G.R. No. 178771. June 8, 2011.

*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ALBERTO
ANTICAMARA y CABILLO and FERNANDO CALAGUAS FERNANDEZ a.k.a.
LANDO CALAGUAS, appellants.
Criminal Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Words and Phrases;
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred
according to reason and common experience.—Circumstantial evidence
consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the
existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common
experience. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a)
there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction
based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances
proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the
perpetrator.
Same; Conspiracy; 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.—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

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
490
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
90 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
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.
Same; Exempting Circumstances; Irresistible Force; Elements; Under
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal
liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such
person does not act with freedom—for such defense to prosper, the duress,
force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of
such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious
bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. —
Appellant Al attempts to evade criminal liability by alleging that he was only
forced to participate in the commission of the crime because he and his
family were threatened to be killed. Al’s defense fails to impress us. Under
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal
liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such
person does not act with freedom. To avail of this exempting circumstance,
the evidence must establish: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2)
that the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is
greater than, or at least equal to, that committed. For such defense to
prosper, the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent
and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of
future injury is not enough.
Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Alibi and Denial; An affirmative testimony
is  far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the
mouth of a credible witness—alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear
and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving
of weight in law.—Between the categorical statements of the prosecution
witness, on one hand, and the bare denial of the appellant, on the other, the
former must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a
negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible
witness. Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of
491
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 4
91
People vs. Anticamara
weight in law. They are considered with suspicion and always received
with caution, not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable but
also because they are easily fabricated and concocted. Denial cannot prevail
over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to
have any ill-motive to testify against the appellants.
Same; Same; Same; Where there is the least chance for the accused to
be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.—As to the
defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant Lando that he was in
Tarlac at the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was
physically impossible for Lando to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the
rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere
else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to
the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime
transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of
access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the
accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.
During the trial of the case, Lando testified that the distance between his
house in Brgy. Maligaya, San Miguel, Tarlac to the town of Rosales,
Pangasinan is only around forty (40) kilometers. Such distance can be
traversed in less than 30 minutes using a private car and when the travel is
continuous. Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant Lando to
be at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive
identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially
where such identification is credible and categorical.
Same; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery; Requisites.—In
convicting the appellants, the courts a quo appreciated treachery in
qualifying the killing to murder and evident premeditation in imposing the
penalty of death. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk
to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. Two
conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely, (a) the employment of
means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was
deliberately and consciously adopted.492
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
92 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
Same; Same; Same; Same; Qualifying Circumstances; Where the
situation  of the victim, when found, indicated that his hands were tied and
that he was blindfolded, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery
attended the commission of the crime.—In the case at bar, it was proven that
when AAA boarded the vehicle, she saw Sulpacio tied and blindfolded. Later,
when they reached the fishpond, Sulpacio, still tied and blindfolded, was led
out of the vehicle by the group. When the remains of Sulpacio was thereafter
found by the authorities, the autopsy report indicated that a piece of cloth
was found wrapped around the eye sockets and tied at the back of the skull
and another cloth was also found tied at the left wrist of the victim. There is
no question therefore, that the victim’s body, when found, still had his hands
tied and blindfolded. This situation of the victim when found shows without
doubt that he was killed while tied and blindfolded; hence, the qualifying
aggravating circumstance of treachery was present in the commission of the
crime.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Abuse of Superior Strength; Treachery
absorbs the aggravating circumstance of superior strength.—The aggravating
circumstance of superior strength cannot be separately appreciated because
it is absorbed by treachery.
Same; Same; Same; Evident Premeditation; The essence of
premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded by cool thought
and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a
space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.—The circumstance of
evident premeditation requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused
determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the
accused has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time
between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act. The essence of premeditation is that the execution
of the act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to
carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment. From the time the group met at the landing field at around
6:30 p.m. of May 6, 2002, and discussed the possibility of killing anyone who
stands on their way, up to the time they took Sulpacio away from the
Estrellas’ house and eventually killed him thereafter at around past 3:00
a.m., more than eight hours had elapsed—sufficient for the appellants to
reflect on the consequences of their actions and desist from carrying out their
493
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 4
93
People vs. Anticamara
evil scheme, if they wished to. Instead, appellants evidently clung to
their determination and went ahead with their nefarious plan.
Same; Complex Crimes; Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with
Rape; Elements.—The Court finds appellant Lando guilty of the special
complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape, defined
in and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or
detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3)
the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission
of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by
simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted
upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d)
the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
Same; Same; Same; It is settled that the crime of serious illegal
detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also in
detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty—for there to be
kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home.—The
crime of kidnapping was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
Appellants Lando and Al, both private individuals, forcibly took AAA, a female,
away from the house of the Estrellas and held her captive against her will.
Thereafter, appellant Lando brought AAA to his house in San Miguel Tarlac,
whereby she was deprived of her liberty for almost one month. It is settled
that the crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a
person in an enclosure, but also in detaining him or depriving him in any
manner of his liberty. For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim
is restrained from going home. Its essence is the actual deprivation of the
victim’s liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to
effect such deprivation. Although AAA was not confined in an enclosure, she
was restrained and deprived of her liberty, because every time appellant
Lando and his wife went out of the house, they brought AAA with them. The
foregoing only shows that AAA was constantly guarded by appellant Lando
and his family.494
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
94 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
Same; Same; Same; Conspiracy; The rule that once conspiracy is
established between several accused in the commission of the crime of
robbery, they would all be equally culpable for the rape committed by
anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of them
proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing rape, does
not apply where there is no evidence to prove that one of the accused was
aware of the subsequent events that transpired after the killing of one victim
and the kidnapping of another—the former could not have prevented another
accused from raping the one kidnapped if at the time of rape he was no
longer associated with the other accused.—The Court does not agree with the
CA and trial court’s judgment finding appellant Al liable for Rape in Criminal
Case No. 4481-R. In People v. Suyu, 499 SCRA 177 (2006), We ruled that
once conspiracy is established between several accused in the commission of
the crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable for the rape
committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone
of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing
rape. Also, in People v. Canturia, 245 SCRA 275 (1995), the Court held that:
x x x For while the evidence does convincingly show a conspiracy among the
accused, it also as convincingly suggests that the agreement was to commit
robbery only; and there is no evidence that the other members of the band of
robbers were aware of Canturia’s lustful intent and his consummation thereof
so that they could have attempted to prevent the same. x x x The foregoing
principle is applicable in the present case because the crime of robbery with
rape is a special complex crime defined in and penalized under Article 294,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, and the crime of kidnapping with
rape in this case is likewise a special complex crime as held in the case
of People v. Larrañaga, 421 SCRA 530 (2004). There is no evidence to prove
that appellant Al was aware of the subsequent events that transpired after
the killing of Sulpacio and the kidnapping of AAA. Appellant Al could not have
prevented appellant Lando from raping AAA, because at the time of rape, he
was no longer associated with appellant Lando. AAA even testified that only
Fred and appellant Lando brought her to Tarlac, and she never saw appellant
Al again after May 7, 2002, the day she was held captive. She only saw
appellant Al once more during the trial of the case. Thus, appellant Al cannot
be held liable for the subsequent rape of AAA. 495
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 4
95
People vs. Anticamara
Same; Penalties; Damages; Even if the penalty of death is not to be
imposed because of the prohibition in R.A. 9346, the civil indemnity of
P75,000.00 is proper, because it is not dependent on the actual imposition of
the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting
the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.
—In Criminal Case No. 4498-R, the award of civil indemnity is mandatory and
granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the
commission of the crime. In People v. Quiachon, 500 SCRA 704 (2006), even
if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of the prohibition in R.A.
9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is proper, because it is not dependent
on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the
commission of the offense. As explained in People v. Salome, while R.A. No.
9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the fact remains that the
penalty provided for by law for a heinous offense is still death, and the
offense is still heinous. Accordingly, the award of civil indemnity in the
amount of P75,000.00 is proper.
Same; Murder; Damages; Moral damages are mandatory in cases of
murder, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the
victim.—Anent moral damages, the same are mandatory in cases of murder,
without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.
However, consistent with recent jurisprudence on heinous crimes where the
imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion  perpetua pursuant to
R.A. No. 9346, the award of moral damages should be increased from
P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.
Same; Same; Same; Rape; The rape victim is entitled to civil indemnity
in line with prevailing jurisprudence that civil indemnification is mandatory
upon the finding of rape.—In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages
pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without the necessity of additional
pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape. Moral damages is granted in
recognition of the victim’s injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime
of rape. Such award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity.
However, the amount of P100,000.00 awarded as moral damages is reduced
to P75,000.00, in line with current jurisprudence.
496
49 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
6 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Office of the Solicitor General for appellee.
  Public Attorney’s Office for appellants.
PERALTA, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00556, affirming the trial court’s judgment finding
appellants Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (Lando) and Alberto Cabillo
Anticamara (Al) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
in Criminal Case No. 4498-R and of the crime of Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention in Criminal Case No. 4481-R.
Lando, Al, Dick Tañedo (Dick), Roberto Tañedo (Bet), Marvin Lim
(Marvin), Necitas Ordeñiza-Tañedo (Cita), and Fred Doe are charged
with the crimes of Murder and of Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention
in two separate Informations, which read:
For Murder (Criminal Case No. 4498-R)
“That on or about the early morning of May 7, 2002, in Sitio Rosalia, Brgy.
San Bartolome, Municipality of Rosales, Province of Pangasinan, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
then armed with a hand gun, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
one another, with intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation and
superior strength, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take
Sulpacio Abad, driver of the Estrellas, hog tied (sic) him, brought (sic) to a
secluded place, shoot and bury in a shallow grave, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of the victim.
 Contrary to Article 248, Revised Penal Code.”

