed men with .38 cal.
revolver entered. The latter armed men guarded them at the sala, while the other two (2) brought
Emelie upstairs to their bedroom. Returning to the sala with Emelie, the two men told them that
they will bring the son of Yasumitsu Hashiba and to be redeemed for two (2) million. Emelie told
them that the child is sick and offered herself instead but the armed men said, We will just kidnap
Yasumitsu Hashiba. Hashiba objected, and asked, he will give the money if he will be allowed to
return to Japan but of no use. The armed men did not agree and after hog-tying them, they brought
out of the house leaving a threat not to report to the Police otherwise, they will kill Hashiba. They
left, carnapping the car owned by Yasumitsu Hashiba.

Witness Crisologo Lopio identified in Court Jovel Apole, Rolando Apole and Renato Apole and
accordingly, one is at-large. After they left, Emelie told them that all her jewelries and money from
her collections of their passenger jitney were taken.[9]

Both Emelie and Crisologo positively identified the three accused-appellants in court. Private
complainant Yasumitsu Yasuda Hashiba (Yasumitsu) was also supposed to take the witness stand
for the prosecution and identify the other accused in the case, but Yasumitsu was unable to give his
testimony for lack of competent Japanese interpreters. Thus, for lack of evidence, the prosecution
moved for the provisional dismissal of the charges against accused Alberto Basao, Melquiades L.
Apole, Estrelita G. Apole, Lorenzo L. Apole, Vicente Salon, and Rolando Ochivillo, which the RTC
granted in its Orders[10] dated May 26, 2004 and January 13, 2005.

During their turn, the defense presented the testimonies of accused-appellants Rolando Apole[11] and
Jovel Apole;[12] and dispensed with the testimony of accused-appellant Renato Apole as he would be
merely corroborating those of the first two.[13] Accused-appellants denied the charges against them
and proffered the following version of events:

That on January 23, 2003, Rolando Apole was brought by his cousins Jovel Apole and Renato Apole
to the house of Allan Ochivillo in Lanuza, Surigao del Sur. They came from Tubajon, Dinagat
Island, Surigao del Norte to Surigao City. From Surigao City, they boarded the Bachelor bus in
going to Lanuza, Surigao del Sur. Arriving at three (3) oclock in the afternoon, they went directly to
the house of Allan Ochivillo. They saw Ochivillo for the first time and they were told by Ochivillo
to stay, as he will go to the house of his friend married to a Japanese national. When Ochivillo
returned home at 6:30 P.M., same day, they were informed that they will proceed there because the
Japanese will see their map.

The four of them, Rolando, Jovel, Renato and Allan Ochivillo went to the house of the Japanese
arriving there at 7:00 oclock P.M. Allan Ochivillo went inside first followed by Jovel, while
Rolando and Renato stayed outside. They were met by the Japanese wife and shook hands. Allan
Ochivillo talked to the wife of the Japanese at the sala and after the Japanese signal to go up because
there were children viewing T.V., Jovel brought with him the map. The Japanese, his wife, Allan
and Jovel went up the second floor. They stayed there for 10 minutes, more or less, then they went
down. Then Allan Ochivillo said, lets go. The Japanese wife said; Take care of my husband
because we can still make money. She further said; You just use my car and her[e] is the key,
given to Allan Ochivillo. The car was driven by the Japanese with Allan Ochivillo in the front seat.
On the way, the Japanese looked at the map for a while and talked to Allan Ochivillo in Tagalog,
this map have signs, and there is treasure in there, a tree, fish, starfish and a mountain.

Arriving at Surigao City, they alighted at Sabang and they took a pumpboat and proceeded to the
area where the treasure was to be found at Tambongan, Tubajon, while Ochivillo remained at
Surigao City.

They arrived at Tambungan, Tubajon, Surigao del Norte on the 24th of January 2003. They were
housed in the house of their uncle. In the afternoon, they verified and found that the treasure was
already dug up, as there were signs of digging already.

On January 25, 2003, Jovel Apole arrived and informed Rolando and Renato that according to Allan
Ochivillo, the wife of the Japanese will file a case against them and was told that each of them will
receive P100,000.00 to kill the Japanese.

They did not kill the Japanese but released him in San Jose, Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte.

