People of the Philippines vs. Crispin Araneta y Pelaez, Lynfer Bicodo y Baylon, Rogelio Calo Ring, Annabelle Olidan y Araneta, Benjamin Olidan y Erlandez and PO1 Jose Lonmar Zapatos y Fiel, Rogelio Caloring, G.R. No. 250980, March 15, 2022

 

People of the Philippines vs. Crispin Araneta y Pelaez, Lynfer Bicodo y Baylon, Rogelio Calo Ring, Annabelle Olidan y Araneta, Benjamin Olidan y Erlandez and PO1 Jose Lonmar Zapatos y Fiel, Rogelio Caloring, 

G.R. No. 250980, March 15, 2022

 

Facts:

1.     Accused-appellant was charged with Kidnapping for Ransom together with his co-accused, as well as other persons. The accused were charged in one Information with the kidnapping of the Sermonia children and Eulalia Cuevas (Cuevas). The Information in effect provides that the accused conspired to commit four (4) counts of Kidnapping for Ransom.

2.     At the arraignment, the accused, entered pleas of "not guilty" to the offense charged. However, there is nothing in the records to show that Alada (at large) was arraigned.

3.     The RTC found all of the accused, except for Navanes, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information.

4.     Before the CA could resolve the case, it issued Resolutions which dismissed the appeals of Araneta and Annabelle, respectively. It also issued a Resolution which stated that Bicodo already withdrew her appeal. Thus, the CA was left to resolve only the appeals of accused appellant, Benjamin, and POl Zapatos.

5.     In its Decision, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant, Benjamin, and PO 1 Zapatos.

6.     Hence, the appeal by accused-appellant. Benjamin and-POI Zapatos did not file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

7.     Pending disposition of the case, the Court received a Letter that accused-appellant died, as shown by the Notice ofDeath attached to the Letter.

 

Issues:

·      Whether or not the death of accused appellant pending appeal extinguished his criminal liability as well as civil liability arising from the crime.

·      Whether or not there is a valid information filed.

 

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links: 

 

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law

Ruling:

 

FIRST ISSUE

 

Yes. The Supreme Court in applying paragraph 1, Article 89 of the RPC held that, his death pending the final disposition of his appeal extinguishes his criminal liability.

 

Accused-appellant’s civil liability arising from his criminal liability is also extinguished for the same reason that he died pending appeal.

 

SECOND ISSUE

 

Yes. The Supreme Court held that there should only be one (1) offense in one (1) Information; however, the defect in the Information may be waived by the accused by his failure to question it.

 

The rule is that there should be only one (1) offense in one (1) Information. Otherwise, the Information would be defective such that the accused may move for the quashal of the Information and raise such defect. However, if the accused fails to file a motion to quash the Information, he is deemed to have waived the right to question the defect.

 

In the case, considering that there are four victims, the Office of the Prosecutor should have filed with the trial court four (4) Informations for Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC. However, only one (1) Information was filed against all of the accused for the kidnapping of Cuevas and the Sermonia children; thus, the Information filed was defective.

 

Nevertheless, a perusal of the records would show that none of the accused, including accused-appellant, objected to the defect in the Amended Information; instead, all of the accused entered pleas of not guilty during their arraignment, except Alada who was not arraigned as yet. Thus, the defect was deemed waived and all of the accused, except Alada, could be convicted of four (4) counts of Kidnapping for Ransom were it not for specific circumstances which now prevent the Court from finding them guilty of four counts of the offense charged. 

 

As to accused appellant, his death already extinguished his criminal liability. As to all his surviving co-accused, except Alada, their conviction for one count of Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC had already attained finality. It was only accused-appellant who opted to appeal the Decision of the CA; thus, all the other accused cannot be in a worse situation with the filing of accused-appellant's appeal.


You can support our page by clicking any of the following links: 

 

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blogger templates

About