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., with Associate Justices Mariano
C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court) and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; Rollo, pp.
2-21.
497
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 497
People vs. Anticamara
For Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention (Criminal Case No. 4481-R)
“That on or about the 7th day of May 2002, more or less 3:00 o’clock in
the early morning, at the Estrella Compound, Brgy. Carmen East, Municipality
of Rosales, Province of Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who are private persons,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with
firearms, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap
Sulpacio Abad and AAA,  both employees of the Estrellas, thereby depriving
2

them of their liberty, all against their will for a period of twenty-seven (27)
days.
That in the course of the kidnapping, Sulpacio Abad was killed and buried
in Brgy. Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan and AAA was raped for several times
by her abductors.
Contrary to Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to RA 7659.”
When arraigned of the aforementioned crimes, Lando, Al and Cita all
pleaded not guilty, while Dick, Bet, Marvin and Fred Doe remained at-
large. Thereafter, a joint trial ensued.
As summarized in the People’s brief, the facts as established by the
evidence of the prosecution are as follows:
“About 3 o’clock in the early morning of May 7, 2002, househelper AAA
and driver Abad Sulpacio were sleeping in their employers’ house located in
Barangay Carmen East, Rosales, Pangasinan. Their employers, Conrado
Estrella and his wife, were out of the house at that time (TSN, December 4,
2002, pp. 4-7). Momentarily, AAA was jolted from sleep when she heard
voices saying, “We will kill her, kill her now” and another voice saying, “Not
yet!” Hiding under her blanket, AAA later heard someone saying, “We only
need money, we only need money.” Thereafter, she heard someone talking in
Ilocano which she could not understand. Then she heard some-