Their uncle Lorenzo Apole, Estrelita Apole and Melquiades were arrested in connection with the
kidnapping of the Japanese. Rolando and Renato went to the house of the brother of Police
Director Gonzales at Surigao City to ask why Lorenzo, Melquiades and Estrelita Apole were
arrested. Jovel Apole followed and the 3 of them went to the house of Gonzales guided by Nay
Nita. They saw Melquiades, Lorenzo and Estrelita Apole in the house of Gonzales and after that
they were brought to the barracks at Tandag. Then, they were charged of two cases. They denied
the truth of the testimonies of Emelie Hashiba and Crisologo Lopio. They denied having robbed
and kidnapped Yasumitsu Hashiba.[14]

For rebuttal, the prosecution recalled Emelie[15] and presented Ochivillo[16] as witnesses. Both
prosecution witnesses refuted accused-appellants version of events. Emelie denied seeing Ochivillo
at their house or any treasure map. She added that accused-appellants carried short firearms; that
when accused-appellants left with Yasumitsu, Renato C. Apole drove the car; and that the
P3,000,000.00 would be paid within four days and would be taken from the parked car. Ochivillo,
for his part, avowed that he did not know accused-appellants personally; that he had not seen a
treasure map; that at the time of the incident, he was having a drinking spree with his neighbor; and
that he only met accused-appellants for the first time in Tandag when he was arrested.

The cases were submitted for decision without any documentary evidence for the prosecution and
the defense.[17]

On April 20, 2006, the RTC promulgated its Joint Decision, with a dispositive portion that reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused JOVEL APOLE y SALVADOR, ROLANDO APOLE y

ARANA, and RENATO APOLE y CANTORNE, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes:

A. For the crime of Robbery in Band in Criminal Case No. C-368, each of the accused Jovel Apole
y Salvador, Rolando Apole y Arana and Renato Apole y Cantorne, is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor
as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor
medium as maximum; to pay the private complainants the sum of P78,000.00; P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the cost.

B. For the crime of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention in Criminal Case No. C-
369, each of the accused Jovel Apole y Salvador, Rolando Apole y Arana, and Renato Apole y
Cantorne, is sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death; to pay the private complainants the
sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the cost.

In line with the decision of the Supreme Court in People vs. Mateo, G.R. No[s]. 147678-87, dated
July 7, 2004, let this decision be forwarded to the Court of Appeals, YMCA Building, Cagayan de
Oro City for automatic review within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after the
promulgation of judgment. Let the living body of the convicted prisoners, Jovel Apole y Salvador,
Rolando Apole y Arana and Renato Apole y Cantorne, be brought to the New Bilibid Prison,
Muntinlupa City, on maximum security.[18]
Pursuant to the Commitment of Final Sentence[19] issued by the RTC on May 12, 2006, accused-
appellants were received and imprisoned at the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, on even
date.[20]

In the meantime, the cases were forwarded to the Court of Appeals on automatic review. Accused-
appellants, represented by the Public Attorneys Office, filed their Brief[21] on January 17, 2008 while
plaintiff-appellee, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Brief[22] on May 12,
2008.

The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on May 29, 2009, agreeing with the findings of fact and
judgments of conviction of the RTC, but modifying the penalties imposed and amount of damages
awarded, to wit:

Anent the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. C-369, the court a quo convicted accused-
appellants with the supreme penalty of death as provided under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code. However, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 which proscribed the death penalty,
the appropriate penalty for the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with ransom is now
reclusion perpetua.

Furthermore, under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.

In the case of kidnapping for ransom, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded in
favor of complainant Emelie Hashiba in conformity with jurisprudence. Likewise, another amount
of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded for the crime of robbery in band.[23]

Ultimately, the appellate court decreed:

WHEREFORE, premises foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed
Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with modification insofar as the penalty imposed and the award of
damages are concerned. Consequently, accused-appellants are hereby SENTENCED to the
following:

1. For the crime of Robbery in Band in Criminal Case No. C-368, each of the accused-appellant
Jovel Apole y Salvador, Rolando Apole y Arana and Renato Apole y Cantorne, is sentenced to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
mayor as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor
medium as maximum; to pay the private complainants the sum of P78,000.00 as actual damages;
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages
and to pay the cost.

2. For the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention in Criminal Case No. C-
369, each of the accused Jovel Apole y Salvador, Rolando Apole y Arana, and Renato Apole y
Cantorne, is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to pay the private complainants the
sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages and to pay the cost.[24]

Accused-appellants now seek recourse from this Court through the instant appeal.

The Court required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, in a
Resolution[25] dated December 2, 2009. However, all the parties manifested that they have exhausted
their arguments before the Court of Appeals, thus, they would no longer file any supplemental
brief.[26]
In their Brief, accused-appellants assigned the following errors allegedly committed by the RTC:

I.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE

TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES DESPITE THEIR INHERENT
INCREDIBILITIES AND IRRECONCILABLE INCONSISTENCIES.

