People Vs Baldogo

3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 396
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 31

People vs. Baldogo
*
G.R. Nos. 128106-07. January 24, 2003.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

GONZALO BALDOGO, accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Witnesses; Findings of facts of the trial court,

its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, its
assessment of the probative weight of the collective evidence of the
parties and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded
by the appellate court with great respect, if not conclusive effect.—
This Court has held in a catena of cases that the findings of facts
of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the
parties, its assessment of the probative weight of the collective
evidence of the parties and its conclusions anchored on its
findings are accorded by the appellate court great respect, if not
conclusive effect. The raison d’etre of this principle is that this
Court has to contend itself with the mute pages of the original
records in resolving the issues posed by the parties: “x x x The
record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the
truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted
assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous
mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready
reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion
or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity
that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if
tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or
in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all
these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed
and reasoned verdict.”
Same; Presumption of Innocence; Accusation is not

synonymous with guilt—it is incumbent on the prosecution to
prove the corpus delicti, more specifically, that the crimes charged
had been committed and that the accused precisely committed the
same.—The Court agrees with accused-appellant that the
prosecution was burdened to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of the felonies for which he is charged. This Court has held
that accusation is not synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016245c8f2a65e1ad0e1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/35
the prosecution to prove the corpus delicti, more specifically, that

the crimes charged had been committed and that accused-
appellant precisely committed the same. The prosecution must
rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness
of the evidence of the accused. The reasonable standard rule
which was adopted by the United States way back in 1978 is a
requirement and a safeguard, in the words of Mr. Justice Felix
_______________
* EN BANC.
32
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Baldogo
Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court, “of due process

of law in the historic, procedural content of due process.” The
United States Supreme Court emphasized in Re: Winship that in
a criminal prosecution, the accused has at stake interests of
immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may
lose his liberty or even his life upon conviction and because of the
certainty that he would be stigmatized by the conviction.
Same; Murder; Conspiracy; For a conspirator to be criminally

liable of murder or homicide, it is not necessary that he actually
attacks or kills the victim.—Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that there is conspiracy if two or more persons agree to
commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be
proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy
may be inferred from the acts of the accused, before, during and
after the commission of a felony pointing to a joint purpose and
design and community of intent. It is not required that there be
an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the commission of
the offense, all the conspirators had the same purpose and were
united in its execution. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all. All the accused are criminally liable as co-principals
regardless of the degree of their participation. For a conspirator to
be criminally liable of murder or homicide, it is not necessary that
he actually attacks or kills the victim. As long as all the
conspirators performed specific acts with such closeness and
coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or
design in bringing about the death of the victim, all the
conspirators are criminally liable for the death of said victim.
Same; Denial; The bare denial by the accused of the crimes

charged constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot
prevail over the categorical and positive testimony of the
prosecution witness and her unequivocal identification of the
accused as one of the perpetrators of the crimes charged.—The
bare denial by accused-appellant of criminal liability for the
crimes charged is inherently weak. Accused-appellant’s claims
that he even protected Julie from harm and that he was forced by
Bermas to kidnap Julie are of the same genre. The bare denial by
accused-appellant of the crimes charged constitutes self-serving
negative evidence which cannot prevail over the categorical and
positive testimony of Julie and her unequivocal identification of
accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crimes
charged.
Same; Exempting Circumstances; Duress; For duress to

exempt the accused of the crimes charged, “the fear must be well-
founded, and immediate and actual damages of death or great
bodily harm must be present and the compulsion must be of such a
character as to leave no opportunity
33
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 33
People vs. Baldogo
to accused for escape or interpose self-defense in equal combat.”—

Accused-appellant’s insistence that he was forced by Bermas,
under pain of death, to cooperate with him in killing Jorge and
kidnapping and detaining Julie is merely an afterthought. For
duress to exempt accused-appellant of the crimes charged, “the
fear must be well-founded, and immediate and actual damages of
death or great bodily harm must be present and the compulsion
must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to accused
for escape or interpose self-defense in equal combat.” Accused-
appellant is burdened to prove by clear and convincing evidence
his defense of duress. He should not be shielded from prosecution
for crime by merely setting up a fear from, or because of, a threat
of a third person.” As Lord Dennan declared in Reg. vs. Tyler, “No
man from fear of circumstances to himself has the right to make
himself a party to committing mischief on mankind.” In these
cases, in light of the testimony of Julie and the inculpatory acts of
accused-appellant no less, there is no doubt that the latter acted
in concert with Bermas and is himself a principal by direct
participation. That accused-appellant abandoned Julie after six
days of captivity does not lessen his criminal culpability much less
exempt him from criminal liability for the killing of Jorge and the
kidnapping and detention of Julie.
Same; Witnesses; The testimony of a minor of tender age and

of sound mind is likewise to be more correct and truthful than that
of an older person so that once it is established that he has fully
understood the character and nature of an oath, his testimony
should be given full credence and probative weight.—It bears
stressing that when she testified, Julie was merely 12 years old.
The Court has repeatedly held that the testimony of a minor of
tender age and of sound mind is likewise to be more correct and
truthful than that of an older person so that once it is established
that they have fully understood the character and nature of an
oath, their testimony should be given full credence and probative
weight. Julie had no ill motive to tergiversate the truth and
falsely testify against accused-appellant. Hence, her testimony
must be accorded full probative weight.
Same; Complex Crimes; Kidnapping with Murder; The last

paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable
only if kidnapping or serious illegal detention is committed and
the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the kidnapping or
serious illegal detention.—The Court shall now delve into and
resolve the issue of what crime or crimes accused-appellant is
guilty of. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of two
separate crimes and not the special complex crime of kidnapping
with murder or homicide under the last paragraph of Article 267
of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7659. The
trial court is correct. There is no evidence that Jorge was
kidnapped or detained first by accused-appellant and Bermas
before he was killed. The last paragraph of
34
People vs. Baldogo
Article 267 of the Code is applicable only if kidnapping or serious

illegal detention is committed and the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the kidnapping or serious illegal detention.
Same; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; Evident

