PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONILO CUI Y BALADJAY, BEVERLY CUI Y CANTUBA, EDUARDO BASINGAN Y SABELLO, WILFREDO GARCIA, ALIAS “TOTO”, JOSELITO GARCIA, ALI…

People versus Cui

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a kidnapping for ransom case. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Leonilo Cui and Beverly Cui, together with Eduardo Basingan, Luis Obeso, Hilaria Sarte, and others, for the abduction of seventeen year old Stephanie Lim and the extortion of one million pesos from her parents. The trial court convicted the Cuis as accomplices. The case matters because the Supreme Court acquits them of complicity yet convicts them as accessories, and in doing so it draws the sharp line between hearsay, the confession of an escaped co-accused, the co-conspirator exception, and the crime of an accessory who profits from the effects of the offense.

Procedural History

An Information for kidnapping with ransom was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. It was later amended to charge the Cuis as accomplices. After trial, the trial court convicted Basingan, Bienvenido Nacario, Obeso, and Sarte as principals, and convicted the Cuis as accomplices, sentencing them to imprisonment ranging from eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Obeso and Sarte appealed, and the Cuis filed their own appeal. The Office of the Solicitor General, instead of filing an appellee's brief, filed a Manifestation recommending the acquittal of the Cuis, Obeso, and Sarte for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal from the trial court's judgment of conviction.

Facts

On the evening of December 5, 1990, about ten armed robbers raided the compound of Johnny and Rose Lim in Lahug, Cebu City. The family and the employees of their business saw the faces of the leader, Wilfredo Garcia, alias Toto, and two of his men. The robbers took cash and jewelry worth twenty thousand pesos and abducted Stephanie, the youngest daughter, demanding one million pesos for her release. Johnny Lim delivered the ransom the next afternoon, and Stephanie was released.

The Lims reported the kidnapping on the third day. From about ninety photographs, Johnny Lim picked out Toto Garcia. The police then interrogated the house guard, Eduardo Basingan, who revealed the plan and named the participants, including his neighbors and close family friends, the spouses Leonilo and Beverly Cui. Basingan executed sworn statements on December 18, 1990 and April 1, 1991. The Cuis were arrested, granted bail, and after preliminary investigation were charged as accomplices, it being alleged that they received ten thousand pesos as their share of the loot.

At arraignment all the accused pleaded not guilty. Basingan escaped from prison on June 27, 1991 and was tried in absentia; he never testified. Nacario also escaped. The trial court nonetheless convicted the Cuis as accomplices, relying heavily on Basingan's statements as relayed by Sgt. Narciso Ouano. On appeal, the Solicitor General conceded that this evidence was hearsay.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting and giving weight to the extrajudicial sworn statements of the escaped accused Basingan, and to the testimony of Sgt. Ouano repeating them, as proof of the guilt of the Cuis, Obeso, and Sarte.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial statements of Basingan may be admitted against his co-accused under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
• Whether or not the Cuis are criminally liable, and if so, whether as accomplices or as accessories.

Applicable Provisions

Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code defines accomplices:

Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

This is the provision under which the trial court convicted the Cuis, and the Court measures their acts against it.

Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code defines accessories:

Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

This is the provision under which the Court ultimately convicts the Cuis, through the first mode of profiting from the effects of the crime.

Section 30 of Rule 130 states the co-conspirator exception:

The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

The Court uses this to test whether Basingan's statements could reach his co-accused, and concludes they cannot.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court rules that the trial court committed reversible error. Basingan escaped and never testified, so the accused never had the chance to cross-examine him. His sworn statements are hearsay, and the testimony of Sgt. Ouano, who had no personal knowledge and merely repeated what Basingan told him, is likewise hearsay and has no probative value. Conviction cannot rest on hearsay.

On the second issue, the Court rules that the co-conspirator exception does not apply. The conspiracy was not first proved by independent evidence, and the statements were made after the conspiracy had ended and the crime consummated. They bind only the confessant. As the Court puts it, the extrajudicial statements cannot be used against the Cuis, Obeso, and Sarte without violating their constitutional right to confront and cross-examine Basingan.

On the third issue, the Court acquits the Cuis as accomplices but convicts them as accessories. An accessory requires knowledge of the crime and participation subsequent to it by profiting from its effects. The Joint Affidavit of the police team stated that the Cuis turned over ten thousand pesos given by Toto Garcia out of the ransom, and this was not denied in their counter-affidavits. The affidavit of their own witness, Myrna Limbagan, confirmed that Toto Garcia and Basingan handed money to the couple. Their later claim that the money was a bribe does not persuade. Both elements being present, they are liable as accessories.

Doctrine

First, the extrajudicial statement of an accused implicating a co-accused is hearsay against the latter unless repeated in open court where he may be cross-examined. Second, under the co-conspirator exception of Section 30 of Rule 130, the conspiracy must first be proved by evidence other than the declaration, the declaration must relate to the common object, and it must be made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. Third, to convict as an accessory under Article 19, the accused must have knowledge of the crime and must take part subsequent to its commission by profiting from its effects, without having participated as principal or accomplice.

Disposition

The Court acquitted the Cuis as accomplices but convicted them as accessories to kidnapping with ransom, and acquitted Obeso and Sarte for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the extrajudicial confession of an escaped co-accused is hearsay against the others and binds only the confessant, but one who knowingly profits from the effects of the crime is an accessory under Article 19. Examiners use this case to test the hearsay rule, the requisites of the co-conspirator exception, and the distinction between accomplice and accessory.