II.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE

THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.[27]

Plaintiff-appellee contends that accused-appellants were correctly convicted and even prays that the
civil indemnity awarded in Criminal Case No. C-369 be increased.

The appeal is bereft of merit.

In this case, accused-appellants appeal is chiefly grounded on their challenge of the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses and veracity of the latters testimonies, to which both the RTC and the Court
of Appeals gave more credence and weight.

As consistently adhered to by this Court, the matter of assigning values to declarations on the
witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who had the unmatched
opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but
not reflected on the record. The demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line between
fact and fancy. The forthright answer or the hesitant pause, the quivering voice or the angry tone,
the flustered look or the sincere gaze, the modest blush or the guilty blanch these can reveal if the
witness is telling the truth or lying through his teeth.[28]

Consequently, the settled rule is that when the credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact
of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the
probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded high
respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate
court, since it is settled that when the trial courts findings have been affirmed by the appellate court,
said findings are generally binding upon this Court.[29] Without any clear showing that the trial court
and the appellate court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of
weight and substance, the rule should not be disturbed.[30]

The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb, and is, therefore, conclusively bound by the findings of
fact and judgments of conviction rendered by the RTC, subsequently affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.

The testimonies of Emelie and Crisologo established beyond reasonable doubt the commission by
accused-appellants of the crimes of robbery by a band and kidnapping for ransom.

The crime of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code has the following elements: (a)
intent to gain, (b) unlawful taking, (c) personal property belonging to another, and (d) violence
against or intimidation of person or force upon things. Under Article 296 of the same Code, when
more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to
have been committed by a band. It further provides that [a]ny member of a band who is present
at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults
committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.[31]

All of the foregoing elements had been satisfactorily established herein. At least five (5) people,
including accused-appellants, carrying guns and a hand grenade, barged into the home of, and
forcibly took pieces of jewelry and other personal properties belonging to, spouses Yatsumitsu and
Emelie Hashiba. Accused-appellants themselves made their intent to gain clear when they assured
their victims that they were only after the money.

As for the crime of kidnapping, the following elements, as provided in Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code, must be proven: (a) a person has been deprived of his liberty, (b) the offender is a
private individual, and (c) the detention is unlawful.[32] The deprivation required by Article 267
means not only the imprisonment of a person, but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever
form and for whatever length of time. It involves a situation where the victim cannot go out of the
place of confinement or detention or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. In other words,
the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with indubitable
proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.[33]

In the present case, Yasumitsu was evidently deprived by accused-appellants of his liberty for seven
days. Armed with guns and a grenade, accused-appellants and their cohorts took Yasumitsu from
the latters home in Lanuza, Surigao del Sur, to Surigao City, by car; and then all the way to Tubajon,
Surigao del Norte, by boat. Accused-appellants held Yasumitsu from January 23 to January 29,
2003. During said period, Yasumitsu was unable to communicate with his family or to go
home. Also during the same period, accused-appellants called Emelie several times to ask whether
the P3,000,000.00 ransom payment was already available.

The Court rejects accused-appellants claim that Yasumitsu went with them voluntarily. As the RTC
acutely observed:

The claim of the defense that the victim Hashiba was not kidnapped but on his volition to go with
them by reason of the treasure map implying that the Japanese would join them in the treasure hunt,
is a ridiculous attempt of the accused to extricate themselves from the offense they are in. This
Court is not convinced. Having observed all the demeanors of the witnesses, the Prosecutions
evidence is more in accord with reason and logic. The accused protestations that they sought the
services of the Japanese to interpret the treasure map and finally went with them freely to Tubajon,
taxes credulity. Simple imagination militates against such pretended defenses. Firstly, if the
intention of the accused was only for the purpose of requesting the Japanese to interpret the treasure
map, why would the reading and interpretation be brought to the second floor and right at the
bedroom of the victim, whom it could have been done at the living room? Secondly, why only the
Japanese was brought to the alleged location in Tubajon? This Court takes notice that the Japanese
cannot speak Filipino language or dialect. It was even the reason why the Japanese was not able to
testify because of the lack of interpreter due to the objection of the accused for the wife to interpret
the supposed testimony of the Japanese. Bringing along with them the Japanese to read the treasure
map is not in keeping with reason because the Japanese could not be understood. Certainly, the
Japanese needs interpreter.