Premeditation; A finding of evident premeditation cannot be based
solely on mere lapse of time that he actually commits it—the
prosecution must adduce clear and convincing evidence as to when
and how the felony was planned and prepared before it was
effected.—While the Court agrees that accused-appellant is guilty
of murder, it does not agree with the rulings of the trial court that
the crime was qualified by evident premeditation and abuse of
superior strength. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation,
the prosecution must establish the confluence of the following
requisites: “x x x (a) the time when the offender determined to
commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the
offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of
time between the determination and the execution of the crime to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. x x x”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Requisites.—The qualifying

aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, like any other
qualifying circumstance, must be proved with certainty as the
crime itself. A finding of evident premeditation cannot be based
solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has
decided to commit a felony up to the time that he actually
commits it. The prosecution must adduce clear and convincing
evidence as to when and how the felony was planned and
prepared before it was effected. The prosecution is burdened to
prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the felony, the felon
clung to his determination to commit the crime. The law does not
prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon
has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it.
Each case must be resolved on the basis of the extant factual
milieu.
Same; Same; Same; Treachery; The killing of minor children

who by reason of their tender years could not be expected to put up
a defense is attended by treachery.—In light of the evidence on
record, it is clear that the killing of Jorge was qualified by
treachery. When Jorge was killed by accused-appellant and
Bermas, he was barely 14 years old. The Court has previously
held that the killing of minor children who by reason of their
tender years could not be expected to put up a defense is attended
by treachery. Since treachery attended the killing, abuse of
superior strength is absorbed by said circumstance.
35
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 35
People vs. Baldogo
Same; Kidnapping; Words and Phrases; To sequester is to

separate for a special purpose, remove or set apart, withdraw from
circulation, and also means to lock-up or imprison.—Article 267 of

the Revised Penal Code was taken from Article 267 of the Spanish
Penal Code, which reads: “Art. 267—Detención ilegal grave—Será
castigado con la pena de reclusión temporal el particular que
secuestrare o encerrare a otro o en cualquier forma le privare de
libertad.” “Secuestrare” means sequestration. To sequester is to
separate for a special purpose, remove or set apart, withdraw
from circulation. It also means to lock-up or imprison. “Encerrare”
is a broader concept than secuestrare. Encerrare includes not only
the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his
liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. As
explained by Groizard, “encerrar” es meter á una persona ó cosy en
parte de donde no pueda salir”; detener o arrestar, poner en
prisión, privar de la libertad á alguno.” He continued that “la
detención, la prisión, la privación de la libertad de una persona,
en cualquier forma y por cualquier medio ó por cualquier tiempo
en virtud de la cual resulte interrumpido el libre ejercicio de su
actividad.” On his commentary on the Spanish Penal Code, Cuello
Calon says that the law “preve dos modalidades de privacion de
libertad, el encierro y la detencion. Encerrar significa recluir a una
persona en un lugar de donde no puede salir, detener a una
persona equivale a impedirle o restringirle la libertad de
movimiento. Para que el sujeto pasivo no quiera permanecer en el
sitio donde esta recluido, pues no es posible llamar encierro ni
detencion a la estancia de un a persona en lugar del que no quiere
salir.”
Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Dwelling; The

accused is guilty of kidnapping where he seized and took a minor
from her house through force and dragged her to the mountain
and since then the minor was restrained of her liberty by and kept
under the control of accused; Dwelling could not serve to aggravate
the penalty where it was not alleged in the Information.—In this
case, Julie, a minor, was not locked up. However, she was seized
and taken from her house through force and dragged to the
mountain. Since then, she was restrained of her liberty by and
kept under the control of accused-appellant and Bermas. She was
prevented from going back home for a period of about six days.
Patently then, accused-appellant is guilty of kidnapping and
illegally detaining Julie. The crime was aggravated by dwelling
because Julie was taken from their house by accused-appellant
and Bermas. However, dwelling was not alleged in the
Information as an aggravating circumstance as required by
Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
which reads: “SEC. 9. Designation of the offense.—The complaint
or information shall state the designation of the offense given by
the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense,
and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there

is no designation of the offense, refer-
36
People vs. Baldogo
ence shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute

punishing it.” Even if dwelling is proven but is not alleged in the
Information as an aggravating circumstance, the same will not
serve to aggravate the penalty.
Same; Same; Same; Quasi-Recidivism; To prove quasi-

recidivism, a special aggravating circumstance, the prosecution is
burdened to adduce in evidence a certified copy of the judgment
previously convicting the accused and to prove that the said
judgment had become final and executory.— Quasi-recidivism as
defined in Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code is alleged in both
Informations. Accused-appellant is alleged to have committed
murder and kidnapping while serving sentence in the penal
colony by final judgment for the crime of homicide. Quasi-
recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. The prosecution
is burdened to prove the said circumstance by the same quantum
of evidence as the crime itself. In the present case, to prove quasi-
recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence a
certified copy of the judgment convicting accused-appellant of
homicide and to prove that the said judgment had become final
and executory. The raison d’etre is that: “x x x Since the accused-
appellant entered a plea of not guilty to such information, there
was a joinder of issues not only as to his guilt or innocence, but
also as to the presence or absence of the modifying circumstances
so alleged. The prosecution was thus burdened to establish the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the existence of
the modifying circumstances. It was then grave error for the trial
court to appreciate against the accused-appellant the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism simply because of his failure to object
to the prosecution’s omission as mentioned earlier.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; The barefaced fact that the accused
was detained in the penal colony does not prove the fact that final
judgment for homicide has been rendered against him.—In this
case, the prosecution adduced in evidence merely the excerpt of
the prison record of accused-appellant showing that he was
convicted of homicide in Criminal Case No. 10357-R by the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio (Branch 6) with a penalty of from
six years and one day as minimum to fourteen years, eight

months and one day as maximum and that the sentence of
accused-appellant commenced on November 19, 1992 and that the
minimum term of the penalty was to expire on August 16, 1997.
The excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant is not the
best evidence under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of
Court to prove the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
City and to prove that said judgment had become final and
executory. Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary
evidence which is inadmissible absent proof that the original of
the judgment had been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot
be produced without
37
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 37
People vs. Baldogo
the fault of the prosecution. The barefaced fact that accused-

appellant was detained in the penal colony does not prove the fact
that final judgment for homicide has been rendered against him.
There being no modifying circumstances in the commission of the
crime, accused-appellant should be meted the penalty of reclusion
perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial

Court of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Br. 52.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

1
This is an automatic review of the Joint Judgment, dated
October 18, 1996, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52,
Puerto Princesa City, finding accused-appellant Gonzalo
Baldogo alias “Baguio” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 12900 and
Kidnapping in Criminal Case No. 12903. The trial court
imposed on accused-appellant the supreme penalty of death
in Criminal Case No. 12900 and reclusion perpetua in
Criminal Case No. 12903.
I. The Indictments
Two Informations were filed against accused-appellant and

Edgar Bermas alias “Bunso” which read:
“That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1996 in the evening

at the residence of Mr. Julio Camacho of Iwahig Prison and Penal
Farm, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused who were
both convicted by final judgment of the offense of Homicide and
while already serving sentence, committed the above name
offense by conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and
evident premeditation and while armed with a bolo, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and hack
one JORGE
_______________
1 Penned by Judge Felomino A. Vergara.
38

People vs. Baldogo
CAMACHO, hitting him and inflicting upon him mortal wounds

at the different parts of his body, which was the direct and
immediate cause of his death shortly thereafter.
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the aggravating circumstances of
treachery, evident[,] premeditation and 2
recidivism. Puerto
Princesa City, Philippines, March 5, 1996.”
xxx
“That on Thursday, February 22, 1996 at more or less 8:15 in
the evening at the victim’s residence, Iwahig Prison and Penal
Farm, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused while
serving sentence at the Central Sub-Colony both for the offense of
Homicide, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another, commits (sic) another offense, kidnapping
one JULIE E. CAMACHO, a girl 12 years of age, and brought her
to the mountains, where said Julie E. Camacho was detained and
deprived of her liberty fro [sic] more than five days.
CONTRARY TO LAW 3 and attended by the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism.”
Accused-appellant was arraigned on June 28, 41996 and

entered a plea of not guilty to both charges.
5
Edgardo
Bermas died before he could be arraigned. The two cases
were ordered consolidated and a joint trial thereafter
ensued.
The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely, Julie

