Nenita was about to cross the street in Commonwealth Avenue when she was forcibly loaded into a van where Michelle and May, the two accused in this case, along with several other men and women demanded from her that they give them her money and jewelry. Threatened with harm, Nenita accompanied the accused to their house, where she took out jewelry amounting to P3,000,000.00. They then proceeded to her bank, where she was made to withdraw cash amounting to P400,000.00. While waiting for the bank officer to pre-terminate her account so she can withdraw the money and give it to the accused, police officers accompanied by her daughter and driver arrived at the bank, assisted her, and arrested the accused. Charges for kidnapping for ransom were filed against the accused. The RTC convicted them, which the CA affirmed.
They assail the credibility of the testimony of Nenita, as well as the award of moral damages in their appeal to the Supreme Court. They posit that Nenita’s testimony was tainted with inconsistency as to make it incredible.
The Issue:
Whether or not the accused should be held liable for kidnapping for ransom.
The Ruling:
The appeal is unmeritorious.
Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, thus:
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. – 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:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. 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.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
In prosecuting a case involving the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the following elements must be established: (i) the accused was a private person; (ii) he kidnapped or detained, or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty; (iii) the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (iv) the victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom.Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that will release him from captivity.No specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom is intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim’s freedom.The amount of, and purpose for, the ransom is immaterial.
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the above-mentioned elements. In her testimony, Nenita, a private person, narrated how she was deprived of her liberty from the time she was forcibly taken by the appellants and their companions for the purpose of extorting money and jewelry from her until she relented to their demands, thus:
ATTY. LEGASPI
Q: Now, Ms. Witness, you said that you were forcibly taken inside the vehicle. Will you tell us what particular [vehicle] is this? What type of vehicle?
A: I think it was a Ford Fiera.
Q: And while inside the vehicle, what, if any, did these persons tell you?
A: They told me that I should go with them, sir.
Q: And aside from that, what else did they tell you?
A: If you are not going to come with us, something bad will happen to you.
Q: And what was your reaction?
A: was so afraid because of the threat they gave me that they will bodily harm me.
Q: And while on board the said vehicle, where were you taken, Ms. Witness?
A: They squeezed me inside the vehicle, sir.
Q: And in what place were you taken, Ms. Witness?
A: The vehicle was going towards Regalado Street.
x x x x
Q: And at that point when the said vehicle had reached Regalado Avenue, what, if any, did these persons do to you?
A: When they were threatening me, they told me that there’s only one thing that we want from you, your jewelry and your money and then we will set you free.
Q: And after being told or having demanded that you give them your jewelries and you give them your jewelries and you give them a certain amount of money, what, if any, did you do after that?
A: They said that they will set me free if I’m going to give them what they’re asking which is (sic) money and my jewelries.
Q: And upon hearing the said demand, what, if any, did you do?
A: I was so afraid since I boarded their vehicle. They persistently threatened me.
Q: And what happened after that, Mr. Witness?
A: They told me that if I should give them the money and the jewelries that they were asking and if I will be able to deliver said items, they will set me free and that will be the only time that I will be set free.
Appellants argue that Nenita’s testimony is incredible and inconsistent, however, a close reading of her testimony shows otherwise. She was able to positively identify the individuals who abducted her, as well as the manner in which she was abducted. There was nothing inconsistent in her testimony. In fact, it was well detailed and was corroborated by other witnesses. As aptly found by the CA:
Ana, as noted by the trial court, clearly saw accused-appellants when they [accompanied] her to their house. Believing that they were officemates of her mother, she left them at their living room while she returned to her chore. Mel, bank officer at PNB, also positively identified accused-appellants in open court as the ones who closely guarded Nenita while attempting to withdraw money from the bank. It is quite suspicious that accused-appellants who are strangers were right beside Nenita while she was going to preterminate her time deposit. As concluded by the trial court, their presence at such close proximity to Nenita only means that they are waiting for the withdrawal of the amount of Php400,000.00 and right then and there take it from her.
The prosecution witnesses’ testimonies agree on the essential facts and substantially corroborate a consistent and coherent whole. No less than four witnesses positively identified the accused-appellants as the persons who abducted Nenita, accompanied her to her house and thereafter proceeded to PNB near the BIR in Quezon City. Such unwavering identification of the accused-appellants convince us that accused-appellants are indeed guilty.
The question of credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trial court to determine. For this reason, its observations and conclusions are accorded great respect on appeal. This rule is variously stated thus: The trial court’s assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. It is conclusive and binding unless shown to be tainted with arbitrariness or unless, through oversight, some fact or circumstance of weight and influence has not been considered.[ Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, or that the judge acted arbitrarily, his assessment of the credibility of witnesses deserves high respect by appellate courts.
Anent the claim of inconsistencies, what really prevails is the consistency of the testimonies of the witnesses in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the appellants. Slight contradictions in fact even serve to strengthen the credibility of the witnesses and prove that their testimonies are not rehearsed. They are, thus, safeguards against memorized perjury.
As to appellants’ denial, such cannot be accorded more weight than the positive identification of them by the witnesses. It must always be remembered that between positive and categorical testimony which has a ring of truth to it on the one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails.Also, the absurdity of appellants’ claim that they were merely acting as good Samaritans in accompanying Nenita to the bank has not been unnoticed by the CA and the RTC, thus:
x x x To repeat, accused-appellants’ defense that they were just being good Samaritans to Nenita is absurd and distrustful. Though it may be. understandable for one to seek assistance from strangers if one is feeling wealcor dizzy, it is so unlikely for a person to ask a complete stranger to accompany you to the bank. As aptly stated by the trial court, it is unacceptable for a person to ask a complete stranger to accompany her inside her house, wait for her to rest and then accompany her to the bank. More so, it is dumbfounding that Nenita would prefer the two accused-appellants to accompany her to a bank instead of her own daughter to terminate her account and then withdraw such a huge amount of money of Php400,000.00. x x x
There is, however, a need to modify the amounts of damages awarded pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.The amount of damages are increased to P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. There is also a need to award the victim the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity. In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a kind of monetary restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage or infraction that was done to the latter by the accused, which in a sense only covers the civil aspect.Interest is also imposed on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Michelle Parba-Rural and May Almohan-Daza is DISMISSED, for lack merit and the Decision dated October 5, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, affirming the Decision dated July 31, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 223, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-08-150324 convicting appellants of kidnapping for ransom, as defined in and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellants are ORDERED to PAY the private complainant, jointly and solidarily, the amounts of P100,000.00, as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in accordance with People v. Jugueta,[24] with the appellants paying an interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
PERALTA, J.:
Carpio, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
G. R. No. 231884, June 27, 2018, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MICHELLE PARBA-RURAL AND MAY ALMOHAN-DAZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
Citations omitted.
1 thought on “No specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom is intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim’s freedom.”