Again, the claim of the accused that they freely released the Japanese at San Jose after finding that
the area was already dug up did not convince the Court. They released the Japanese after they knew
that the authorities were looking for them and that Melquiades, Lorenzo and Estrelita Apole were
already arrested.[34]

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. 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.[35]

There is conspiracy among accused-appellants and their cohorts when they kidnapped
Yasumitsu. Their community of criminal design could be inferred from their arrival at the Hashibas
home already armed with weapons, as well as from their clearly designated roles upon entry into the
house (i.e., some served as lookouts; some accompanied Emelie to the second floor to look for
jewelry, cash, and other property to take; and some guarded and hogtied the other people in the
house) and in the abduction of Yasumitsu (i.e., Jovel S. Apole went back to Surigao City to secure
the release of the ransom money while Renato C. Apole and Rolando A. Apole stayed in Tubajon to
guard Yasumitsu). The Court concurs with the RTC that all these acts were complimentary to one
another and geared toward the attainment of a common ultimate objective to extort a ransom of
three (3) million in exchange for the Japanese[s] freedom.

The alleged inconsistencies or conflict in the prosecution witnesses testimonies were already
rejected by the Court of Appeals for the same only pertain to minor details which have
inconsequential significance. The appellate court elaborated thus:

Accused-appellants now insist that the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are
inconsistent thereby creating reasonable doubt as to their culpability. One such inconsistency is
when Emelie allegedly testified that her husband vehemently objected to go with the assailants
contrary to her statements in her affidavit that her husband voluntarily went with the malefactors in
lieu of their son. Accused-appellants also allege that Emelies testimony that there were five (5)
armed men contradicted with Crisologo Lopios testimony that there were only four (4) armed
men. Accused-appellants further allege that it is rather unusual in a kidnapping situation that the
kidnappers failed to give instructions as to how the ransom money would be delivered and how the
victim would then be released. Likewise, it was allegedly disturbing that during the incident it was
Emelie herself who gave her telephone number to the armed men and told them to call her and even
offered the car instead of the [jeepney]. Accused-appellants also point out that after Emelie
withdrew the ransom money from the bank, she seemed to have just lost contact with the alleged
kidnappers and records allegedly failed to show that she exerted efforts to ascertain the whereabouts
of her husband. x x x.

We disagree.

The above alleged inconsistencies are of minor and inconsequential importance. Both witnesses
agreed and identified the three accused-appellants to have been the armed malefactors. The
testimonies of the victims were straightforward and there was no showing of any ill motive on their
part to falsely testify against accused-appellants. Clearly, positive identification of the accused where
categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses
testifying on the matter prevails over his defense. When there is no evidence to show any dubious
reasons or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against the accused or
falsely implicate them in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and
credit. Furthermore, issues of sufficiency of evidence are resolved by reference to findings of the
trial court that are entitled to the highest respect on appeal in the absence of any clear and
overwhelming showing that the trial court neglected, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance affecting the result of the case.[36]

In People v. Delim,[37] the Court further pronounced that a truth-telling witness is not always expected
to give an error-free testimony considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human
memory. What is primordial is that the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight
clashing of statements dilute neither the witnesses credibility nor the veracity of his
testimony. Variations on the testimony of witnesses on the same side with respect to minor,
collateral, or incidental matters do not impair the weight of their united testimony to the prominent
facts. Inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the
credibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony.

Despite affirming the judgments of conviction against accused-appellants, the Court still modifies
the penalties imposed and amounts of damages awarded by the Court of Appeals.

In Criminal Case No. C-368, accused-appellants are convicted of the crime of Robbery with
Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons Committed by a Band. The penalty prescribed for said
crime under Article 294(5), in relation to Article 295 of the Revised Penal Code, is the maximum
period of the penalty prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
period.[38] The Indeterminate Sentence Law additionally provides that the maximum of the sentence
shall be that which could be properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances, and the
minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal
Code.

In accused-appellants case, the maximum of the sentence should be within the range of the
maximum period of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period,
which shall be from eight (8) years and twenty-one (21) days to ten (10) years; while the minimum of
the sentence should be within the range of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its medium period, which has a duration of four (4) months and one (1) day to four
(4) years and two (2) months. As a result, the Court imposes upon accused-appellants the penalty of
imprisonment for Four (4) years and Two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to Ten (10)
years of prision mayor, as maximum.

The Court sustains the award of actual or compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages in favor of
private complainants. Actual damages are awarded as the compensation for such pecuniary loss
suffered by the complainant as he has duly proved while moral damages may be recovered if the
complainant suffered, among others, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and similar
injuries.[39] Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are imposed by way of example or correction for
the public good and may be adjudicated in criminal cases if the crime was committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances and the complainant has shown that he is entitled to moral,
temperate, or compensatory damages.[40] In this case, private complainants have duly proven that
they were robbed of their cash and jewelries, and that they felt terrified during such time, thus,
entitling them to be paid actual and moral damages. Considering also that the robbery was
committed with the inherent aggravating circumstance of a band, and to set an example for the
public good, the award of exemplary damages is in order. The award of additional civil indemnity,
however, should be deleted for lack of legal basis.