Camacho, Dr. Edilberto Joaquin, Esteban Mamites and
Julio Camacho, Sr., and offered documentary and object
evidence on its evidence-in-chief.
II. The Antecedent Facts
Julio Camacho, Sr. and his wife, Heather Esteban, had four
children, namely: Julio, Jr., a student of the Palawan State
University in Puerto Princesa City and who stayed in
Guaygo, Puerto
_______________
2 Original records, p. 1.
3 Id., at 15.
4 Id., at 21.
5 Id., at 65.
39
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 39

People vs. Baldogo
6
Princesa City; Jorge, who was fourteen years old; Julie,
who was 12 years old and a grade six elementary pupil at
the Iwahig Elementary School and Jasper, who was eight
years old. Julio, Sr. was employed as a security guard in
the Iwahig Prison and Penal Colony. He and his family
lived in a compound inside the sub-colony. Edgardo Bermas
alias “Bunso,” an inmate of the penal colony, was assigned
as a domestic helper of the Camacho spouses. Accused-
appellant alias “Baguio,” also an inmate of the colony, was
assigned in January 1996 as a domestic helper of the
Camacho family. Both helpers resided in a hut located
about ten meters away from the house of the Camacho
family.
In the evening of February 22, 1996, accused-appellant
and Bermas served dinner to Julio, Sr., Jorge and Julie in
the house of the Camachos. At about 7:30 p.m., Julio, Sr.
left the house to attend a bible study at the dormitory in
the Agronomy Section of the Penal Farm. Heather and her
son, Jasper, were in Aborlan town. Only Jorge and his
sister Julie were left in the house.
After Julio, Sr. had left the house, Julie went to the sala
to study her assignment. Momentarily, Bermas called Julie
from the kitchen saying: “Jul, tawag ka ng kuya mo.” Julie
ignored him. After five minutes, Bermas called her again

but Julie again ignored him. Julie was perturbed when she
heard a loud sound, akin to a yell, “Aahh! Ahh!” coming
from the kitchen located ten meters from the house. This
prompted Julie to stand up and run to the kitchen. She was
appalled to see Jorge sprawled on the ground near the
kitchen, face down and bloodied. The vicinity was lighted
by a fluorescent lamp. Standing over Jorge were 7
accused-
appellant and Bermas, each 8
armed with a bolo. The shirt
of Bermas was bloodied. Julie was horrified and so
petrified that although she wanted to shout, she could not.
She ran back to the sala with accused-appellant and
Bermas in pursuit. Accused-appellant overtook Julie, tied
her hands at her back with a torn t-shirt and placed a piece
of cloth in her mouth to prevent her from shouting for help
from their neighbors. Bermas went to the room of Julie’s
_______________
6 Exhibit “E”.
7 Exhibit “A”.
8 Ibid.
40

People vs. Baldogo
brothers. Accused-appellant dragged Julie outside the

house and towards the mountain. Bermas tarried in the
house.
With the aid of a flashlight, accused-appellant, with
Julie in tow, walked for hours towards the direction of the
mountain. About a kilometer away from the house of the
Camachos, accused-appellant and Julie stopped under a big
tamarind tree at the foot of the mountain. After about
thirty minutes, Bermas arrived with a kettle and raw rice.
Accused-appellant and Bermas retrieved a bag containing
their clothing and belongings from the trunk of the
tamarind tree. They untied Julie and removed the gag from
her mouth. The three then proceeded to climb the
mountain and after walking for six hours or so, stopped
under a big tree where they spent the night. When the
three woke up in the morning of the following day,
February 23, 1996, they continued their ascent of the
mountain. Seven hours thereafter, they started to follow a
descending route. Accused-appellant and Bermas told Julie
that they would later release her. At about 3:00 p.m.,
Bermas left accused-appellant and Julie. However,

accused-appellant did not let go of Julie. The two survived
on sugar and rice cooked by accused-appellant. Once, they
saw uniformed men looking for Julie. However, accused-
appellant hid Julie behind the tree. She wanted to shout
but he covered her mouth.
In the early morning of February 28, 1996, accused-
appellant told Julie that he was leaving her as he was
going to Puerto Princesa City. He told her to fend for
herself and return to the lowland the next day. After their
breakfast, accused-appellant left Julie alone to fend for
herself. A few hours after accused-appellant had left, Julie
decided to return to the lowlands. She found a river and
followed its course toward Balsaham until she saw a hut.
She called upon its occupant who introduced himself as
Nicodemus. Julie sought help from him. When asked by
Nicodemus if she was the girl whom the police authorities
were looking for, she replied in the affirmative. Nicodemus
brought Julie to Balsaham where they met some personnel
of the penal colony and police officers, and Nicodemus
turned Julie over for custody to them.
Meanwhile, Julio, Sr. arrived home after his bible study
at about 9:00 p.m. on February 22, 1996. He noticed that
the television set was switched on but no one was watching
it. He looked for his
41
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 41

People vs. Baldogo
children but they were nowhere to be found. He then

proceeded to the hut occupied by accused-appellant and
Bermas but he also failed to find them. Julio, Sr. then
rushed to the house of his older brother, Augusto Camacho,
to look for his children, but Augusto told him that Jorge
and Julie were not there. Julio, Sr. then sought the help of
Romualdo Esparagoza, a trustee of the penal farm. The two
rushed back to the Camacho residence and proceeded to the
kitchen where they noticed blood on the floor. The two
proceeded to the dirty kitchen and saw the bloodied body of
Jorge dumped about three meters away from the dirty
kitchen. Julio, Sr. and Esparagoza then brought Jorge to
the Iwahig Hospital where he was pronounced dead on
arrival at 12:40 a.m. of February 23, 1996. Dr. Edilberto
Joaquin examined the cadaver and found that the victim
was stabbed on the breast once and at the back seven
times. He sustained a lacerated wound on the neck. The
layers of the neck, trachea and esophagus of Jorge had

been cut. Jorge did not sustain any defensive wound. Dr.
Joaquin performed an autopsy of the cadaver and signed a
medical certificate with his findings, thus:
“MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
GENERAL DATA:
JORGE CAMACHO y ESTEBAN, 14 years old, student, resident

of Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm, approximately 5’3 inches in-
height, was brought to the hospital, (DOA) dead on arrival at
12:40 AM, 23 February 1996, approximate time of death 8:00 P.M.
February 22, 1996.
FINDINGS
1. Stab wound, deep, penetrating, approximately 1 inch in

length, at the level of the xyphoid process, anteriorly.
2. Stab wound, chest, back, approximately 1 inch length,
right midclavicular line, level of the 3rd rib.
3. Stab wound, back, right midclavicular line, level of the 5th
rib.
4. Stab wound, back, approximately 1 inch length level of the
5th rib, left midclavicular line.
5. Stab wound, back, approximately 1 inch length, right
midclavicular line, 6th rib.
42

