G.R. No. 112429-30 July 23, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MICHAEL NUÑEZ y SEVILLA, accused. RODOLFO CAYETANO y PANGILINAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rodolfo Cayetano, together with co-accused Michael Nuñez and Ismael Santos alias “Ka Tony,” were charged with Kidnapping for Ransom (Criminal Case No. 12778-MN) and Kidnapping with Murder (Criminal Case No. 12779-MN). Only accused-appellant and Nuñez were convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay damages. The prosecution established that on January 21, 1993, Nuñez persuaded 14-year-old Joseph Rivera to go with him on the pretext of turning over gun sale proceeds to Rivera’s father, and also brought along Rivera’s classmate, Neil Patrick Quillosa. The two boys were taken to a nipa hut in Dampalit, Malabon, where their hands and feet were tied. Accused-appellant arrived, checked the bindings, and a ransom tape demanding three million pesos from Rivera’s parents was recorded. Nuñez then dragged Quillosa to the middle of a river and left him to drown while accused-appellant stood guard over Rivera. Quillosa’s body was later recovered, with the cause of death determined as asphyxia due to strangulation. Rivera eventually escaped and reported the kidnapping. The lower court convicted both accused of Kidnapping for Ransom and the complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay damages. Accused-appellant appealed, claiming his low intelligence exempted him from criminal liability, that there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy, and that he acted under uncontrollable fear.

ISSUE

1. Whether accused-appellant’s alleged low level of intelligence/imbecility exempts him from criminal liability.
2. Whether the records are sufficient to hold a finding of conspiracy against accused-appellant.
3. Whether accused-appellant should be acquitted by reason of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

RULING

1. No. The Court found that the defense counsel’s attribution of imbecility was not supported by evidence. Imbecility, as an exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, requires that the offender be completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of the crime. Accused-appellant’s act of cutting grass rather than guarding his victim was indicative of negligence, not childishness or a complete deprivation of reason. He admitted on cross-examination that he could tell right from wrong. The law presumes every person to be of sound mind absent proof to the contrary, and the allegation of imbecility was not clearly proved.
2. Yes. The Court found sufficient evidence of conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The acts of accused-appellant, such as checking the bindings of the victims, standing guard over Rivera while Quillosa was drowned, and his presence and actions throughout the incident, demonstrated a community of criminal purpose and a joint purpose and design. His claim that he was merely following orders due to fear was belied by evidence showing he had opportunities to escape but did not.
3. No. The Court rejected the claim of acting under uncontrollable fear. Accused-appellant’s assertion that Nuñez poked a gun at him and threatened him with death was belied by testimonial evidence. Furthermore, the Court found that accused-appellant had at least four opportunities to escape but did not take them, negating the presence of an uncontrollable fear that would exempt him from liability. The defense of uncontrollable fear requires that the fear be actual, serious, and founded on a reasonable cause, and that the accused had no opportunity to escape or defend himself, which was not present in this case.
The conviction was affirmed.