People v.

Bernal  Bernal: assails the lower court for giving weight and credence to the prosecution
G.R. No. 113685 | June 19, 1997 witnesses' allegedly illusory testimonies and for convicting him when his guilt was
Romero, J. not proved beyond reasonable doubt

Topic: Declaration against interest Issue/s:

W/N Bernal is guilty of kidnapping – YES
Facts:
 Theodore Bernal with two other persons (whose identities and whereabouts are Judgment:
still unknown) were charged with the crime of kidnapping WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the
o Information: “That on or about August 5, 1991, in the City of Davao, appealed decision dated November 18, 1993, is AFFIRMED in toto.
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the Costs against accused-appellant Theodore Bernal.
above-mentioned accused, armed with hand guns, conspiring,
confederating and cooperating together and helping one another, and Ratio:
by means of force, violence, intimidation and threat, wilfully, unlawfully,  In kidnapping, what is important is to determine and prove the fact of seizure, and
and feloniously grabbed and kidnapped one Bienvenido Openda, Jr., the subsequent disappearance of the victim will not exonerate an accused from
while the latter was drinking liquor with his friends as Bolton Isla, this prosecution therefor
City and was brought, handcuffed and carried away using the PU then o Article 267, RPC: “Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
fled together with Bienvenido Openda, Jr., thereby depriving the said another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer
Bienvenido Openda, Jr. of his liberty against his will. CONTRARY TO the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
LAW.” 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
o Bernal: entered a plea of not guilty 2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
 Prosecution: presented four witnesses 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the
 Bernal: testified for his defense person kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been
made.
 August 5, 1991: at around 11:30 am, Roberto Racasa and Openda, Jr. were 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a
engaged in a drinking spree; they invited Bernal, who was passing by, to join public officer.
them The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was
o After a few minutes, Bernal decided to leave both men because he was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any
going to fetch his child other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were
o Thereafter, two men arrived, approached Openda, Jr., and asked if he present in the commission of the offense.”
was "Payat"  For the charge of kidnapping to prosper, the deprivation of the victim's liberty,
 When he said yes, one of them suddenly pulled out a handgun which is the essential element of the offense, must be duly proved
while the other handcuffed him and told him "not to run o HERE, Bernal indisputably acted in conspiracy with the two other
because they were policemen" and because he had an unknown individuals "as shown by their concerted acts evidentiary of a
"atraso" or a score to settle with them and then hastily took him unity of thought and community of purpose"
away  Proof of conspiracy is perhaps most frequently made by
o Racasa immediately went to the house of Openda, Jr. and informed the evidence of a chain of circumstances only
latter's mother of the abduction  The circumstances present in this case sufficiently indicate the
 Prosecution’s theory: culled from the testimony of a certain Salito Enriquez – participation of Bernal in the disappearance of Openda, Jr.
Openda, Jr. had an illicit affair with Bernal's wife Naty and this was the motive  Prosecution profferred sufficient evidence to show that Bernal together with his
behind the kidnapping two companions abducted Openda, Jr. on August 5, 1991
 Until now, Openda, Jr. is still missing o Adonis Sagarino, childhood friend and neighbor of the victim, testified
 Defense: asserts that Openda Jr. was a drug-pusher arrested by the police on that he saw Bernal at the billiard hall at about 11:00 a.m. with his two
August 5, 1991, and hence, was never kidnapped companions and overheard him dispatching one of them to "Tarsing's
 RTC: found Bernal "guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for Store" to check if a certain person was still there. This person later
the abduction and disappearance of Bienvenido Openda Jr. under Article 267 of turned out to be Openda, Jr. He added that after the latter's presence
the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to reclusion perpetua and to was confirmed, the three men left the billiard hall. Minutes later,
indemnify his mother Teresita Openda in the amount of P50,000.00 for her Openda, Jr., already handcuffed, passed by the billiard hall with Bernal's
mental anguish and moral suffering" companions.
o Roberto Racasa, a resident of Bucana, Davao City, knew both Bernal
and the victim, the former being his neighbor and compadre. He
 narrated that he and the victim were drinking at "Tarsing's Store" on that
fateful day when Bernal passed by and had a drink with them. After a
few minutes, Bernal decided to leave, after which, two men came to the
store and asked for "Payat." When Openda, Jr. confirmed that he was
indeed "Payat," hew was handcuffed and taken away by the unidentified
men.
o Salito Enriquez, a tailor and a friend of Openda, Jr., testified that
sometime in January 1991, Openda, Jr. confided to him that he and
Bernal's wife Naty were having an affair. One time, Naty even gave
Openda, Jr. money which they used to pay for a motel room. He
advised Naty "not to do it again because she (was) a married woman
 Motive is generally irrelevant, unless it is utilized in establishing the
identity of the perpetrator. Coupled with enough circumstantial evidence of
facts from which it may be reasonably inferred that the accused was the
malefactor, motive may be sufficient to support a conviction
o Openda, Jr.'s revelation to Enriquez regarding his illicit
relationship with Bernal's wife is admissible in evidence, pursuant
to Sec. 38, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence:
“Declaration against interest. — The declaration made by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant,
if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made
so far contrary to declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man
in his position would not have made the declaration unless he
believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself
or his successors-in-interest and against third persons.”
 With the deletion of the phrase "pecuniary or moral interest"
from the present provision, it is safe to assume that
"declaration against interest" has been expanded to
include all kinds of interest, that is, pecuniary, proprietary,
moral or even penal
 A statement may be admissible when it complies with the following requisites:
(1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
(2) that it relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant;
(3) that at the time he made said declaration the declarant was aware that
the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest; and
(4) that the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration
to be true
o HERE, Openda, Jr., having been missing since his abduction, cannot be
called upon to testify; his confession to Enriquez is definitely a
declaration against his own interest, since his affair with Naty Bernal
was a crime – admissible in evidence because no sane person will be
presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment
 Bernal's position that no abduction or kidnapping ever took place but that an
arrest was made by pursuing policemen is quite improbable, if not highly
preposterous
o TC correctly appreciated the testimony of Sagarino, it being free from
any ill-motive against Bernal
o If Bernal’s allegations were true, then Sagarino should have been
arrested by the police at the time he gave his testimony in court but no
such arrest was made