FACTS:

The case involves four separate crimes: two crimes of kidnapping and two crimes of robbery in band. The accused-appellants, Carinio Lumiwan, Marcos Gaddawan, and Manao Bawagan, were tried and convicted for these crimes, except for one accused who escaped from detention. The prosecution presented evidence showing that on September 16, 1992, Jonathan Carig, the private complainant, was accosted by four armed men, including the accused, who took money from him and proceeded to a grocery store where they demanded money. They then ordered Carig and his companions to go with them to a mountain, and later dispatched one of Carig's companions to ask their families for a ransom. The kidnappers took money from Carig's grandmother and grandaunt who attempted to ransom him but kept Carig and another victim. On September 18, two of the accused, Lumiwan and Gaddawan, went to another location and robbed Maria Asuncion while she was buying corn grains. They also took her to the mountain. The kidnappers asked Asuncion to write a ransom letter, but the ransom was not paid. Eventually, all the victims managed to escape when the police surrounded the kidnappers' lair, but some of the accused evaded arrest. Bawagan and Bawisal escaped from detention on November 28, 1992, and Bawisal remains at large. The accused pleaded not guilty and each presented their own alibi and claimed police torture during custodial investigation.

Carino Lumiwan, Marcos Gaddawan, and Manao Bawagan were accused of kidnapping and robbery. Lumiwan claimed that he was unaware of the case filed against him until he was informed by the mayor. He denied any involvement in the crimes and stated that he was coerced into admitting his guilt through physical abuse by the police. Gaddawan testified that he was apprehended by a policeman while on his way to buy groceries. He was brought to the Municipal Hall where he was tortured and forced to sign a document for his detention. He later met the complaining witnesses at the detention center. Bawagan stated that he was arrested at the house of the municipal mayor and was illegally detained. He was forced to admit the crimes due to beatings from his co-inmates upon orders of the police. All the accused-appellants claimed that they were strangers to each other prior to their confinement. The trial court found the evidence against them to be sufficient for conviction. The accused-appellants raised two issues, questioning the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging that their admissions were obtained through physical abuse.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and convicting the accused-appellants based on their positive identification.

2. Whether the elements of kidnapping and robbery in band have been established by the prosecution.

3. Whether the accused-appellants were positively identified as the perpetrators of the crimes.

4. Whether or not there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants in the commission of the crimes.

5. Whether or not the accused-appellants were subjected to torture and illegal arrests.

6. Whether or not the plea of guilty by one of the accused-appellants estops him from questioning the legality of his arrest.

7. Whether the accused-appellants should be convicted of the crimes charged.

8. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is appropriate.

9. Whether the award of moral damages is excessive.

10. Whether the award of exemplary damages is proper.

RULING:

1. The trial judge did not err in assessing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The positive identification by the victims themselves, pointing to the accused-appellants as their abductors and the ones who forcibly took their money at gunpoint, outweighs the uncorroborated denial and alibi of the accused-appellants.

2. The prosecution successfully established the elements of kidnapping and robbery in band. For the crime of kidnapping, the prosecution proved that a person was deprived of his liberty, the offender is a private individual, and the detention was unlawful. For the crime of robbery in band, the prosecution showed that there was intent to gain, unlawful taking, personal property belonging to another, and violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

3. The accused-appellants were positively identified as the authors of the crimes. The victims, who were able to positively identify the accused-appellants inside a packed courtroom without hesitation, were kidnapped in broad daylight without blindfolds and spent days/nights with them. The denials and alibis of the accused-appellants do not have probative value compared to the positive and affirmative testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses.

4. The finding of conspiracy among accused-appellants is affirmed. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence; the agreement itself may be inferred from the conduct of the parties disclosing a common understanding among them relative to the commission of the offense.

5. The record is bereft of any proof of torture and illegal arrests. Whether they were subjected to torture or any maltreatment during their arrest and custodial interrogation is a factual question primarily within the competence of the trial court, the findings of which on the matter are generally binding on this Court.

6. The accused-appellant is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before entering his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived. Additionally, the accused-appellant did not move for the quashal of the information before the trial court on this ground. Therefore, any irregularity attendant to his arrest, if any, was cured when he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

7. The accused-appellants are convicted of the crimes charged.

8. The penalty imposed by the trial court is modified.

9. The award of moral damages is reduced.

10. The award of exemplary damages is deleted.

PRINCIPLES:

• The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty ceases once the prosecution has properly fulfilled its duty to prove the crime charged.

• The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it.

• The crime of robbery in band requires the participation of more than three armed malefactors and the commission of robbery by a band. Each member of the band present at the commission of the robbery shall be punished as a principal unless it is shown that they attempted to prevent the crime.

• Positive identification by prosecution eyewitnesses carries more weight than mere denials and alibis of the accused.

• Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the parties disclosing a common understanding among them relative to the commission of the offense.

• The absence of proof of torture and illegal arrests leads to the affirmation of the trial court's findings on this matter.

• Objections involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction must be made before entering a plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.

• Absence of aggravating circumstances precludes the award of exemplary damages.

• The purpose of moral damages is indemnity or reparation, not punishment or correction.

• The court may modify the penalty imposed if necessary.

• Damages must be awarded in a moderate amount in line with current jurisprudence.