FACTS:

The case involves an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's judgment finding the appellants guilty of murder and kidnapping and serious illegal detention. On May 7, 2002, AAA and Abad Sulpacio were sleeping in their employers' house when they were awakened by intruders who threatened to kill AAA. Six persons, including the appellants, entered the house. The intruders tied AAA and Abad and brought them to their employers' fishpond, where AAA was later taken to Lando's house. On May 9, 2002, Lando brought AAA to a hotel in Tarlac where he sexually molested her. AAA was later brought to the residence of Fred's niece, where Fred repeatedly raped her. The victim, Abad Sulpacio, was killed by Lando, causing fear to AAA that she might also be killed. On May 22, 2002, Fred brought AAA to Kananga, Leyte, where she stayed with Marsha's brother as a house helper. On June 4, 2002, AAA escaped and sought help. The trial court found Lando and Alberto guilty and imposed the death penalty, while the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

The case involves the rape and murder of Abad Sulpacio. The trial court found that the appellants were responsible for the crime based on circumstantial evidence. AAA testified that they were sleeping inside a house when several men entered to rob the place and threatened them. AAA identified the appellants and saw the victim blindfolded and tied inside a vehicle. They were taken to a fishpond where the victim was last seen being dragged out of the vehicle. An NBI agent testified that appellant Al admitted his participation and named his companions. The remains of the victim were found with gunshot wounds and multiple holes on different parts of his body. The trial court convicted the appellants of murder, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with a modified penalty.

Dr. Bandonil's autopsy report revealed that the victim had multiple gunshot wounds as the cause of death. The report also mentioned the discovery of a cloth wrapped around the victim's eye sockets and another cloth tied around his left wrist. Despite no direct eyewitnesses to the killing, the prosecution was able to establish that the appellants abducted, bound, blindfolded, shot, and buried the victim. Conspiracy was alleged, and evidence of conspiracy can be inferred from the appellants' actions before, during, and after the crime.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there was conspiracy among the accused to commit the crime.

2. Whether the accused claiming duress is exempt from criminal liability.

3. Whether appellant Al can be held liable for the crime charged despite not actively participating in the commission of the felony and not making any effort to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy.

4. Whether appellant Lando's defense of alibi can prosper in the absence of clear and convincing evidence.

5. Whether the aggravating circumstance of superior strength can be separately appreciated from treachery.

6. Whether the circumstance of evident premeditation is present in this case.

7. Whether appellant Al can be held liable for the subsequent rape of the victim.

8. What penalties should be imposed on the appellants.

9. What damages should be awarded to the heirs of the victim and the victim herself.

10. Whether the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 4480-R.

11. Whether the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape in Criminal Case No. 4481-R.

RULING:

1. The court ruled that there was conspiracy among the accused to commit the crime. The evidence presented showed that the group met and discussed their plan prior to the commission of the crime. They agreed that whoever comes their way would be eliminated. Each member of the group had specific tasks to carry out, but their collective effort was aimed at achieving their common criminal objective. The killing of the victim was part of their conspiracy. The act of one conspirator is considered the act of all.

2. The court ruled that the accused claiming duress is not exempt from criminal liability. To be exempt from criminal liability based on duress, the evidence must establish that there was an uncontrollable fear that was real, imminent, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. In this case, there was no evidence to support the claim of duress. The accused had ample opportunities to escape and was no longer subjected to a real, imminent, or reasonable fear. Thus, the defense of duress does not apply.

3. Appellant Al can be held liable for the crime charged. The court found that he willingly agreed to be a part of the conspiracy, as evidenced by his presence at the scene of the crime and his failure to escape or seek assistance. His lack of overt act to dissociate himself from the conspiracy renders him criminally liable.

4. Appellant Lando's defense of alibi cannot prosper. The court held that it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime, as the distance between his house and the town where the crime was committed was traversable in less than 30 minutes. Moreover, positive identification by credible witnesses destroys the defense of alibi.

5. The aggravating circumstance of superior strength cannot be separately appreciated because it is absorbed by treachery.

6. The circumstance of evident premeditation is present in this case.

7. Appellant Al cannot be held liable for the subsequent rape of the victim as there is no evidence to prove that he was aware of the events that transpired after the killing of the victim and the kidnapping of the victim. Appellant Al was no longer associated with appellant Lando when the rape occurred.

8. In Criminal Case No. 4498-R, the appellants are found guilty of murder. The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. However, due to the prohibition on the imposition of the death penalty under R.A. No. 9346, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. In Criminal Case No. 4481-R, the penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. In the case of appellant Al, the penalty for serious illegal detention is also reclusion perpetua.

9. In Criminal Case No. 4498-R, the heirs of the victim are entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00, and actual damages incurred in the amount of P57,122.30. In Criminal Case No. 4481-R, the victim is entitled to civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P30,000.00. Appellant Al is jointly and severally liable to pay the victim civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00.

10. The accused are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 4480-R and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole. They are also ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the victim 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.

11. 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 in Criminal Case No. 4481-R. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole, and ordered 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.

PRINCIPLES:

• Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime, which when taken together, reveal a community of criminal design.

• 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.

• To be exempt from criminal liability based on duress, the fear must be real, imminent, 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.

• Denial and alibi are considered with suspicion and always received with caution as they are easily fabricated and concocted. Affirmative testimony is stronger than negative testimony, especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.

• 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 two places and the facility of access between them. When there is even the slightest chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi fails.

• Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that give the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist: the means of execution deprived the person attacked of any opportunity to defend himself and the means of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.

• 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.

• 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.

• In rape cases, the credibility of the victim's testimony is almost always the single most important factor. When the victim's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused's conviction.

• Once conspiracy is established between several accused in the commission of a crime, they would all be equally culpable for any offense committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the conspiracy, unless anyone of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing the offense.

• The crime of robbery with rape and kidnapping with rape are special complex crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code.

• The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death, but due to the prohibition on the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

• The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

• The penalty for serious illegal detention is reclusion perpetua.

• Civil indemnity is mandatory in cases of murder and rape.

• Moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder and rape.

• Exemplary damages may be awarded in cases where aggravating circumstances are present.

• Actual damages may be awarded for expenses incurred as a result of the crime.

• The liability of an accused for a crime is individual and not collective in the absence of conspiracy.

• The guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

• The penalty for the crime of Murder is Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole.

• The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape is Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole.

• The accused may be held jointly and severally liable for the damages awarded to the victim.