_______________

2 In view of our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502
SCRA 419, the real name and identity of the rape victim are withheld.
498
49 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
8 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
body say, “Cebuana yan, Cebuana yan, kararating lang galing Cebu.” AAA
heard the persons conversing which she estimated about four to five meters
away (TSN, ibid., pp. 11-12).
 Thereafter, AAA observed about six (6) persons enter the house, who she
later identified as accused Dick Tañedo, Marvin Lim, Bert Tañedo, a certain
Fred and appellants Alberto Anticamara alias “Al Camara,” and Fernando
Fernandez alias “Lando Calaguas.” One of the intruders approached her and
told her not to move (TSN, ibid., p. 8).
Later, when AAA thought that the intruders were already gone, she
attempted to run but to her surprise, someone wearing a bonnet was
watching her. Someone, whom she later recognized as Dick Tañedo, tapped
her shoulder. AAA asked Tañedo, “Why Kuya?” Tañedo replied, “Somebody
will die.” After a brief commotion, appellant alias “Lando Calaguas” asked the
group saying, “What shall we do now?” They then decided to tie AAA. Later,
AAA was untied and led her outside the house. Outside, AAA saw Abad, who
was also tied and blindfolded, seated inside a vehicle (TSN, April 26, 2004,
pp. 6-10).
The group later brought AAA and Abad to the fishpond owned by their
employers. AAA saw Cita Tañedo there. The group brought Abad outside the
vehicle and led him away (TSN, December 2, 2002, pp. 13-18; TSN, February
17, 2003, pp. 5-8).
Later, alias “Fred” returned telling the group, “Make the decision now,
Abad has already four bullets in his body, and the one left is for this girl.”
When Cita Tañedo made a motion of cutting her neck, appellant alias “Lando
Calaguas” and “Fred” boarded the vehicle taking along with them AAA. They
later proceeded towards San Miguel Tarlac, where Lando Calaguas resided.
They stayed in Lando’s house where they kept AAA from May 7 to May 9,
2002 (TSN, December 4, 2002, pp. 18-22; TSN, February 17, 2003, pp. 7-9).
On May 9, 2002, appellant Lando Calaguas told AAA that Fred and Bert
Tañedo would kill her. Lando then brought AAA to a hotel in Tarlac, telling
AAA that he would leave her there as soon as Fred and Bert Tañedo leave the
place. However, once inside the hotel room, appellant Lando Calaguas
sexually molested AAA. Lando told AAA to follow what he wanted, threatening
her that he would turn her over to Fred and Bert Tañedo. After Lando raped
AAA, he
499
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 499
People vs. Anticamara
brought her back to his house. Later, Fred, Bert Tañedo and Lando Calaguas
transferred AAA to Riles, Tarlac (TSN, ibid., pp. 9-13).
AAA was brought to the residence of Fred’s niece, a certain Minda, where
Fred kept AAA as his wife. At nighttime, Fred would repeatedly ravish AAA,
threatening her that he would give her back to appellant Lando Calaguas
who, AAA knew, killed Abad Sulpacio. She was afraid Lando might also kill her
(TSN, ibid., pp. 14-16).
On May 22, 2002, Fred brought AAA to Carnaga (should be Kananga),
Leyte, together with his wife Marsha and their children. AAA stayed in the
house of Marsha’s brother Sito, where she was made as a house helper
(TSN, ibid., p. 17).
On June 4, 2002, AAA escaped from the house of Sito. She proceeded to
Isabel, Leyte and sought the help of her friend Susana Ilagan. After hearing
AAA’s plight, Susana called AAA’s brother in Cebu, who later fetched AAA in
Isabel, Leyte and brought her to Mandaue City. When they arrived in
Mandaue City, they immediately reported the incident to the police
authorities. On June 23, 2002, AAA executed a Sworn Statement (Exh. “D,”
TSN, ibid., pp. 18-20).
Meanwhile, Dr. Ronald Bandonil, Medico-Legal Officer of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of
Sulpacio Abad. Dr. Bandonil prepared Autopsy Report No. N-T2-23-P (Exh.
“A”) which contains the following findings, to wit:
x Remains placed in a sealed metal coffin, wrapped in two (2) layers of
black, plastic garbage bags, and covered in (sic) a red-stripped cotton
blanker. A thick layer of lime embeds the whole torso.
x Remains in a far advanced state of decomposition, with the head
completely devoid of soft tissue. A cloth is wrapped around the
eyesockets and tied to the back of the skull. The skull does not show
any signs of dents, chips nor fractures. The other recognizable body
part is the chest area which retained a few soft tissues and skin, but
generally far advanced in decomposition. The whole gamut of internal
organs have undergone liquefaction necrosis and have been turned into
grayish-black pultaceous masses. Worn on top of the remaining chest is
a sando shirt with observable holes at the left side, both front and back.
A large hole is seen at the area of the left nipple,
500
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
0 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
with traces of burning at its edges and inward in direction. A tied cloth is
also observable at the remnants of the left wrist.
x At the upper chest, which is the most recognizable, remaining and
intact part of the torso, a hole, 1.0 cm. x 2.0 cms., with signs of burning,
edges inverted, is seen at the left anterior axillary line just below the
left nipple. Another hole is seen 1.5 cms. x 2.5 cms. in diameter, edged
averted (sic) at the right chest, along the right anterior axillary line, 5.0
cms. below the right nipple. A 3rd hole, almost unrecognizable is seen
at the left groin area.
x The other parts of the cadaver are too far advanced in decomposition
to have remarkable findings.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
GUNSHOT WOUNDS, TRUNK” 3