People vs. Baldogo
6. Stab wound, back, approximately 1 inch length, right mid-

clavicular line, level of the 4th lumbar region.
7. Stab wound, back, approximately 1 inch in length, right
third lumbar region, deep, penetrating involving the liver.
8. Stab wound, back, approximately 3/4 inch, at the level of
the 2nd lumbar region.
9. Lacerated wound, neck, anteriorly, deep, penetrating,
cutting the layers of the neck and the trachea and
esophagus.
CAUSE OF DEATH
Hypovolemia due to severe hemorrhage 9

secondary to multiple
stab wounds and laceration of the neck.”
Wounds numbers 7 and 9 were fatal. It was possible that

two sharp-edged and sharp pointed weapons were used in 10
stabbing Jorge and that two assailants stabbed the victim.
On February 29, 1996, Julie gave her sworn statement
and a supplemental
11
sworn statement to the police
investigators. Julio, Sr. suffered mental anguish and
sleepless nights because of the death of Jorge.
The prosecution adduced in evidence excerpts of the
personal file of accused-appellant kept in the penal colony
showing that he had been convicted of homicide by the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and that he
commenced serving sentence on November 19, 1992 and
that the minimum 12
term of his penalty was to expire on
August 16, 1997.
III. The Defenses and Evidence of Accused-Appellant
Accused-appellant denied killing Jorge and kidnapping

Julie. Accused-appellant asserted that Julie implicated him
because she was coached and rehearsed. He testified that
he was assigned as a helper in the house of Augusto
Camacho, the Chief of the Industrial Section of the colony
and the older brother of Julio, Sr. Augu-
_______________
9 Exhibit “B”.
10 TSN, Joaquin, August 20, 1996, pp. 13-14.
11 Exhibit “A”.
12 Exhibit “D”.
43
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 43

People vs. Baldogo
sto told accused-appellant that his brother, Julio, Sr.,

wanted to have accused-appellant transferred as his
domestic helper. However, accused-appellant balked
because he had heard from Edgardo Bermas, the helper of
Julio, Sr., that the latter was cruel and had been
maltreating Bermas. Nonetheless, in December 1995,
accused-appellant was transferred as a domestic helper of
Julio, Sr. Accused-appellant confirmed that indeed Julio,
Sr. was cruel because whenever the latter was angry, he
maltreated accused-appellant by spanking and boxing him.
These would occur about two times a week.
On February 22, 1996, at about 6:30 p.m., accused-

appellant took his dinner in the kitchen. At about 7:00
p.m., while he was already in his quarters and preparing to
sleep, Bermas arrived, armed with a bloodied bolo
measuring about 1 1/2 feet long and told accused-appellant
that he (Bermas) had just killed Jorge to avenge the
maltreatment he received from Julio, Sr. Bermas warned
accused-appellant not to shout, otherwise he will also kill
him. Petrified, accused-appellant kept silent. Bermas then
brought accused-appellant to the kitchen in the house of
the Camachos where accused-appellant saw the bloodied
body of Jorge sprawled near the kitchen. Bermas called
Julie three times, telling her that her brother was calling
for her but Julie at first ignored Bermas. Julie later
relented and went to the kitchen where Bermas grabbed
her and threatened to kill her if she shouted. Bermas tied
the hands of Julie with a piece of cloth and placed a piece of
cloth around her face to prevent her from shouting.
Bermas, still armed with his bolo tucked on his waist
and a knife on his hand, brought accused-appellant and
Julie outside the house. The three then trekked towards
the mountain. On the way, Bermas picked a bag containing
food provisions and his and accused-appellant’s clothings.
Accused-appellant thought of escaping but could not
because Bermas was watching him. With the help of a
flashlight brought by Bermas, the three walked towards
the mountain, with Julie walking ahead of accused-
appellant and Bermas. After walking for hours, they
stopped by a tree to which Bermas tied Julie. At one time,
while Bermas and accused-appellant were scouring for
water, Bermas kicked accused-appellant and pushed him
into a ten feet deep ravine. The right hand and foot of
accused-appellant sustained bruises. He likewise
44

People vs. Baldogo
sustained a sprain on his foot. Bermas left accused-

appellant and Julie after 1 1/2 days.
In the meantime, accused-appellant managed to climb
out of the ravine and heard Julie calling his name. Julie
later told accused-appellant that before Bermas left, the
latter told her that he was going to kill accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant and Julie remained in the mountain
after Bermas had left. At one time, accused-appellant and
Julie saw soldiers who were looking for her. Accused-
appellant did not reveal his and Julie’s location to the

soldiers because he was afraid that he might be killed. On
February 25, 1996, accused-appellant untied Julie. He told
her that he will set her free as soon as his foot shall have
healed.
On February 27, 1996, accused-appellant told Julie that
she can go home already. He ordered her to go down the
mountain and proceed to Balsaham on her way back home.
Although his foot was still aching, accused-appellant went
down from the mountain ahead of Julie and proceeded to
Balsaham. He then walked to Irawan where he took a
tricycle to the public market in the poblacion in Puerto
Princesa City. He then took a passenger jeepney and
alighted at Brooke’s Point where he was arrested after one
week for the killing of Jorge and the kidnapping of Julie.
Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to
hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that
during the entire period that he and Julie were in the
mountain before Bermas left him, he tried to protect her
from Bermas. Accused-appellant asserted that he wanted
to bring Julie back to her parents after Bermas had left
them and to surrender but accused-appellant was afraid
that Julio, Sr. might kill him.
IV. The Verdict of the Trial Court
After due proceedings, the trial court rendered its decision,

the decretal portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, a Joint Judgment

is hereby rendered in:
45
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 45

People vs. Baldogo
A. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12900—finding the accused Gonzalo

Baldogo, alias Baguio, guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principal of the crime of murder as defined and penalized in
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 7659, and appreciating against him the specific
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage and use of superior
strength, without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same,
and pursuant to the provisions of the second paragraph, No. 1, of
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to
death in the manner prescribed by law; to pay the heirs of the
deceased Jorge Camacho;
1. Actual and compensatory damages:

For expenses incurred for funeral and P
other expenses incident to his death ............ 45,000.00
2. Moral damages
............................................... 100,000.00
3. Civil indemnity for the death of the
victim, Jorge Camacho
................................... 50,000.00
or the aggregate amount of
............................ 195,000.00
B. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12903—finding the accused GONZALO

BALDOGO, alias, ‘Baguio,’ guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principal of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
as defined and penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7659, and there
being no modifying circumstance appreciated and pursuant to the
provisions of the second paragraph, No. 2, of Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code, and not being entitled to the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion
perpertua, with the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for
life, and of perpetual absolute disqualification; to pay the offended
party, Julie Camacho for physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety and moral shock, moral damages of
P100,000; and to pay the costs.
The case as against co-accused Edgar Bermas is ordered
dismissed by reason of extinction of criminal liability occasioned
by his death pending conclusion of the proceedings as against
him. 13
SO ORDERED.”
V. Assignment of Error
In his appeal brief, accused-appellant avers that:
_______________
13 Records, pp. 74-76.
46

