G.R. Nos. 118099-100 August 22, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO TAZO y YABUT and POMPEYO VARGAS y DIALOGO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On January 5, 1994, at around 6:30 a.m., Marilyn Boco and her seven-year-old daughter Reynalyn were walking in Sampaloc, Manila. A heavily tinted black car stopped near them. Two masked men alighted, poked guns at them, and forced them into the vehicle. Inside, Marilyn saw two more men, whom she later identified as appellants Ricardo Tazo and Pompeyo Vargas. The victims were blindfolded and detained.
The group traveled for thirty minutes. Marilyn was ordered to call her husband to demand a P10,000 ransom for their release. They were later brought to a house resembling a printing press in Caloocan City, where Marilyn saw three other bound and gagged children. During detention, the appellants acted as lookouts. Tazo slapped Reynalyn, and both accused ordered Marilyn to undress, suspecting she hid money. To end the maltreatment, Marilyn surrendered P5,000 she was carrying to Vargas. The appellants later released Marilyn and her daughter in Sta. Cruz, Manila, that afternoon.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ defenses. Their claim that pleading not guilty and appealing their conviction proves innocence is absurd, as it would logically result in the acquittal of all accused who do the same. Their alibi defenses were also unavailing. Tazo claimed he was having breakfast in Caloocan, while Vargas asserted he was at work there. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses.
Marilyn Boco positively and unequivocally identified Tazo and Vargas as among her kidnappers. Her testimony was corroborated by her daughter. As a victim who was in close proximity to the appellants for several hours, her identification is reliable and credible. The record shows no improper motive for her to falsely testify against them, as they were strangers prior to the incident. Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Appellants failed to do this, as they were both in Caloocan City—the very location where the victims were detained—during the commission of the crime. Thus, their presence at the scene was not physically foreclosed.