In his defense, Lando denied having committed the crimes charged

and interposed alibi as a defense. He claims that at the time of the
incident on May 7, 2002, he was in Barangay Maligaya, San Miguel,
Tarlac, with his family. He denied ever going to the Estrella farm in
Sitio Rosalia, Barangay San Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan.
Al claimed that he acted as a lookout and was tasked to report to his
companions if any person or vehicle would approach the house of the
Estrellas. He said that he was forced to follow what was ordered of him
and did not report the matter to the police because he was threatened
to be killed, including the members of his family who were in Cebu.
 On August 23, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosales,
Pangasinan, Branch 53, rendered its Decision, 4 the dispositive portion
of which states:
_______________

3 CA Rollo, pp. 210-215.

4 Id., at pp. 4-41.
501
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 501
People vs. Anticamara
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
I. In Criminal Case No. 4498-R for Murder:
A. Accused Nicetas “Cita” Tañedo is hereby acquitted of the crime
charged for insufficiency of evidence;
B.  Accused Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (alyas Lando Calaguas) and
Alberto Anticamara (alyas Al Camara) are hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery,
defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Considering the presence of aggravating circumstance of premeditation, with
no mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the penalty of DEATH is
hereby imposed upon the two (2) accused Fernando Calaguas Fernandez
(Lando Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara (Al Camara). They are also ordered
jointly and severally [to] pay the heirs of the victim Abad Sulpacio the
following:
1) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages;
2) Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as indemnity for the
death of the victim;
3) Fifty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Two Pesos and Thirty
Centavos (P57,122.30) as actual damages; and
4) The cost of suit.
II. Criminal Case No. 4481-R for Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention:
A) Accused Nicetas “Cita” Tañedo is hereby acquitted of the crime
charged for insufficiency of evidence;
B)  Accused Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (alyas Lando Calaguas) and
Alberto Anticamara (alyas Al Camara) are hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Kidnapping/Serious Illegal
Detention of the victim AAA as charged, defined and penalized under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659. Considering that
the victim AAA was raped during her detention, the maximum penalty of
DEATH is hereby imposed upon the two accused, Fernando Calaguas
Fernandez (Lando Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara (Al Camara). The two
accused are also ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the victim AAA the
amount of:502
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
2 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
1) One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages;
2) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages; and
3) Cost of suit.
 As to the rest of the accused who are still at-large, let this case be set to
the archives until they are apprehended.
SO ORDERED.” 5

In light of the Court’s ruling in People v. Mateo,6 the records of the

cases were forwarded by the RTC to the CA for its review. The CA
rendered a Decision dated December 15, 2006, affirming the decision
of the RTC in Criminal Case Nos. 4498-R and 4481-R. However, in view
of the abolition of the death penalty pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9346, which was approved on June 24, 2006, the appellants were
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
On January 9, 2007, Lando, through the Public Attorney’s Office
(PAO), appealed the Decision of the CA to this Court. Lando had
assigned the following errors in his appeal initially passed upon by the
CA, to wit:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTED
BETWEEN AND AMONG THE ALLEGED PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIME.
II
ASSUMING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY, THE LOWER COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM OF THE CRIME OF MURDER INSTEAD OF
HOMICIDE.

_______________

5 Id., at pp. 38-41.

6 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, modifying Sections 3 and 10 of Rule
122, Section 13 of Rule 124, and Section 3 of Rule 125 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
503
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 503
People vs. Anticamara
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH FOR THE CRIME OF
KIDNAPPING/SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION, AGGRAVATED BY RAPE, IN SPITE
OF THE FACT THAT THE CRIME OF RAPE WAS NOT DULY PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING SCANT CONSIDERATION TO
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHICH IS MORE
CREDIBLE THAN THAT OF THE PROSECUTION.
V
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF
CONVICTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 7

On January 9, 2007, Al, through the PAO, appealed the Decision of

the CA to this Court. Al had assigned the following errors, to wit:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF
THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING/SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION IN SPITE OF THE
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
THAT HE CONSPIRED WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED TO COMMIT THE CRIME
CHARGED.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON THE ACCUSED THE
SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH FOR THE SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF
KIDNAPPING/SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION WITH RAPE, IN SPITE OF THE FACT
THAT

_______________

7 CA Rollo, pp. 122-123.

504
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
HE HAD NO PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMISSION OF [TWO] SEXUAL ABUSES
AGAINST THE VICTIM.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER IN SPITE OF THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE CONSPIRED
WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED TO COMMIT THE SAME. 8

In capsule, the main issue is whether the appellants are guilty of the
crimes charged.
In Criminal Case No. 4498-R for Murder:
The trial court found that although there was no direct eyewitness in
the killing of Sulpacio in the early morning of May 7, 2002 at Sitio
Rosalia, Barangay San Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan, the
prosecution adduced sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish
with moral certainty the identities and guilt of the perpetrators of the
crime.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be
inferred according to reason and common experience. 9 Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than
one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 10 A judgment of
conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when
the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair
_______________

8  Id., at pp. 53-54.

9  Diega v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 173510 and 174099, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA
399, 407.
10 Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 4.
505
 VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 505
People vs. Anticamara
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
all others, as the perpetrator.11
In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution, when analyzed and taken together, lead to the
inescapable conclusion that the appellants are responsible for the
death of Sulpacio. The Court quotes with approval the lower court’s
enumeration of those circumstantial evidence:
“The testimony of AAA had clearly established the following facts:
1. At about 3:00 in the early morning of May 7, 2002, while she and the
victim Abad Sulpacio were sleeping inside the house of the Estrella family in
Barangay Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan several persons entered to rob the
place;
2.  Inside the house, she saw and recognized the accused Lando Calaguas
and Dick Tañedo, and heard the latter uttering “somebody will die”;
3.  Bringing her outside the house, Lando pushed her into the Revo where
she saw inside Abad Sulpacio who was blindfolded and with his hands tied;
4. Inside the Revo, she recognized the accused Dick Tañedo, Lando
Calaguas, Marvin Lim, Roberto Tañedo, Alberto Anticamara and Fred;
5.  The Revo then proceeded towards the fishpond owned by the Estrellas in
Sitio Rosalia, Brgy. San Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan;
6.  The last time that she saw Abad Sulpacio was when he was dragged out
from the vehicle by Lando, Fred, Marvin and Al upon reaching Sitio Rosalia. At
that, time Dick Tañedo stayed with her in the vehicle;
7. Thereafter, when Fred returned to the vehicle, she heard him uttered
(sic): “Make a decision now. Abad has already four (4) bullets in his body, and
the one left is for this girl.” 12

