PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODERICK LICAYAN, ROBERTO LARA AND ROGELIO “NOEL” DELOS REYES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Licayan

The Case

People versus Licayan is a criminal case in which the State prosecuted Roderick Licayan, Roberto Lara, and Rogelio Delos Reyes, known as Noel, for the kidnapping for ransom of Joseph Tomas Co and Linda Manaysay, and for the robbery of their personal belongings. The case matters because it shows what happens when a judgment of conviction has already become final and executory, and yet the Court, in the interest of justice, reopens the case upon the arrest of co-accused who had earlier escaped trial. It is a study in the finality of judgments, the rule on newly discovered evidence, and the constitutional presumption of innocence even for those already condemned.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 272, tried Licayan and Lara and convicted them of kidnapping for ransom, sentencing each to death. The Supreme Court affirmed that conviction in August 2001, with modification on damages, and denied reconsideration in October 2001. The judgment became final and executory in November 2001, and the trial court set the execution for January 2004.

Before the scheduled execution, two co-accused, Pedro Mabansag and Rogelio Delos Reyes, were arrested. The Public Attorney's Office filed an urgent motion to reopen the case. The Supreme Court suspended the execution and remanded the records to the trial court for further reception of evidence, with the trial of Delos Reyes and Mabansag, while the evidence already taken against Licayan and Lara would stand.

After Mabansag died in detention, the trial court in February 2009 found Licayan, Lara, and Delos Reyes guilty of kidnapping for ransom, sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, and acquitted them of robbery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in full in July 2012. The accused filed a notice of appeal, bringing the case to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the early morning of August 10, 1998, Joseph Tomas Co and Linda Manaysay were making their rounds of Co's restaurant branches. At the Sampaloc branch, three armed men approached Co, refused the money offered from the store, and forced both complainants into Co's Tamaraw FX. Their hands were tied, their eyes taped, and caps placed over their heads. They were brought to a house in Parang, Marikina, where their belongings were taken and they were guarded. Co identified Licayan as one of the abductors and Lara as their guard.

On the afternoon of August 11, 1998, while Licayan was guarding them, he fell asleep, and the complainants escaped. They called the Marikina police from a nearby house. That evening, members of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force raided the safehouse and arrested Lara, who pointed to Licayan. Both were later identified by the complainants in a police line-up. Co's brother testified that unidentified persons twice demanded ten million pesos for the release of the complainants.

Licayan and Lara raised alibi. Licayan claimed he was at home in San Mateo, Rizal when arrested. Lara claimed he was at a construction site in Antipolo on the days in question, supported by his co-worker and employer. Delos Reyes was later arrested and identified by Co as the man who demanded the vehicle key during the abduction. The trial court convicted all three of kidnapping for ransom and acquitted them of robbery.

Issues

• Whether or not the reopening of a case already final and executory, upon the arrest of co-accused, is proper under the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the guilt of Licayan, Lara, and Delos Reyes for kidnapping for ransom was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi and the identification of the accused were sufficient to overturn the conviction.

Applicable Provisions

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death if the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days, or if it shall have been committed simulating public authority, or if any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been made, or if the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female, or a public officer.

This is the crime charged, and the Court applied it to the acts of abduction and detention for ransom.

Section 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, as cited in the resolution, provides:

At any time before final judgment, the court may, on motion of the accused, reopen the case for the reception of further evidence.

This provision was the basis for reopening the case upon the arrest of the co-accused.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the reopening of the case was proper. Although the judgment had become final, the Court granted the motion to reopen pro hac vice, meaning for this occasion only, in the interest of justice, because the arrest of the co-accused constituted newly discovered evidence that could affect the outcome. The Court remanded the case for further reception of evidence, with the evidence already taken to stand.

On the second issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that Licayan and Lara conspired and participated in the kidnapping for ransom. Co positively identified Licayan as one of the abductors and Lara as the guard. The Court gave weight to the positive identification of the complainants over the defense of alibi.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the alibi of Licayan and Lara. Alibi is a weak defense, especially when the accused were positively identified by the victims. The Court also noted that the trial court and the Court of Appeals both found the evidence sufficient to establish guilt.

Doctrine

A judgment that has become final and executory may still be reopened in the interest of justice when newly discovered evidence, such as the arrest of co-accused, could affect the outcome. The reopening is granted pro hac vice, meaning for that occasion only, and does not disturb the finality of the judgment as to the evidence already taken. The constitutional presumption of innocence remains, and the prosecution must still prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Positive identification by the victims prevails over the defense of alibi. The crime of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by depriving a person of liberty for the purpose of extorting ransom.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Licayan, Lara, and Delos Reyes for kidnapping for ransom, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of moral damages, and acquitted them of robbery.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a final judgment may be reopened pro hac vice in the interest of justice upon newly discovered evidence, but the conviction stands if guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Examiners like to use this case to test the finality of judgments and the rule on newly discovered evidence.