Unlawful taking and detention

Kidnapping is the unlawful taking and carrying away of a human being against his or her will by force, fraud, threat or intimidation. If the person kidnapped is detained and deprived of his liberty, the crime becomes kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The crime is aggravated when it is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom or when the victim is a minor or when the detention lasted for more than three days. Under these circumstances, it becomes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death (Article 267 Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659). This is the crime involved in this case.

This is the case of Emily a 16-year-old high school student who is the daughter of Eddie and Maine whose marriage is already annulled. Eddie is a civil engineer while Maine is a CPA. Before breaking up they begat Emily and adopted three sons. The couple became quite affluent in the practice of their professions and was able to establish a residence in one of the plush villages in the suburbs with the children studying in exclusive schools. They broke up when Maine left the conjugal home and separated from the family, leaving the children in the custody of Eddie. Taking care of the children was Blessie. Also staying in the house were Rey the driver and Dado the houseboy who also served as substitute driver. 

The crime happened one morning while Emily was on the way to school riding in their family van driven by Rey together Dado the co-driver riding in the front seat. Seated at the second row were Emily and her Yaya Blessie while at the third row were her adopted brother Ethan and his Yaya. As the van slowed down at an intersection near the school, a utility vehicle running in front suddenly stopped and backed up towards the van as four armed men dress in black alighted and forcibly took Emily at the point of gun despite the stiff resistance from Yaya Blessie. They sped off in the opposite direction and were able to elude Rey, Dado and Blessie who tried to follow them. Upon reporting the incident to the responding police they proceeded to the Police Station who brought them to the National Anti-Kidnapping Office (NAKTAF) in Camp Crame where Rey was able to identify two of the men as Jimmy and Jomar based on the pictures shown to him.

On the same day and for several days, Eddie received phone calls at his residence from a man who identified himself as Kumander Kidlat informing that his group had Emily and demanding ransom money of P100 million for Emily’s release. After a series of negotiations the ransom money was reduced to P8 million with Eddie contributing P6 million and his ex-wife Maine contributing P2 million.

The ransom money was delivered by Maine and the personal driver of Eddie as instructed but Emily was not yet released. And for several days the family did not hear from Emily causing the confinement of Eddie at a hospital due to stress. With the aid of the NAKTAF operatives, further negotiations were made for another amount of ransom money until the kidnappers agreed to an additional P3 million.

And so Maine and a NAKTAF agent delivered the additional ransom money at the designated place. Then after 27 days, Emily was finally reunited with her family arriving at their residence riding a taxi cab hired by the kidnappers.

Thus Jimmy and the two other suspects were charged before the Regional Trial Court with kidnapping for ransom as defined and penalized under Article 267 of the RPC as amended by RA 7659, as the ten others remained unidentified and at large. But only Jimmy was arrested, arraigned and tried because the two other accused remained at large. One of them even died during the trial.

At the trial the Prosecution presented 11 witnesses attesting to what happened as above set forth. Jimmy on the other hand presented four witnesses to prove his defense of alibi that he was in his native province visiting the grave of his father. This was corroborated by two of his childhood friend in the province. He also testified that when the incident happened he was still a member of the Philippine Marine assigned as a closed-in-security to a former President.

But the trial court still convicted Jimmy of kidnapping for ransom in violation of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659, and sentenced him to death and to pay all damages. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) with the modification that his death sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua. Despite these rulings Jimmy still appealed to the Supreme Court (SC) insisting on his defense of alibi and that he was a member of the Philippine Marines when the crime happened.

The SC however still affirmed the CA decision. It declared that the prosecution was able to   indubitably prove that Jimmy and his group intentionally and actually took the minor Emily and detained her for the purpose of extorting money for her redemption. It did not accept Jimmy’s alibi because he was positively identified by the family drivers whose testimonies must prevail over his mere denial and alibi. Besides he was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime as there was facility of access between the two places. The witnesses who corroborated his alibi were his childhood friends and therefore clearly biased in his favor.

Thus the CA is correct in convicting him and reducing his penalty to reclusion perpetua in the light of the passage of RA 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty (People vs. Mostrales, G.R. 184925, June 15, 2011).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]