_______________

11 Diega v. Court of Appeals, supra note 9, at 408.

12 CA Rollo, pp. 19-20.
506
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
6 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
In addition to these circumstances, the trial court further found that
AAA heard Fred utter “Usapan natin pare, kung sino ang masagasaan,
sagasaan.” (Our agreement is that whoever comes our way should be
eliminated). Moreover, NBI Agent Gerald V. Geralde testified that on
June 23, 2002, appellant Al admitted his participation as lookout and
naming his companions Dick, Lando, Fred, Marvin and Bet as the ones
who took AAA and Sulpacio from the house of the Estrellas and brought
them to the fishpond. Al also pointed and led the authorities to a
shallow grave in Sitio Rosalia, Barangay San Bartolome, Rosales,
Pangasinan, where the remains of Sulpacio were buried. The autopsy
conducted on the body, prepared by the Medico Legal Officer Dr.
Bandonil, shows that several holes were found on various parts of the
body of the victim and Dr. Bandonil concluded that the cause of the
victim’s death was the gunshot wounds. The report also indicates that
a piece of cloth was found wrapped around the eye sockets and tied at
the back of the skull, and another cloth was also found tied at the
remnants of the left wrist.
In the case at bar, although no one directly saw the actual killing of
Sulpacio, the prosecution was able to paint a clear picture that the
appellants took Sulpacio away from the house of the Estrellas, tied and
blindfolded him, and brought him to another place where he was
repeatedly shot and buried.
Conspiracy
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
507
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 507
People vs. Anticamara
of circumstances.13 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.14
In the present case, prior to the commission of the crime, the group
met at the landing field in Carmen, Pangasinan and discussed their
plan to rob the house of the Estrellas with the agreement that whoever
comes their way will be eliminated.15Appellant Al served as a lookout by
posting himself across the house of the Estrellas with the task of
reporting any movements outside. Fred then climbed the old
unserviceable gate of the Estrella compound and then opened the
small door and the rest of the group entered the house of the Estrellas
through that opening.16 After almost an hour inside the house, they left
on board a vehicle with AAA and Sulpacio. AAA and Sulpacio were
brought to Sitio Rosalia, Brgy. San Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan. In
that place, Sulpacio was killed and AAA was brought to another place
and deprived of her liberty. These circumstances establish a
community of criminal design between the malefactors in committing
the crime. Clearly, the group conspired to rob the house of the
Estrellas and kill any person who comes their way. The killing of
Sulpacio was part of their conspiracy. Further, Dick’s
_______________

13 Go v. Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA
270, 290.
14 People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 429; 429 SCRA 384, 404 (2004).
15 Sworn statement of AAA. (Records, vol. II, p. 10)
16 Sworn statement of appellant Al. (Records, vol. II, p. 15)
508
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
8 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
act of arming himself with a gun constitutes direct evidence of a
deliberate plan to kill should the need arise.
Appellant Al attempts to evade criminal liability by alleging that he
was only forced to participate in the commission of the crime because
he and his family were threatened to be killed. Al’s defense fails to
impress us. Under Article 1217of the Revised Penal Code, a person is
exempt from criminal liability if he acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
equal or greater injury, because such person does not act with
freedom.18 To avail of this exempting circumstance, the evidence must
establish: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) that the fear
must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater
than, or at least equal to, that committed. 19 For such defense to
prosper, the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present,
imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-
grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be
done. A threat of future injury is not enough.20
There is nothing in the records to substantiate appellant Al’s
insistence that he was under duress from his co-accused while
participating in the crime that would suffice to exempt him from
incurring criminal liability. The evidence shows
_______________

17 Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability.—The following are exempt

from criminal liability:
x x x x
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.
x x x x
18 People v. Anod, G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 205, 210.
19 People v. Baron, G.R. No. 185209, June 28, 2010, 621 SCRA 646, 663.
20 People v. Anod, supra note 18.
509
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 509
 People vs. Anticamara
that Al was tasked to act as a lookout and directed to station himself
across the house of the Estrellas. Al was there from 7:30 p.m. to 1:00
a.m.21 of the following day, while the rest of the group was waiting in
the landing field. Thus, while all alone, Al had every opportunity to
escape since he was no longer subjected to a real, imminent or
reasonable fear. However, he opted to stay across the house of the
Estrellas for almost six (6) hours, 22 and thereafter returned to the
landing field where the group was waiting for his report. Subsequently,
the group proceeded to the Estrellas’ house. When the group entered
the house, Al stayed for almost one (1) hour outside to wait for his
companions. Later, when the group left the house aboard a vehicle, Al
rode with them in going to Sitio Rosalia, Brgy. San Bartolome, Rosales,
Pangasinan, bringing with them Sulpacio and AAA.23 Clearly, appellant
Al had ample opportunity to escape if he wished to, but he never did.
Neither did he request for assistance from the authorities or any
person passing by the house of the Estrellas during the period he was
stationed there. Clearly, Al did not make any effort to perform an overt
act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the
felony and prevent the commission thereof that would exempt himself
from criminal liability.24 Therefore, it is obvious that he willingly agreed
to be a part of the conspiracy.
Alibi and Denial
Appellant Lando denied having committed the crime charged and
interposed alibi as a defense. He claims that at the time of the incident
he was in his house at Tarlac, together with his family. On the other
hand, the appellants were positively identified by AAA, as two (2) of
the six (6)
_______________

