Facts:

The case involves the accused, Romeo Redulosa (also known as "Micmic Redulosa," "Romeo Solon," and "Micmic Solon") and Roselo Carton, who were charged with kidnapping for ransom with murder. The incident occurred on December 3, 1981, in Cebu City, Philippines, when the nine-year-old victim, Christopher Jason Tan, was kidnapped. The accused, armed and using a motor vehicle, conspired to abduct the child and demanded a ransom of P100,000 from his parents.

The prosecution's case was supported by the testimony of Noel Tano, a former army man and security guard, who initially participated in the kidnapping plan but later withdrew. Tano testified that Redulosa had proposed the kidnapping, and they attempted to lure the child out of school on three occasions. The successful kidnapping occurred when Tano, under the pretense of being a military man, helped snatch the child after bumping into the father’s car.

After the kidnapping, the father, Tomas Tan, received ransom calls, which were reported to the police. The police investigation led to the apprehension of Redulosa, who subsequently confessed and implicated Carton. The body of Christopher Jason Tan was later discovered, showing signs of having been stabbed multiple times.

In his defense, Redulosa claimed that he was coerced into the crime by a man named Sonny, who allegedly threatened his family. He asserted that he was not the mastermind and that he had no intention of harming the child.

The Regional Trial Court found both Redulosa and Carton guilty of kidnapping for ransom with murder, imposing the death penalty. The trial court noted the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and the use of a motor vehicle in the commission of the crime.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the accused can withdraw their appeal after being sentenced to death.
  2. The implications of the 1987 Constitution's prohibition of the death penalty on the case.
  3. The effect of the enactment of R.A. No. 7659, which reimposed the death penalty for heinous crimes, on the accused's right to withdraw the appeal.

Arguments:

  • For the Accused (Redulosa): Redulosa filed a motion to withdraw his appeal, asserting that he made the decision voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences. His counsel argued that he had already served 14 years in prison and was attempting to reform.

  • For the Prosecution (Solicitor General): The Solicitor General did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal, indicating that there was no valid reason to oppose the motion.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court granted Redulosa's motion to withdraw his appeal. The Court reasoned that the death penalty imposed on him was automatically reduced to reclusion perpetua due to the 1987 Constitution, which abolished the death penalty. The Court noted that the case had ceased to be under its jurisdiction because of the constitutional changes, and thus, Redulosa had the right to withdraw his appeal.

The Court also clarified that the enactment of R.A. No. 7659, which reimposed the death penalty for heinous crimes, did not apply retroactively to crimes committed before its effectivity. Therefore, Redulosa's right to withdraw his appeal was not affected by this new law.

The Court concluded that since both the accused and the Solicitor General supported the motion, it was appropriate to grant the withdrawal and remand the case to the trial court for execution of the modified sentence of reclusion perpetua.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. The right of an accused to withdraw an appeal is recognized, provided it is done voluntarily and with understanding of the consequences.
  2. The abolition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution applies retroactively, affecting sentences imposed prior to its enactment.
  3. New laws, such as R.A. No. 7659, do not apply retroactively to crimes committed before their effectivity, preserving the rights of those previously convicted.