People vs. Baldogo
“I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF
THE CRIME OF MURDER AND KIDNAPPING.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING ACCUSED-

APPELLANT’S DEFENSE OF DENIAL.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE

QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION AND GENERIC AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SUPERIOR
STRENGTH DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION
TO PROVE THE SAME.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH

PENALTY UPON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
14
IN THE (SIC)
CRIMINAL CASE #12900.”
VI. Resolution of this Court
The first two assignments of errors being interrelated, the

Court will delve into and resolve the same simultaneously.
Accused-appellant avers that he had nothing to do with,
and hence should not be claimed for, the death of Jorge and
the kidnapping and detention of Julie. Accused-appellant
claims that he was acting under duress because he was
threatened by Bermas with death unless he did what
Bermas ordered him to do. Accused-appellant was even
protective of Julie. He insists that the latter was not a
credible witness and her testimony is not entitled to
probative weight because she was merely coached into
implicating him for the death of Jorge and her kidnapping
and detention by Bermas.
We find the contention of accused-appellant farcical. At
the heart of the submission of accused-appellant is the
credibility of
_______________
14 Rollo, pp. 44-45.
47
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 47

People vs. Baldogo
Julie, the 12-year old principal witness of the prosecution

and the probative weight of her testimony.
This Court has held in a catena of cases that the
findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the
testimonial evidence of the parties, its assessment of the
probative weight of the collective evidence of the parties
and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by
the appellate court great respect, if not conclusive effect.
The raison d’etre of this principle is that this Court has to
contend itself with the mute pages of the original records in
resolving the issues posed by the parties:
“x x x The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will
affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of
an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the
tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a
ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in
evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a
serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not
show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered
pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can
see all these and on the basis15of his observations arrive at an
informed and reasoned verdict.”
In contrast, the trial court has the unique advantage of

monitoring and observing at close range the attitude,
conduct and deportment of witnesses as they narrate their
respective testimonies before said court. Echoing a foreign
court’s observation, this Court declared:
“Truth does not always stalk boldly forth naked, but modest
withal, in a printed abstract in a court of last resort. She oft hides
in nooks and crannies visible only to the mind’s eye of the judge
who tries the case. To him appears the furtive glance, the blush of
conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or
sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the
candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of
an oath, the carriage and mien. The brazen face of the liar, the
glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, or the itching
overeagerness of the swift witness, as well 16
as the honest face of
the truthful one, are alone seen by him.”
_______________
15 People vs. Delovino, 247 SCRA 637, 647 (1995).

16 Ibid.
48

People vs. Baldogo
The rule, however, is not iron clad. This Court has

enumerated exceptions thereto, namely: (a) when patent
inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored
by the trial court; (b) when the conclusions arrived at are
clearly unsupported by the evidence; (c) when the trial
court ignored, misunderstood, misinterpreted and/or
misconstrued facts and circumstances of substance 17
which,
if considered, will alter the outcome of the case. In this
case, the trial court found the youthful Julie credible and
her testimony entitled to full probative weight. Accused-
appellant has not sufficiently demonstrated to this Court
the application of any of the aforestated exceptions.
The Court agrees with accused-appellant that the
prosecution was burdened to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt of the felonies for which he is charged.
This Court has held that accusation is not synonymous
with guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove the
corpus delicti, more specifically, that the crimes charged
had been committed and that accused-appellant precisely
committed the same. The prosecution must rely on the
strength of its own evidence
18
and not on the weakness of the
evidence of the accused. The reasonable standard rule
which was adopted by the United States way back in 1978
is a requirement and a safeguard, in the words of Mr.
Justice Felix Frankfurter of the United States Supreme
Court, “of due process of law in the historic, procedural
content of due process.” The United19
States Supreme Court
emphasized in Re: Winship that in a criminal
prosecution, the accused has at stake interests of immense
importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose
his liberty or even his life upon conviction and because of
the certainty that he would be stigmatized by the
conviction.
In the cases at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce
direct evidence to prove that accused-appellant killed
Jorge. However, the prosecution adduced indubitable proof
that accused-appellant con-
_______________
17 People v. Garcia, et al., 361 SCRA 598 (2001); People v. De los Santos,
314 SCRA 303 (1999).
18 People v. Dramayo, et al., 42 SCRA 59 (1971).

19 25 L.Ed. 368.
49
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 49

People vs. Baldogo
spired with Bermas not only in killing Jorge but also in

kidnapping and detaining Julie.
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there
is conspiracy if two or more persons agree to commit a
felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be proved
by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy
may be inferred from the acts of the accused, before, during
and after the commission of a felony pointing20 to a joint
purpose and design and community of intent. It is not
required that there be an agreement for an appreciable
period prior to the commission of the offense, all the
conspirators21
had the same purpose and were united in its 22
execution. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
All the accused are criminally liable as co-principals
23
regardless of the degree of their participation. For a
conspirator to be criminally liable of murder or homicide, it
is not necessary that he actually attacks or kills the victim.
As long as all the conspirators performed specific acts with
such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably
indicate a common purpose or design in bringing about the
death of the victim, all the conspirators
24
are criminally
liable for the death of said victim.
In these cases, the prosecution adduced conclusive proof
that ac-cused-appellant indeed conspired with Bermas to
kill Jorge and kidnap Julie as shown by the following
cogent facts and circumstances:
1. When Julie responded to the repeated calls of

Bermas for her to go to the kitchen on his pretext
that Jorge wanted to talk to her, Julie saw accused-
appellant and Bermas, each armed with a bolo,
about half a meter from Jorge25 who was sprawled on
the ground, bloodied all over.
2. Even as Julie fled from the kitchen for dear life to
the sala of their house, accused-appellant and
Bermas ran after her. Accused-
_______________
20 People v. Landicho, et al., 258 SCRA 1 (1996).

