G.R. No. 184925 ; June 15, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSEPH MOSTRALES y ABAD, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On April 18, 2002, Joseph Mostrales, Diosdado Santos, Ronnie Tan, and ten John Does were charged with Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Information alleged that on November 12, 2001, in Mandaluyong City, the accused conspired to kidnap Ma. Angela Vina Dee Pineda, a minor, to extort ransom from her parents, threatening to kill her, and that the kidnapping lasted more than five days with a ransom payment of Eleven Million Pesos (₱11,000,000.00). Mostrales pleaded not guilty; his co-accused remained at-large.
The prosecution established that on November 12, 2001, at 6:35 a.m., the victim Ma. Angela, her siblings, and household staff were en route to school in a van driven by Herminio Altarejos. On Calderon Street, a red Toyota Revo blocked and then reversed into their van. Four armed men alighted. Two, including Mostrales, pointed guns at Herminio and demanded he open the door. The other two forced Alex Afable out. One of the men, identified as Diosdado Santos, entered the van, seized Ma. Angela, and took her to the Revo, which then sped away. Herminio, Alex, and nanny Elsie Bisagas reported the incident and later identified Mostrales and Santos from police photographs.
That same day, a man identifying himself as “Kumander Kidlat” called the victim’s father, Dr. Vinzon Pineda, demanding ransom, initially for ₱100 million, later negotiated down. The kidnapper threatened to kill and rape Ma. Angela. On November 17, 2001, after the ransom was negotiated to ₱8 million, the victim’s mother, Ma. Aurora Pineda, delivered the money in a backpack to a man at the Smart Zed billboard along C-5, following Kidlat’s instructions. The man mentioned “Aguila,” took the money and her cellphone, and told her to proceed to a Shell station in Pasig where Ma. Angela would be released. Ma. Angela was found there, blindfolded and her hands tied. She was recovered and later testified about her ordeal.
The defense presented an alibi. Mostrales claimed he was at his sister’s house in Pasig on November 12, 2001, and that he was arrested based on a mistaken identity from a photograph. His witnesses corroborated his presence elsewhere.
The Regional Trial Court found Mostrales guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to death. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and increased the civil indemnity and damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Joseph Mostrales for the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION. The Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish Mostrales’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court held that all elements of Kidnapping for Ransom were proven: (1) the victim was a minor; (2) she was deprived of her liberty; (3) the act was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom; and (4) the accused was a private person. The positive identification of Mostrales by prosecution witnesses Herminio Altarejos and Elsie Bisagas, who had a clear view of him during the abduction, was categorical and consistent. Their identification was not weakened by the fact they only identified him from a photograph after the incident, as such a procedure is acceptable. The defense of alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive identification. The Court found the alibi weak and unsubstantiated, as the place where Mostrales claimed to be was not so far as to preclude his presence at the crime scene.
The Court modified the awarded damages. It affirmed the award of ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱100,000.00 as moral damages. However, it reduced the exemplary damages from ₱100,000.00 to ₱50,000.00, citing prevailing jurisprudence. The Court also imposed interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid. The penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was affirmed.