21 Sworn Statement of Alberto Anticamara, records, vol. II, p. 15.

22 Id.
23 Id., at p. 16.
24 People v. De Jesus, supra note 14.
510
51 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
0 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
malefactors who forcibly took her and Sulpacio from the Estrella house
in the early morning of May 7, 2002. Both the trial court and the CA
found the testimony of AAA credible. The Court gives great weight to
the trial court’s evaluation of the testimony of a witness because it had
the opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of
voice of a witness while testifying; thus, making it in a better position
to determine whether a witness is lying or telling the truth.25
 Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witness, on
one hand, and the bare denial of the appellant, on the other, the
former must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger
than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of
a credible witness. Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence
undeserving of weight in law. They are considered with suspicion and
always received with caution, not only because they are inherently
weak and unreliable but also because they are easily fabricated and
concocted.26 Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of
prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill-motive to
testify against the appellants.27
As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant
Lando that he was in Tarlac at the time of the incident, the defense
was unable to show that it was physically impossible for Lando to be at
the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the
accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was
committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been
at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance
between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired
and the place where it was committed, as
_______________

25 People v. Pillas, 458 Phil. 347, 369; 411 SCRA 468, 484 (2003).
26 People v. Togahan, G.R. No. 174064, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 557, 573-574.
27 Gan v. People, G.R. No. 165884, April 23, 2007, 521 SCRA 550, 575.
511
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 511
People vs. Anticamara
well as the facility of access between the two places.28 Where there is
the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the
defense of alibi must fail. 29 During the trial of the case, Lando testified
that the distance between his house in Brgy. Maligaya, San Miguel,
Tarlac to the town of Rosales, Pangasinan is only around forty (40)
kilometers. Such distance can be traversed in less than 30 minutes
using a private car and when the travel is continuous. 30 Thus, it was not
physically impossible for the appellant Lando to be at the locus
criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification
destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where
such identification is credible and categorical.31
Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances
In convicting the appellants, the courts a quo appreciated treachery
in qualifying the killing to murder and evident premeditation in
imposing the penalty of death. There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense that the offended party might make. 32 Two conditions must
concur for treachery to exist, namely, (a) the employment of means of
execution gave the person attacked no opportunity
_______________

28 People v. Delim, G.R. No. 175942, September 13, 2007, 533 SCRA 366, 379.
29 People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 412, 439.
30 TSN, September 17, 2003, pp. 10-11.
31 People v. Casitas, Jr., 445 Phil. 407, 425; 397 SCRA 382, 397 (2003).
32 Revised Penal Code, Art. 14, par. 16.
512
51 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
2 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of
execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.33
In the case at bar, it was proven that when AAA boarded the vehicle,
she saw Sulpacio tied and blindfolded. Later, when they reached the
fishpond, Sulpacio, still tied and blindfolded, was led out of the vehicle
by the group. When the remains of Sulpacio was thereafter found by
the authorities, the autopsy report indicated that a piece of cloth was
found wrapped around the eye sockets and tied at the back of the skull
and another cloth was also found tied at the left wrist of the victim.
There is no question therefore, that the victim’s body, when found, still
had his hands tied and blindfolded. This situation of the victim when
found shows without doubt that he was killed while tied and
blindfolded; hence, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of
treachery was present in the commission of the crime. In People v.
Osianas,34 the Court held that:
x x x In the case at bar, the means used by the accused-appellants to “insure
the execution of the killing of the victims, so as to afford the victims no
opportunity to defend themselves, was the act of tying the hands of the
victims. Teresita saw the accused-appellants hog-tie the victims and take
them away with them. Later that night, Dionisio Palmero saw the victims, still
hog-tied, walking with the accused-appellants. The following day, the victims
were found dead, still hog-tied. Thus, no matter how the stab and hack
wounds had been inflicted on the victims in the case at bar, we are sure
beyond a reasonable doubt that Jose, Ronilo and Reymundo Cuizon had no
opportunity to defend themselves because the accused-appellants had earlier
tied their hands. The fact that there were twelve persons who took and killed
the Cuizons further assured the attainment of accused-appellants’ plans
without risk to themselves.” 35

_______________

33 People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 176354, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 485, 500.
34 G.R. No. 182548, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 319.
35 People v. Osianas, supra.
 513
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 513
People vs. Anticamara
The aggravating circumstance of superior strength cannot be
separately appreciated because it is absorbed by treachery.36
The circumstance of evident premeditation requires proof showing:
(1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an
act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his
determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such
determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.37 The essence of premeditation is that the
execution of the act was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon
the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. 38 From the time the group met
at the landing field at around 6:30 p.m. of May 6, 2002, and discussed
the possibility of killing anyone who stands on their way, up to the time
they took Sulpacio away from the Estrellas’ house and eventually killed
him thereafter at around past 3:00 a.m., more than eight hours had
elapsed—sufficient for the appellants to reflect on the consequences of
their actions and desist from carrying out their evil scheme, if they
wished to. Instead, appellants evidently clung to their determination
and went ahead with their nefarious plan.
In Criminal Case No. 4481-R for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention.
The Court finds appellant Lando guilty of the special complex crime
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape, defined in and
penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements
of kidnapping and serious
_______________

36 People v. Cariño, 476 Phil. 7, 39; 432 SCRA 57, 83 (2004).

37 People v. Agudez, G.R. Nos. 138386-87, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 692, 709.
38 People v.  Tan, 411 Phil. 813, 837; 359 SCRA 283, 302 (2001).
514
51 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code 39 are: (1)
the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another
or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of
detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of
the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is
committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical
injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats
to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer.40
The crime of kidnapping was proven beyond reasonable doubt by
the prosecution. Appellants Lando and Al, both pri-
_______________