21 People v. Sequino, 264 SCRA 79 (1996).

22 People v. Lopez, et al., 249 SCRA 610 (1995).
23 People v. Cogonon, 262 SCRA 693 (1996).
24 People v. Abendan, 360 SCRA 106 (2001).
25 TSN, Camacho, pp. 8-13, July 25, 1996.
50

People vs. Baldogo
appellant tied the hands of Julie with a piece of

cloth and inserted a piece of cloth into her mouth to
prevent her 26
from shouting for help from their
neighbors.
3. With a flashlight on hand, accused-appellant then
exited from the house, dragged Julie towards the
direction of the mountain while Bermas remained
in the house to rummage through the things in the
bedroom of her brothers. Accused-appellant
27
stopped
for a while for Bermas to join him.
4. Before the killing of Jorge, accused-appellant and
Bermas placed their clothing and personal
belongings in a bag and buried the bag under a
tree, and when accused-appellant and Bermas were
on their way to the mountain after killing Jorge,
they excavated
28
and retrieved the bag from under
the tree.
5. Accused-appellant and Bermas brought with them
to the mountain a kettle29filled with raw rice which
they cooked in the forest.
6. When Julie saw uniformed men who were looking
for her and wanted to shout for help, accused-
appellant covered30 her mouth to prevent her from
shouting for help.
7. Even after Bermas had left accused-appellant and
Julie in the forest in the afternoon of February 23,
1991, accused-appellant continued detaining Julie
in the forest until February 27, 1996, when he
abandoned Julie in the forest to fend for herself.
The evidence of the prosecution was even buttressed by the

judicial admissions of accused-appellant, thus:
1. After releasing Julie on February 27, 1996, accused-

appellant proceeded to Puerto Princesa City and on
to Brooke’s Point31
where he was arrested a week
after said date.
_______________
26 Id., at 13-14.
27 Id., at 15-17.
28 Id., at 45-46.
29 Id., at 20-21.
30 Id., at 25-26.
31 TSN, Baldogo, September 17, 1996, pp. 19-20.
51
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 51

People vs. Baldogo
2. Both accused-appellant and Bermas had a motive to

kill Jorge and kidnap Julie, that is, to avenge the
repeated maltreatment and physical abuse32 on them
by Julio, Sr., the father of Jorge and Julie.
The flight of both accused-appellant and Bermas from the

house of Julio, Sr. to the mountain where they found refuge
after killing Jorge, and their motive to kill Jorge, Jr. and
kidnap and detain Julie in conjunto constitute potent
evidence of their confabulation and of their guilt for 33
the
death of Jorge and kidnapping and detention of Julie.
The bare denial by accused-appellant of criminal
liability for the crimes charged is inherently weak.
Accused-appellant’s claims that he even protected Julie
from harm and that he was34 forced by Bermas to kidnap
Julie are of the same genre. The bare denial by accused-
appellant of the crimes charged constitutes self-serving
negative evidence which cannot prevail over the categorical
and positive testimony of Julie and her unequivocal
identification of accused-appellant 35
as one of the
perpetrators of the crimes charged.
Accused-appellant’s insistence that he was forced by
Bermas, under pain of death, to cooperate with him in
killing Jorge and kidnapping and detaining Julie is merely
an afterthought. For duress to exempt accused-appellant of
the crimes charged, “the fear must be well-founded, and
immediate and actual damages of death or great bodily
harm must be present and the compulsion must be of such
a character as to leave no opportunity to accused
36
for escape
or interpose self-defense in equal combat.” Accused-
appellant is burdened to prove by clear and convincing

evidence his defense of duress. He should not be shielded
from prosecution for crime by merely setting 37up a fear
from, or because of, a threat of a third person.” As Lord
Dennan declared in Reg. vs.
_______________
32 TSN, Baldogo, September 19, 1996, pp. 17-19.

33 People v. De Mesa, 354 SCRA 397 (2001).
34 People v. Salvatierra, 257 SCRA 489 (1996).
35 People v. Garcia, 361 SCRA 598 (2001).
36 Wharton, Criminal Law, Vol. 1, pp. 514-515.
37 State v. Nargashian, 106 American State Reports, 715, 58 Atl. 953.
52

People vs. Baldogo
38
Tyler, “No man from fear of circumstances to himself has
the right to make himself a party to committing mischief
on mankind.” In these cases, in light of the testimony of
Julie and the inculpatory acts of accused-appellant no less,
there is no doubt that the latter acted in concert with
Bermas and is himself a principal by direct participation.
That accused-appellant abandoned Julie after six days of
captivity does not lessen his criminal culpability much less
exempt him from criminal liability for the killing of Jorge
and the kidnapping and detention of Julie.
Accused-appellant failed to prove his claim that Julie
was coached on how and what to testify on. Indeed, when
asked to identify the person or persons who coached Julie,
accused-appellant failed to mention any person:
“Q You heard the testimony of Julie Camacho that she is

pointing to you to have kidnapped her and participated
in the killing of her brother Jorge, what can you say to
that?
A That is not true.
Q You donot (sic) know the reason why? In fact you
treated her well, why she pointed you as one of the
authors of the crime?
A Maybe somebody coached her.
Q Who do you think coached her?
A I cannot mention the name but I am sure that
39
39
somebody coached her.”
It bears stressing that when she testified, Julie was merely

12 years old. The Court has repeatedly held that the
testimony of a minor of tender age and of sound mind is
likewise to be more correct and truthful than that of an
older person so that once it is established that they have
fully understood the character and nature of an oath, their
testimony
40
should be given full credence and probative
weight. Julie had no ill motive to tergiversate the
_______________
38 8 Car. & P. (Eng) 616 (1838).

39 TSN, Baldogo, September 19, 1996, p. 15.
40 Marco v. Court of Appeals, et al., 273 SCRA 276 (1997).
53
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 53

People vs. Baldogo
truth and falsely testify against accused-appellant. Hence,

41
her testimony must be accorded full probative weight.
VII. Crimes Committed by Accused-Appellant
The Court shall now delve into and resolve the issue of
what crime or crimes accused-appellant is guilty of. The
trial court convicted accused-appellant of two separate
crimes and not the special complex crime of kidnapping
with murder or homicide under the last paragraph of
Article 267 of the42 Revised Penal Code as amended by
Republic Act 7659. The trial court is correct. There is no
evidence that Jorge was kidnapped or detained first by
accused-appellant and Bermas before he was killed. The
last paragraph of Article 267 of the Code is applicable only
if kidnapping or serious
_______________
41 People v. Sulplito, 314 SCRA 493 (2001).

42 The crimes were committed after the effectivity of Republic Act 7659:
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.—Any private individual who
shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty,
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the
accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed
for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if
none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the
offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped,
or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed.
54

People vs. Baldogo
illegal detention is committed and the victim is killed or

dies as a consequence of the kidnapping or serious illegal
detention.
Re: Criminal Case No. 12900

(For Murder)
The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder with
the qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation, based on the following findings and
ratiocination:
“The slaying of Jorge Camacho took place about 8:30 o’clock in the
evening of February 22, 1996. It was carried out after the accused
have been through tidying-up the kitchen, the dining room and
the kitchen wares the family of the Camachos used in their early
dinner before 7:00 o’clock that evening. But even before dinner,
the accused have already made preparations for their flight,
shown by the fact that they already had their clothes, other
personal belongings and food provisions stacked in their
respective traveling bags then placed in 43
a spot where they can
just pick them up as they take to flight.”
The trial court also appreciated against accused-appellant

the qualifying aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength with the following disquisition:
“The victim, Jorge Camacho, is a lad only 14 years of age and

unarmed when brutally slain. On the contrary, both accused are
of age and confirmed convicted felons. Any one of them would

already be superior in strength and disposition to their hapless
and innocent victim. How much more with the combined strength
and force of the two of them.
Their choice of the object of their brutality is indicative of their
unmistakable intent of taking advantage of their superior
strength. The likely object of their resentment, for purported
cruelty to them, is Prison Guard Julio Camacho, father of the
victim. They could have directed their criminal intent on Julio
Camacho himself. But Julio Camacho could be a match in
strength and agility to any of them or even to the combined force
of both of them. So, to insure execution of their criminal acts
against the deceased who is very44
much inferior in physical combat
even only to any one of them.”
_______________
43 Rollo, pp. 70-71.

