GR 172604; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172604 August 17, 2010 (Formerly G.R. Nos. 155345-47)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. VENANCIO ROXAS y ARGUELLES, Appellant.
FACTS
On January 12, 1994, appellant Venancio Roxas, wearing a PNP reflectorized vest, flagged down Agnes Guirindola along Panay Avenue, Quezon City, under the pretense of a traffic violation. After entering her car, Roxas poked a gun at her, declared he needed her car, and was joined by an accomplice, Roberto Gungon. They drove Agnes to Batangas, during which they divested her of cash, a check, and jewelry. At a secluded area, Roxas shot Agnes in the face and left her for dead. She survived due to timely medical intervention. The car and some personal effects were later recovered.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Roxas of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Frustrated Murder, Carnapping under R.A. 6539, and Theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Roxas appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that his warrantless arrest was illegal.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved Roxas’s guilt for the complex crime of Kidnapping with Frustrated Murder, Carnapping, and Theft beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the positive identification of Roxas by the victim, Agnes Guirindola, was credible, categorical, and consistent. Her testimony detailed the entire harrowing ordeal, from the initial deception to the shooting, and survived rigorous cross-examination. The defense of denial and alibi presented by Roxas could not prevail over this positive identification, especially as he failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
Regarding the crimes, the Court ruled that the acts constituted the special complex crime of Kidnapping with Frustrated Murder under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The detention of Agnes was coupled with the infliction of a fatal wound, which constituted serious physical injury, a qualifying circumstance under the law. The shooting was a direct consequence of the detention to eliminate the witness. The separate crimes of Carnapping and Theft were also correctly proven, as the taking of the vehicle and personal properties was accomplished through force and intimidation. The warrantless arrest issue was deemed inconsequential, as any irregularity was cured by his subsequent submission to the court’s jurisdiction. The penalty for Kidnapping with Frustrated Murder was reduced to reclusion perpetua, conforming to prevailing law, while the penalties for Carnapping and Theft were affirmed.