39 ART. 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 abovementioned were presented 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.
40 People v. Nuguid, 465 Phil. 495, 510; 420 SCRA 533, 545 (2004).
515
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 515
People vs. Anticamara
vate individuals, forcibly took AAA, a female, away from the house of
the Estrellas and held her captive against her will. Thereafter,
appellant Lando brought AAA to his house in San Miguel Tarlac,
whereby she was deprived of her liberty for almost one month. It is
settled that the crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of
placing a person in an enclosure, but also in detaining him or depriving
him in any manner of his liberty.41 For there to be kidnapping, it is
enough that the victim is restrained from going home. 42 Its essence is
the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with indubitable
proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. 43 Although
AAA was not confined in an enclosure, she was restrained and deprived
of her liberty, because every time appellant Lando and his wife went
out of the house, they brought AAA with them. The foregoing only
shows that AAA was constantly guarded by appellant Lando and his
family.
The crime of rape was also established by the prosecution. Appellant
Lando succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA through the use
of threat and intimidation. AAA testified that on May 9, 2002, appellant
Lando brought her to a hotel to hide her from Fred and Bert, who
intended to kill her. Appellant Lando told her to follow his orders,
otherwise, he will give her to Fred and Bert. While in the hotel,
appellant Lando raped her.44 Clearly, for fear of being delivered to Fred
and Bert and of losing her life, AAA had no choice but to give in to
appellant Lando’s lustful assault. In rape cases, the credibility of the
victim’s testimony is almost always the single most important factor.
When the victim’s testimony is
_______________

41 People v. Domasian, G.R. No. 95322, March 1, 1993, 219 SCRA 245, 253.
42 People v. Acbangin, 392 Phil. 232, 240; 337 SCRA 454, 461 (2000).
43 People v. Obeso, 460 Phil. 625, 634; 414 SCRA 447, 454 (2003).
44 CA Rollo, p. 34.
516
51 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
6 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused’s conviction. 45 This is
so because owing to the nature of the offense, in many cases, the only
evidence that can be given regarding the matter is the testimony of
the offended party.46
The last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides
that if the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or
is raped or subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum
penalty shall be imposed. In People v. Larrañaga,47 this provision gives
rise to a special complex crime. Thus, We hold that appellant Lando is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape in Criminal Case No.
4481-R.
However, the Court does not agree with the CA and trial court’s
judgment finding appellant Al liable for Rape in
_______________

45 People v. Talan, G.R. No. 177354, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA 211, 217.
46 People v. Gan, No. L-33446, August 18, 1972, 46 SCRA 667, 678.
47 466 Phil. 324, 386-387; 421 SCRA 530, ____ (2004).
Where the law provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses, the
resulting crime is called a special complex crime. Some of the special complex crimes
under the Revised Penal Code are (1) robbery with homicide, (2) robbery with rape, (3)
kidnapping with serious physical injuries, (4) kidnapping with murder or homicide, and (5)
rape with homicide. In a special complex crime, the prosecution must necessarily prove
each of the component offenses with the same precision that would be necessary if they
were made the subject of separate complaints. As earlier mentioned, R.A. No. 7659
amended Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code by adding thereto this provision: “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; and that this
provision gives rise to a special complex crime. (Italics in the original)
517
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 517
People vs. Anticamara
Criminal Case No. 4481-R. In People v. Suyu,48 We ruled that once
conspiracy is established between several accused in the commission
of the crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable for the rape
committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless
anyone of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from
committing rape.49 Also, in People v. Canturia,50 the Court held that:
“x x x For while the evidence does convincingly show a conspiracy among the
accused, it also as convincingly suggests that the agreement was to commit
robbery only; and there is no evidence that the other members of the band of
robbers were aware of Canturia’s lustful intent and his consummation thereof
so that they could have attempted to prevent the same. x x x”
The foregoing principle is applicable in the present case because the
crime of robbery with rape is a special complex crime defined in and
penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code,
and the crime of kidnapping with rape in this case is likewise a special
complex crime as held in the case of People v. Larrañaga.51 There is no
evidence to prove that appellant Al was aware of the subsequent
events that transpired after the killing of Sulpacio and the kidnapping
of AAA. Appellant Al could not have prevented appellant Lando from
raping AAA, because at the time of rape, he was no longer associated
with appellant Lando. AAA even testified that only Fred and appellant
Lando brought her to Tarlac,52 and she never saw appellant Al again
after May 7, 2002, the day she was held captive. She only saw
appellant Al once
_______________

48 People v. Suyu, G.R. No. 170191, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 177.
49 Id., at p. 202.
50 315 Phil. 278, 290-291; 245 SCRA 275, 285 (1995).
51 Supra note 47.
52 TSN, February 17, 2003, p. 8.
518
51 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
8 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
more during the trial of the case. 53Thus, appellant Al cannot be held
liable for the subsequent rape of AAA.
The Penalties
In Criminal Case No. 4498-R, the attendant circumstance of
treachery qualified the killing to murder. The penalty for murder under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death.
Since the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was
alleged and proven, the imposable penalty upon the appellants is
death, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal
Code.54 In view, however, of the passage of R.A. No. 9346, 55 prohibiting
the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty of death is reduced
to reclusion perpetua,56 without eligibility for parole.57
In Criminal Case No. 4481-R, the penalty for the special complex
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape is death. In
view of R.A. No. 9346, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion
perpetua,58without eligibility for parole.59Accordingly, the imposable
penalty for appellant Lando is reclusionperpetua.
As to appellant Al, the prescribed penalty for serious illegal
detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion
perpetua to death. There being no aggravating or
_______________