44 Id., at 71-72.
55
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 55

People vs. Baldogo
While the Court agrees that accused-appellant is guilty of

murder, it does not agree with the rulings of the trial court
that the crime was qualified by evident premeditation and
abuse of superior strength. To warrant a finding of evident
premeditation, the prosecution must establish the
confluence of the following requisites:
“x x x (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the

crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to
his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the
determination and the execution of the crime 45
to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act. x x x”
The qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident

premeditation, like any other qualifying circumstance,
must be proved with certainty as the crime itself. A finding
of evident premeditation cannot be based solely on mere
lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided to
commit
46
a felony up to the time that he actually commits
it. The prosecution must adduce clear and convincing
evidence as to when and how the felony
47
was planned and
prepared before it was effected. The prosecution is
burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit
the felony, the felon clung to his determination to commit

the crime. The law does not prescribe a time frame that
must elapse from the time the felon has decided to commit
a felony up to the time that he commits it. Each case must
be resolved on the basis of the extant factual milieu.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove evident
premeditation. The barefaced fact that accused-appellant
and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a
tree located about a kilometer or so from the house of Julio,
Sr. does not constitute clear evidence that they decided to
kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is possible that they hid
their clothing therein preparatory to escaping from the
colony. There is no evidence establishing when accused-
appellant and Bermas hid the bag under the tree. The
prosecution
_______________
45 People v. Sison, 312 SCRA 792, 804 (1999).

46 People v. Piamonte, 303 SCRA 577 (1999); People v. Deopante, 263
SCRA 691 1996).
47 People v. Patrolla, Jr., 254 SCRA 467 (1996).
56

People vs. Baldogo
even failed to adduce any evidence of overt acts on the part

of accused-appellant, nor did it present evidence as to when
and how he and Bermas planned and prepared to kill Jorge
and kidnap Julie and to prove that the two felons since
then clung to their determination to commit the said
crimes. Although accused-appellant and Bermas were
armed with bolos, there is no evidence that they took
advantage of their numerical superiority and weapons to
kill Jorge. Hence, abuse of superior strength48 cannot be
deemed to have attended the killing of Jorge. Nighttime
cannot likewise be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance because there is no evidence that accused-
appellant and Bermas purposely sought nighttime to
facilitate the killing or to insure its 49execution or
accomplishment or to evade their arrest. Neither is
dwelling aggravating because there is no evidence that
Jorge was killed in their house or taken from their house
and killed outside the said house.
In light of the evidence on record, it is clear that the
killing of Jorge was qualified by treachery. When Jorge was
killed by accused-appellant and Bermas, he was barely 14

years old. The Court has previously held that the killing of
minor children who by reason of their tender years could
not be expected
50
to put up a defense is attended by
treachery. Since treachery attended the killing, abuse
51
of
superior strength is absorbed by said circumstance.
The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7659 is reclusion
perpetua to death. There being no aggravating or
mitigating circumstances in the commission of the crime,
accused-appellant
52
should be meted the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Conformably with current jurisprudence,
accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay to the heirs of
the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and
the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages.
Although Julio, Sr. testified that he spent P45,000.00
during the wake and burial of the victim, the prosecution
failed to adduce any receipts to
_______________
48 People v. Joyno, 304 SCRA 655 (1999).

49 People v. Lumacang, et al., 324 SCRA 254 (2000).
50 People v. Abuyen, 213 SCRA 569 (1992).
51 People v. Cabarrubias, 223 SCRA 363 (1993).
52 Article 63, Revised Penal Code.
57
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 57

People vs. Baldogo
prove the same. Hence, the award of P45,000.00 by way of

actual damages has no factual basis and should thus be
deleted.
Re: Criminal Case No. 12903 (For Kidnapping)

The trial court convicted accused-appellant of kidnapping
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The trial court
is correct.
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code was taken from
Article 267 of the Spanish Penal Code, which reads:
“Art. 267. Detención ilegal grave.—Será castigado con la pena de

reclusión temporal el particular que secuestrare o encerrare a otro
o en cualquier forma le privare de libertad.”
53
53
“Secuestrare” means sequestration. To sequester is to
separate for a special purpose,
54
remove or set apart,
withdraw from circulation. It also means to lock-up or
imprison. 55“Encerrare” is a broader concept than
secuestrare. Encerrare includes not only the imprisonment
of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in
whatever form and for whatever length of time. As
explained by Groizard, “encerrar” es meter á una persona ó
cosy en parte de donde no pueda salir”; detener o arrestar,
poner en prisión, privar de la libertad á alguno.” He
continued that “la detención, la prisión, la privación de la
libertad de una persona, en cualquier forma y por cualquier
medio ó por cualquier tiempo en virtud de la cual 56
resulte
interrumpido el libre ejercicio de su actividad.” On his
commentary on the Spanish Penal Code, Cuello Calon says
that the law “preve dos modalidades de privacion de
libertad, el encierro y la detencion. Encerrar significa
recluir a una persona en un lugar de donde no puede salir,
detener a una persona equivale a impedirle o restringirle la
libertad de movimiento. Para que el sujeto pasivo no
_______________
53 Velasquez, Revised Spanish-English Dictionary (Revised, 1959).

54 Third New International Dictionary, p. 2071.
55 People v. Santos, 283 SCRA 443 (1997).
56 Groizard, El Codigo Penal de 1870, Tomo V, pp. 639-640, cited in
People vs. Marasigan, et al., 55 O.G. 8297 (1959).
58

People vs. Baldogo
quiera permanecer en el sitio donde esta recluido, pues no es

posible llamar encierro ni detencion a la57 estancia de un a
persona en lugar del que no quiere salir.”
In this case, Julie, a minor, was not locked up. However,
she was seized and taken from her house through force and
dragged to the mountain. Since then, she was restrained of
her liberty by and kept under the control of accused-
appellant and Bermas. She was prevented from going back
home for a period of about six days. Patently then, accused-
appellant is guilty of kidnapping and illegally detaining
Julie. The crime was aggravated by dwelling because Julie
was taken from their house by accused-appellant and
Bermas. However, dwelling was not alleged in the
Information as an aggravating circumstance as required by
Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure which reads:
“SEC. 9. Designation of the offense.—The complaint or

information shall state the designation of the offense given by the
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and
specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is
no designation of the offense, reference shall 58be made to the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it.”
Even if dwelling is proven but is not alleged in the

Information as an aggravating circumstance,
59
the same will
not serve to aggravate the penalty.
Quasi-recidivism
60
as defined in Article 160 of the Revised
Penal Code is alleged in both Informations. Accused-
appellant is alleged
_______________
57 Derecho Penal, Novena Edicion, Tomo II, pp. 700-701.

