GR 109939; (June, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109939 ; June 8, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLORIA MITTU y CINTO AND GERVACIO SOLIDAD y LLANES, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On August 31, 1992, appellants Gloria Mittu and Gervacio Solidad kidnapped four-year-old Vik Ramjit Singh and his 15-year-old nursemaid, Mary Jane Coña, while they were walking to school in Kalookan City. Mittu forcibly took the victims and loaded them into a tricycle driven by Solidad. They were transported to Muntinlupa and detained for two days, during which Mittu made the child call his father. The victims were then separated and hidden in different houses in Novaliches. The child’s parents, Dhanwant and Caridad Singh, soon began receiving phone calls from an unidentified male demanding a ransom of P100,000 for their son’s release, with warnings not to involve the police.
After seeking help from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Singhs were instructed to cooperate. The kidnappers eventually directed Dhanwant Singh to deliver the ransom to Gloria Mittu at a restaurant. On September 4, 1992, an NBI team monitored the exchange. Mittu arrived, collected P50,000, and promised to return with the victims. She later returned in a taxi with Solidad and the child. After confirming the boy’s safe release, NBI agents arrested both appellants.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the child victim and his nursemaid, to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish all elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The witnesses positively identified Mittu as the one who seized them and Solidad as the driver who transported them, proving conspiracy through their concerted actions. The series of ransom demands and the actual payment to Mittu conclusively established the motive of extortion.
The Court rejected the defense of alibi and denial, which were inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the victims. It also clarified that the corpus delicti of the crime is the fact of kidnapping itself, which was proven by witness testimony, and not the ransom money’s recovery. Regarding the penalty, although the law prescribed death, the crime was committed in 1992 before the reimposition of capital punishment. Therefore, the penalty next lower in degree, reclusion perpetua, was correctly imposed by the trial court. The decision was affirmed in toto.