In Criminal Case No. C-369, where accused-appellants are convicted of the crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention, the Court of Appeals correctly reduced their sentence from
death to reclusion perpetua considering the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, prohibiting the
imposition of the death penalty. The Court likewise emphasizes that accused-appellants shall not be
eligible for parole. Under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346, [p]ersons convicted of offenses
punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of
this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended.[41]
There is also need to modify the damages awarded in Criminal Case No. C-369 in line with
prevailing jurisprudence.[42] Accused-appellants are to pay Yasumitsu the amounts of P75,000.00 as
civil indemnity, which is awarded if the crime warrants the imposition of the death penalty;
P75,000.00 as moral damages, because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries without
need of proof; and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, to set an example for the public good.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Decision dated May 29, 2009
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00428-MIN, which affirmed with modification
the Joint Decision dated April 20, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41 of Cantilan, Surigao
del Sur, to read as follows:

1) In Criminal Case No. C-368, the Court finds accused-appellants Jovel S. Apole, Renato C.
Apole and Rolando A. Apole GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons by a Band and sentences accused-appellants to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment for Four (4) years and Two (2) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to Ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay private complainants the
amounts of P78,000.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages.

2) In Criminal Case No. C-369, the Court finds accused-appellants Jovel S. Apole, Renato C.
Apole and Rolando A. Apole GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention and sentences accused-appellants to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole, and to pay private complainants the amounts of
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes, JJ., concur.

[1]
Also referred to as Estrella or Esterlita in some parts of the records.

[2]
Rollo, pp. 3-24; penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with Associate Justices Elihu A.
Ybaez and Ruben C. Ayson, concurring.

[3]
Records, pp. 300-314; penned by Judge Romeo C. Buenaflor.

[4]
Id. at 256-257.

[5]
Id. at 86-96 and 189.

[6]
Id. at 126-127.
[7]
TSN, September 12, 2003.

[8]
TSN, February 4, 2004.

[9]
Records, pp. 302-306, RTC Decision dated April 20, 2006.

[10]
Id. at 158-159 and 214-216.

[11]
TSN, November 11, 2005 and January 31, 2006.

[12]
TSN, February 21, 2006.

[13]
Id. at 22-23.

[14]
Records, pp. 306-308, RTC Decision dated April 20, 2006.

[15]
TSN, February 21, 2006, pp. 23-28.

[16]
Id. at 28-43.

[17]
CA rollo, p. 1.

[18]
Records, pp. 313-314.

[19]
Rollo, p. 30.

[20]
Id. at 31.

[21]
CA rollo, pp. 55-78.

[22]
Id. at 102-133.

[23]
Rollo, pp. 21-22.

[24]
Id. at 22-23.

[25]
Id. at 32-33.

[26]
Id. at 36-40 and 41-44.

[27]
CA rollo, p. 57.
[28]
People v. Ramirez, 409 Phil. 238, 245 (2001).

[29]
Decasa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 172184, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 267, 287.

[30]
Nueva Espaa v. People, 499 Phil. 547, 556 (2005).

[31]
People v. Lumiwan, 356 Phil. 521, 533 (1998).

[32]
Id. at 531.

[33]
People v. Baluya, G.R. No. 181822, April 13, 2011, 648 SCRA 708, 716-717.

[34]
Records, pp. 310-311.

[35]
People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 489, 506-507.

[36]
Rollo, pp. 17-19.

[37]
444 Phil. 430, 465 (2003).

[38]
ART. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons Penalties. - Any person guilty of
robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

1. The penalty of from reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed; or when the robbery shall have
been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.

2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, when or if by
reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1
of Article 263 shall have been inflicted.

3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the
physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding
paragraph, shall have been inflicted.

4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium
period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall have
been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when in the
course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for
its commission any of the physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article
263.
 5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
medium period in other cases.

ART. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place and by a band or with the use of
firearm on a street, road or alley. If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the
next preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by a band or by
attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passengers
compartments in a train or, in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the
respective conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the
use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the proper
penalties.

In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon the leader of the band.
(Emphases added.)

[39]
CIVIL CODE, Articles 2199 and 2217.

[40]
Id., Articles 2229, 2230, and 2234.

[41]
People v. Tadah, G.R. No. 186226, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 744, 747.

[42]
Id.

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org