G.R. No. 121982 . September 10, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONILO CUI y BALADJAY, BEVERLY CUI y CANTUBA, EDUARDO BASINGAN y SABELLO, WILFREDO GARCIA, alias “TOTO”, JOSELITO GARCIA, alias “TATA GARCIA”, EMMANUEL GARCIA, alias “MAWI”, a certain SADAM, BEINVENIDO NACARIO y PARDILLO, alias “REY NACARIO”, a certain EDGAR, a certain BENJIE, LUIS OBESO, alias “LEOS”, HILARIA SARTE, alias “LARING”, and YUL ALVAREZ, accused, LEONILO CUI y BALADJAY, BEVERLY CUI y CANTUBA, LUIS OBESO, alias “LEOS”, and HILARIA SARTE, alias “LARING”, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of December 5, 1990, about ten armed robbers raided the compound of Johnny and Rose Lim in Cebu City. The robbers, some with flour sacks over their heads, carted away cash and jewelry worth P20,000. They also blindfolded and forcibly abducted the Lims’ 17-year-old daughter, Stephanie, demanding a P1,000,000 ransom. Johnny Lim delivered the ransom the next day, and Stephanie was released. The Lims initially kept the crime secret but reported it to the police three days later. Johnny Lim identified Wilfredo “Toto” Garcia from photographs. The police, learning that the Lims’ house guard, Eduardo Basingan, hailed from the same area as the known “Baong Gang” led by Toto Garcia, interrogated him. Basingan executed sworn statements identifying the perpetrators and revealing that the spouses Leonilo and Beverly Cui participated in planning the crime during a meeting at their residence on December 2, 1990. An information for Kidnapping with Ransom was filed. The Cuis, Luis Obeso, and Hilaria Sarte were among those arrested and arraigned. Basingan and another accused, Beinvenido Nacario, escaped detention. The trial court convicted the Cuis, Obeso, Sarte, Basingan, and Nacario, finding a conspiracy. The Cuis, Obeso, and Sarte appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping with Ransom.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found that conspiracy was established. Eduardo Basingan’s detailed sworn statements, corroborated by the testimonies of the victims and police investigators, sufficiently proved the participation of all accused. The Cuis were accomplices, having cooperated in the execution of the crime by previous acts (hosting the planning meeting) and subsequently profiting by receiving P10,000 from the loot. Their denial and claim that Basingan’s testimony was coerced were unsubstantiated. For Obeso and Sarte, their role as look-outs during the robbery and their flight after the crime were indicative of guilt. The Court held that the collective acts of the accused, done in concert, demonstrated a common design to commit the crime. The penalty imposed by the trial court was affirmed.