58 People v. Caber, Sr., 346 SCRA 166 (2000); People v. Berzuela, 341
SCRA 46 (2000).
59 People v. Gallego, 338 SCRA 21 (2000).
60 ART. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty
imposed for another previous offense.—Penalty.—Besides the provisions of
rule 5 of article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having
been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence,
or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of
the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
59
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 59

People vs. Baldogo
to have committed murder and kidnapping while serving

sentence in the penal colony by final judgment for the
crime of homicide. Quasi-recidivism
61
is a special
aggravating circumstance. The prosecution is burdened to
prove the said circumstance by the same quantum of
evidence as the crime itself. In the present case, to prove
quasi-recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to adduce
in evidence a certified copy of the judgment convicting
accused-appellant of homicide and to prove 62that the said
judgment had become final and executory. The raison
d’etre is that:
“x x x Since the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to

such information, there was a joinder of issues not only as to his
guilt or innocence, but also as to the presence or absence of the
modifying circumstances so alleged. The prosecution was thus
burdened to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and the existence of the modifying circumstances. It was
then grave error for the trial court to appreciate against the
accused-appellant the aggravating circumstance of recidivism
simply because of his failure63 to object to the prosecution’s
omission as mentioned earlier.”
In this case, the prosecution adduced in evidence merely

the excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant
showing that he was convicted of homicide in Criminal
Case No. 10357-R by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
(Branch 6) with a penalty of from six years and one day as
minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day as
maximum and that the sentence of accused-appellant
commenced on November 19, 1992 and that the minimum 64
term of the penalty was to expire on August 16, 1997. The
_______________
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual
criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have
already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after
reaching said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances
he shall not be worthy of such clemency.
61 Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance and cannot be
offset by a generic mitigating circumstance. (People v. Pereto, 111 Phil.
943).
62 People v. Gaorana, 289 SCRA 665 (1998).
63 People v. Compendio, Jr., 258 SCRA 254, 268 (1996).
64 Exhibit “D”.
60

People vs. Baldogo
excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant is not the

best evidence 65under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules of Court to prove the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court of Baguio City and to prove that said judgment had
become final and executory. Said excerpt is merely
secondary or substitutionary evidence which is
inadmissible absent proof that the original of the judgment
had been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot be
produced without the fault of the prosecution. The

barefaced fact that accused-appellant was detained in the
penal colony does not prove the fact that final
66
judgment for
homicide has been rendered against him. There being no
modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime,
accused-appellant should be meted the penalty of reclusion
perpetua
67
conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal
Code.
VIII. Civil Liability of Accused-Appellant for

Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
The trial court awarded the amount of P100,000.00 to Julie

by way of moral damages for the felony of kidnapping with
serious illegal detention, predicated on her having suffered
serious anxiety and fright when she was kidnapped and
dragged to the mountain where she was detained for
several days. The trial court is correct.
_______________
65 Original document must be produced; exceptions.-When the subject of

inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be

produced in court without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss
of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
general result of the whole;
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
office or is recorded in a public office.
66 People v. Gaorana, supra.

67 Vide note 70 infra.
61
VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 61

People vs. Baldogo
68
Julie is entitled to moral damages. In light of the factual
milieu in this case, the amount is reasonable. Julie is also
entitled to69 exemplary damages in the amount of

P25,000.00.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of
the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION:
1. In Criminal Case No. 12900, accused-appellant is

found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder
defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended and is hereby meted the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, there being no modifying
circumstances attendant to the commission of the
felony. Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay
to the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and the amount of P50,000.00 as
moral damages. The award of P45,000.00 as actual
damages is deleted.
2. In Criminal Case No. 12903, accused-appellant is
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping
with serious illegal detention defined in Article 267
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act 7659, and there being no modifying
circumstances attendant to the commission of the
felony is hereby meted the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to
pay moral damages to the victim, Julie Camacho, in
the amount of P100,000.00 and exemplary damages
in the amount of P25,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Vitug, Mendoza,

Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-
Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-
Morales and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., On leave.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
_______________
68 Article 2219, paragraph 5, New Civil Code; People v. Garcia, G.R. No.
133489 and 143970, January 15, 2002, 373 SCRA 134.
69 People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2000).
62
People vs. Lizada
Notes.—The crime of kidnapping is committed by

depriving the victim of liberty whether he is placed in an
enclosure or simply restrained from going home. (People vs.
Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684 [2000])
The amendment effected by R.A. No. 7659 to Art. 267 of
the Revised Penal Code introduced the concept of “special
complex crime” of kidnapping with murder or homicide,
eliminating the distinction drawn between those where the
killing of the kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the
accused, and those where the killing of the victim was not
deliberately resorted to but was merely an afterthought.
(People vs. Rimorin, 332 SCRA 178 [2000])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People Vs Baldogo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Baldogo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Baldogo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/21/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 396

VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 31

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

Criminal Law; Witnesses; Findings of facts of the trial court,

Same; Presumption of Innocence; Accusation is not

the prosecution to prove the corpus delicti, more specifically, that

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baldogo

Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court, “of due process

Same; Murder; Conspiracy; For a conspirator to be criminally

Same; Denial; The bare denial by the accused of the crimes

Same; Exempting Circumstances; Duress; For duress to

VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 33

People vs. Baldogo

to accused for escape or interpose self-defense in equal combat.”—

Same; Witnesses; The testimony of a minor of tender age and

Same; Complex Crimes; Kidnapping with Murder; The last

34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baldogo

Article 267 of the Code is applicable only if kidnapping or serious

Same; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; Evident

Same; Same; Same; Same; Requisites.—The qualifying

Same; Same; Same; Treachery; The killing of minor children

VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 35

People vs. Baldogo

Same; Kidnapping; Words and Phrases; To sequester is to

circulation, and also means to lock-up or imprison.—Article 267 of

Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Dwelling; The

and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there

36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baldogo

ence shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute

Same; Same; Same; Quasi-Recidivism; To prove quasi-

six years and one day as minimum to fourteen years, eight

VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 37

People vs. Baldogo

the fault of the prosecution. The barefaced fact that accused-

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Two Informations were filed against accused-appellant and

“That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1996 in the evening

1 Penned by Judge Felomino A. Vergara.

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CAMACHO, hitting him and inflicting upon him mortal wounds

Accused-appellant was arraigned on June 28, 41996 and

The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely, Julie

II. The Antecedent Facts

VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 39

ignored him. After five minutes, Bermas called her again

40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

brothers. Accused-appellant dragged Julie outside the

Bermas left accused-appellant and Julie. However,

VOL. 396, JANUARY 24, 2003 41

children but they were nowhere to be found. He then

layers of the neck, trachea and esophagus of Jorge had

JORGE CAMACHO y ESTEBAN, 14 years old, student, resident

1. Stab wound, deep, penetrating, approximately 1 inch in

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED