CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY

MANDATORY IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY

G.R. No. 148518
PEOPLE VS. MORALES

Summarized by Kim

This is a case of kidnap for ransom. In the decision of the Supreme Court, it is
stated that the imposition of the death penalty is automatic for those who kidnap with
the purpose of extorting ransom.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Accused:
Fernando Morales
Arturo Malit
Narciso Saladaña
Elmer Esguerra

Victims:
Jefferson Tan
Jessie Anthony Tan
Joanna Tan
Malou Ocampo
Cesar Quiroz

Dad of Victims: Feliciano Tan

Lawyer who assisted in Sworn Statement of Saldaña: Atty. Eligio P Mallari

FACTS
1. This case from the RTC of San Fernando Pampanga, Branch 47 is for
automatic review.
2. From the point of view of Jefferson Tan:
a. Kidnapped happened on NOVEMBER 9, 1994, 6:30 AM.
b. Tan on the way to Don Bosco Academy in Bacolor Pampanga on
board L-300 van with Plate No. CKW-785
c. He was together with Jessie Anthony (brother), Joanna (sister), Malou
Ocampo (cousin) and driver, Cesar Quiroz
d. Vehicle slowed down to steer clear of a damaged portion of the road
e. A man poked a gun at their driver (this was Arturo Malit)

1
f. Simultaneously, three other men entered the van (these were Morales,
Esguerra, and Saldaña)
g. While Malit was pointing the gun at the driver, Esguerra took the
driver’s seat and the other two blindfolded the five victims (Jessie,
Joanna, Malou, Cesar, Jefferson)
h. Vehicle sped off and stopped at a gas station for fuel where Romero
Bautista joined the group.
i. After 1 hour and 30 minutes of driving, they arrived at the destination,
blindfolds removed and the victims were ushered into a small house in
the hilly area.
j. Jefferson decided to write a note to his father because he sensed that
the kidnappers would talk to his dad.
k. Bautista and Saldaña left to see Jefferson’s dad
l. 1 hour later, Malit, Morales and Esguerra ushered the five of them
back into the vehicle and proceeded to a beach littered with big rocks.
m. Two women came to feed them lunch.
n. 7:30 PM – Saldaña and Bautista arrived at the beach and took the
victims to a small house in Orani, Bataan where they spent the night.
o. 4:00 AM – left Orani and proceeded to an uninhabited place full of
grass and trees.
p. Jefferson requested Bautista to allow him to speak with dad, thus,
Bautista and Saldaña escorted him to Balanga, Bataan to a PLDT
office.
q. Jefferson told his father that the kidnappers planned to send him home
to get the PHP 2 Million ransom, and then the dad negotiated with
Bautista to reduce the ransom to PHP 1.5 Million which the latter
agreed.
r. Bautista and Saldaña brought Jefferson to Guagua, Pampanga,
aboard a minibus.
s. Bautista got off at Cleluz, Lubao, while Saldaña transferred him into a
jeepney going to Guagua.
t. Before disembarking at San Pablo in Guagua, Saldaña instructed
Jefferson to bring ransom to St. Peter and Paul Snack Center at 1:00
PM later that day.
u. Jefferson arrived home at 10:30 AM and immediately relayed to dad
(Feliciano Tan) and the police the instructions that the kidnappers gave
him.
v. Upon the advice of the police, dad did not allow Jefferson anymore to
deliver the ransom.

2
 w. 3:00 PM – kidnappers called and demanded the dad to explain why the
money was not delivered.
x. Dad requested for a lower ransom and they finally agreed upon PHP
92,000.00
3. From the point of view of Feliciano Tan:
a. While he was tending the grocery store at Sto. Niño, Guagua,
Pampanga on November 9, 1994, an unknown person gave him a
handwritten letter from Jefferson.
b. The letter said that his children have been kidnapped.
c. Immediately called his wife Nenita Co-Tan and a family friend Dr.
Ernesto Santos and all three of them wen to Camp Crame to report the
incident.
d. Colonel Asel Tor was assigned by the Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission (PACC) to handle the case.
e. Col. Tor dispatched a unit headed by Maj. Rey Aquino to investigate.
f. 8:05 AM the next day – Jefferson calls him and informed him that the
kidnappers are planning to use Jefferson to get the ransom money.
Dad also stated that he talked with one of the kidnappers to lower the
money amount needed.
g. 10:00 AM – Jefferson arrived, and was not allowed by Feliciano to go
back to give the ransom, since Dad could not afford it.
h. 3:00 PM – kidnappers call demanding an explanation – dad explained
that Jefferson was in shock and then haggled the ransom price down
to PHP 92,000.00 to which the caller agreed and requested that it be
brought to Cleluz, Sta. Cruz, Lubao, Pampanga at 7:00 PM the same
day.
i. Later, driver Quiroz arrived and relayed new instructions from the
kidnappers of the change in venue for the meet-up which will now be at
the bridge of Sta. Cruz, Lubao.
j. Feliciano arrived 30 minutes early at the meeting place and asked
Quiroz who was with him to look for the kidnappers.
k. Quiroz, after looking, said that they should proceed to Gumi, Lubao on
the other side of the bridge. There Malit and Morales boarded their car
and told him that the children were in Gumi.
l. Upon reaching Gumi, kidnappers asked for the money but Feliciano
asked where the children where to which Malit answered that they
were inside the L-300 van in front of them.
m. Exchange took place and Esguerra handed him the keys to the L-300
van. Went home, called Maj. Rey Aquino of PACC and told him that
the children were already safe. Reported to the police after.

3
4. SPO4 Antonio Dizon, PNP Command, Barangay Sto. Niño, San Fernando
Pampanga testified that:
a. He investigated the said kidnapping case
b. One of the suspects (Saldaña) in the case admitted participation and
revealed identities of cohorts.
c. No available PAO lawyer so requested Atty. Eligio Mallari to assist
Saldaña and subscribed the same to Asst. Provincial Prosecutor
Roman Razon.
5. Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Roman S. Razon
a. Testified that he was with SPO4 Dizon when Saldaña’s confession was
taken and that he appraised him of the consequences of his
confession.
6. Atty. Eligio P. Mallari
a. Practicing lawyer who became a Commissioner of Human Rights
testified that in the morning of November 18, 1994, while in the PNP
Investigation Unit office.
b. Requested an opportunity to confer with Saldaña and after hearing that
he wanted his assistance during the investigation.
c. He advised Saldaña of his constitutional rights in Tagalog dialect and
signed the same.
7. Fernando Morales
a. Testified for defense.
b. Denied under oath
c. Interposed the defense of having acted under uncontrollable fear.
d. Averred that the day before incident, Esguerra (brother in law) offered
to help him secure a construction job at Floridablanca with a daily
wage of Php 150.00.
e. Elmer Esguerra planned to go together and ask permission to start
working.
f. Agreed to meet at 6:00 AM Plaza Guagua, Pampanga.
g. When they met up, they waited fro Saldaña and Bautista and then they
subsequently went to San Vicente, Bacolor Pampanga..
h. Saldaña flagged an L300 van and poked a gun at the driver. Morales
and Malit got scared and tried to walk away but did not get away
because Esguerra, Bautista and Saldaña chased them with the
vehicle.
i. Said that they pleaded to be released (Malit and Morales) because
they did not want to be involved.

4
 j. Stayed in Mariveles for an hour and a half before proceeding o Orani,
Bataan where they spent the night.
k. Said that he and Malit cooked food for children and attended to their
needs.
l. Claimed that prior to the incident he did not know Malit but knew
Esguerra because he is his brother in law.
m. Surrendered to the police after the police came looking for him.
8. Arturo Malit’s version
a. Availed the defense of uncontrollable fear
b. Similar narration with Morales.
c. When he saw that the children were scared, he asked them to pray.
d. He did not try to stop or tell his companions not to pursue their
nefarious plan because he could not overcome his fear brought about
by the threats made by Esguerra, Saldaña and Bautista.
e. Added that they had lunch in Orani Bataan in a house owned by
Saldana’s in-laws.
f. Malit tried to escape, but Saldana and Bautista were posted at the
door.
g. He interceded with Saldaña to spare the driver when he overheard
them planning on killing the said person.
h. They were brought back to Lubao and allowed to go home.
i. Also reiterated that he is not a willing participant in the kidnapping and
that Saldaña threatened to kill him if he reported the incident to the
police.

9. The trial court rendered the following decision:

WHEREFORE, and in the light of all the foregoing discussions, the Court
renders judgement finding the accused Narciso Saldaña, Elmer Esguerra,
Arturo Malit and Fernando Morales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime changed and imposes upon them the aforenamed accused the penalty
of DEATH. The said accused are likewise ordered to indemnify the
complainant the amount of PHP 92,000.00 which represents the ransom
money the latter parted with. No other civil indemnification may be made as
not other evidence on this aspect was adduced.

SO ORDERED.

5
 10. Malit filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial and contended that the
trial court did not clearly and distinctly state the facts and law upon it is based
however, the trial court denied this.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N THE COURT ERRED IN NOT APRECIATING THE EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES OF IRRESISTABLE FORCE AND/OR
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR – NOOOO

 Appellant’s pleas of uncontrollable fear or fear of a greater injury are

without merit
o Morales and Malit (court sites People v Del Rosario)
 A threat of injury is not enough
 They had every chance to escape
 No evidence that their families were indeed threatened
 Jefferson also categorically testified their involvement

2. W/N CONSPIRACY WAS ADEQUATELY PROVEN – YAAAS

 Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement

concerining the commission of a felony and decide to commit it
 Their acts show that the accused acted in concert at the time of the
commission of the offense
 The crime of kidnapping is not committed on impulse and requires
meticulous planning to determine who would be the prospective victims

3. W/N APPELANT’S GUILT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT – YASSS

 A thorough review of the evidence presented leads to no other

conclusion than that the crime of kidnapping for ransom as defined and
penalized under ARTICLE 267 of the RPC was committed beyond
reasonable doubt
o Saldaña admitted his participation in the kidnapping
o Esguerra’s participation is corroborated by the victims
o Morales’ and Malit’s participation is proven in #1
 Based on the evidence at hand, the Court finds no sufficient reason to
disturb the trial court’s assessment
 Also needs precise timing

6
  The court also finds that the defense claimed by appellants are neither
logical nor satisfactory

4. W/N Death Penalty should be imposed - YASSS

 The imposition of penalty is mandatory if kidnapping is done for the
purpose of extorting ransom
 The appellants cannot escape the penalty of death inasmuch as it was
sufficiently alleged and indubitably proven that the kidnapping had
been committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Decision dated February 2, 1999 of the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga
Branch 47 finding accussed NARCISO SALDAÑA and ELMER ESGUERRA and
FERNANDO MORALES and ARTURO MALIT GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of kidnapping for ransom and sentencing each of them to death is
hereby AFFIRMED. They are likewise orered to pay, jointly and severally, actual
damages in the amount of PHP 92,000.00 representing the amount of ransom
paid by the victim’s father, as well as the sum of PHP 25, 000.00 as exemplary
damages.

Let alias warrants issue for the immediate arrest by the NBI and the PNP of
accused Narciso Saldaña and Elmer Esguerra, now at large.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Section 83 of

the RPC let the records of this case be forwarded to the Office of the President
for the possible exercise of the pardoning power.

LESSON/ DOCTRINE

The imposition of death penalty is mandatory if the kidnapping was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom.

Article 267 of the RPC

The elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention are the following:
(a) the accused is a private individual;

7
 (b) the accused kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of
his liberty
(c) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal;
(d) in the commission of the offense any of the four circumstances mentioned in
Article 267 of the RPC is present

OTHER NOTES
The information from the RTC is as follows:

That on the 9th day of November in the municipality of Bacolor, province of

Pampanga Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously abduct
and kidnap Jefferson C. Tan, Joanna C. Tan, Malou Ocampo and Cesar Quiroz,
while the latter were on board a L-300 van with Plate No CKW-785 at San
Vicente, Bacolor Pampanga, for the purpose of extorting ransom money from the
parents of the said victims with threat to kill the said victims if their parents failed
to deliver the ransom money that said victims were brought and detained in
Bataan until the father of victims, Feliciano Tan, paid and delivered to the
aforesaid ccused the amount of Php 92,000.00. All contrary to law.