53 TSN, February 24, 2003, p. 24.

54 x x x In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible
penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. x x x
55 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
56 R.A. 9346, Sec. 2.
57 R.A. 9346, Sec. 3.
58 R.A. 9346, Sec. 2.
59 R.A. 9346, Sec. 3.
519
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 519
People vs. Anticamara
mitigating circumstance in the commission of the offense, the proper
penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 6360 of
the Revised Penal Code.
The Damages
In Criminal Case No. 4498-R, the award of civil indemnity is
mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof
other than the commission of the crime. 61 In People v. Quiachon,62even
if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of the prohibition
in R.A. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is proper, because it is
not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the
fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the
death penalty attended the commission of the offense. As explained
in People v. Salome,63 while R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of
the death penalty, the fact remains that the penalty provided for by
law for a heinous offense is still death, and the offense is still heinous.
Accordingly, the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00
is proper.
Anent moral damages, the same are mandatory in cases of murder,
without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the
victim.64However, consistent with recent jurisprudence on heinous
crimes where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion
perpetua pursuant to R.A. No.
_______________

60 x x x In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible
penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: x x x
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied. x x x
 61 People v. Molina, G.R. No. 184173, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 519, 542.
62 G.R. No. 170236, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 704, 719.
63 500 SCRA 659, 676 (2006).
64 People v. Molina, supra note 61, at p. 542.
520
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
0 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
9346, the award of moral damages should be increased from
P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.65
The award of exemplary damages is in order, because of the
presence of the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation in the commission of the crime. 66 The Court awards the
amount of P30,000.00, as exemplary damages, in line with current
jurisprudence on the matter.67
Actual damages is also warranted. Modesta Abad, the spouse of
victim Sulpacio, incurred expenses in the amount of P57,122.30, which
was duly supported by receipts.68
In Criminal Case No. 4481-R, AAA is entitled to civil indemnity in line
with prevailing jurisprudence that civil indemnification is mandatory
upon the finding of rape.69 Applying prevailing jurisprudence, AAA is
entitled to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity.70
In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Article
2219 of the Civil Code,71 without the necessity of additional pleadings
or proof other than the fact of rape.72Moral damages is granted in
recognition of the victim’s injury necessarily resulting from the odious
crime of rape.73 Such award is
_______________

65 People v. Regalario, G.R. No. 174483, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 738, 760-761.
66 People v. Balais, G.R. No. 173242, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 555, 571-572.
67 People v. Ortiz, Jr., G.R. No. 188704, July 7, 2010, 624 SCRA 533, 541.
68 Records, vol. I, pp. 115-117.
69 People v. Madsali, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 596, 621.
70 Id.
71 Civil Code, Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
analogous cases: x x x
 (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; x x x.
72 People v. Ospig, 461 Phil. 481, 496; 416 SCRA 32, 46 (2003).
73 Id., at pp. 496-497; p. 46.
521
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 521
People vs. Anticamara
separate and distinct from the civil indemnity. 74 However, the
amount of P100,000.00 awarded as moral damages is reduced to
P75,000.00, in line with current jurisprudence.75
 The award of exemplary damages to AAA in the amount of P50,000
is hereby reduced to P30,000.00 in accordance with recent
jurisprudence.76
As to appellant Al. In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the
accused is individual and not collective. 77 Since appellant Al is liable
only for the crime of serious illegal detention, he is jointly and severally
liable only to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. For
serious illegal detention, the award of civil indemnity is in the amount
of P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.78
Along that line, appellant Al’s liability for moral damages is limited
only to the amount of P50,000.00.79Pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil
Code, moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal detention.
This is predicated on AAA’s having suffered serious anxiety and fright
when she was detained for almost one (1) month.80
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00556 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows:
_______________

74 People v. Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135, May 21, 2004, 429 SCRA 9, 29.
75 People v. Madsali, supra note 69, at pp. 621-622.
76 People v. Anguac, G.R. No. 176744, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 716, 726.
77 People v. Miana, Sr., 414 Phil. 755, 770; 362 SCRA 456, 470 (2001).
78 People v. Solangon, G.R. No. 172693, November 21, 2007, 537 SCRA 746, 758.
79 In line with recent jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages to be awarded is
P50,000.00 (People v. Madsali, supra note 69, at p. 622.)
80 People v. Madsali, supra note 69, at p. 621.
522
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
2 ANNOTATED
People vs. Anticamara
(a) In Criminal Case No. 4498-R, appellants Fernando Calaguas
Fernandez alias “Lando” and Alberto Cabillo Anticamara alias “Al” are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without
eligibility of parole, and to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of
Sulpacio Abad the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,
and P57,122.30 as actual damages.
(b) In Criminal Case No. 4481-R, appellant Fernando Calaguas
Fernandez alias “Lando” is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua,
without eligibility of parole, and to pay the offended party AAA, the
amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral
damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Appellant Alberto
Cabillo Anticamara alias “Al” is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is also
directed to pay, jointly and severally, with appellant Fernando
Calaguas Fernandez alias “Lando,” the victim AAA the amounts of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
Corona (C.J.),** Carpio (Chairperson), Abad and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modifications.
Notes.—It is the quality of the circumstances, rather than the
quantity, that will draw the line on whether the circumstances
presented, consist of an unbroken chain that will
_______________

**  Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B.

Nachura, per raffle dated March 11, 2009.
523
VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 523
People vs. Anticamara
inevitably lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty without an
iota of doubt. (People vs. Operaña, Jr., 343 SCRA 43 [2000])
Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of
prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the
former undisputedly deserves more credence and entitled to greater
evidentiary weight. (People vs. Monteron, 378 SCRA 340 [2002])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.