G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RODERICK LICAYAN @ RUDY, ROBERTO LARA @ TUNGKOY/UNYOK, PEDRO MABANSAG @ PUTOL (AT LARGE), ALEX PLACIO (AT LARGE), JOJO SAJORGO (AT LARGE), ALLAN PLACIO (AT LARGE), NOEL DELOS REYES (AT LARGE), DODONG ADOLFO (AT LARGE), AND BENJIE MABANSA

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding RODERICK LICAYAN and ROBERTO LARA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to R.A. 7659, and imposing upon both of them the penalty of death by lethal injection and the solidary payment to each of the victims the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as moral and exemplary damages and an additional amount of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos for Joseph Co as actual damages for the valuables taken from him. However, both accused are acquitted for the crime of robbery for the reasons previously discussed in keeping with the constitutional presumption of innocence of any man whose guilt is not within the standard of moral certainty. The cases against the other accused Pedro Mabansag @ Tata Pandak, Jose Sajorgo, Allan Placio, Noel Delos Reyes, Dodong Adolfo and Benjie Mabansag who all remain at large are ordered archived and let alias warrants for their arrest be issued. Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellants contend that - I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES DESPITE THE MANIFEST INCONSISTENCIES IN THEIR TESTIMONIES. II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE ACCUSED APPELLANTS WERE ILLEGALLY ARRESTED, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY WERE ARRESTED DO NOT FALL UNDER THE WARRANTLESS ARREST. III. ASSUMING IN ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY, THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ACTED IN CONSPIRACY WITH THE OTHER CO-ACCUSED AND IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME AS MERE ACCOMPLICES. The Court finds the appeal to be without merit. First . As in all criminal cases where conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the victims positive identification of the culprit, the basic issue presented in the case at bar deals with the credibility of the complainants. For this purpose, the assessment of the evidence by the trial court is given the highest degree of respect because of the judges opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand. [49] Accused-appellants make much of complainants failure to remember the physical features and characteristics of their abductors. The following testimony on cross-examination of complainant Joseph Tomas Co is cited: ATTY. LARACAS: You were not able... Mr. Witness, the person who investigated you did not require you to prepare any sketch of these three persons who were in front of you at the FX? WITNESS: No maam. ATTY. LARACAS: Because you cannot very recall what their faces? WITNESS: No maam. xx xx xx xx ATTY. LARACAS: Now, Mr. Witness, you were seated at the rar (rear[sic]) portion of the FX, you cannot see the faces of the person driving the FX and that man seated at the front portion. WITNESS: Yes maam. [50] With respect to complainant Manaysa