G.R. No. 121971 ; October 16, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EX-MAYOR APOLINARIO PERALTA, ALBERT ABARRA, LEONILO DRIZ, ROMY EDRA, KIM SUNGA, BOY FRANCO, DENNIS VINOYA, OSCAR BARBA and TONY ANTONIO, accused, ROMY EDRA and BOY FRANCO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Romy Edra and Boy Franco were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The kidnapping victim, Evelyn Cu-Unjieng, was abducted in Makati on June 16, 1993, detained in Tarlac, and released only after a P4,000,000 ransom was paid by her husband in La Union. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimonies of co-accused Apolinario Peralta and Albert Abarra, who were discharged as state witnesses. They testified that the kidnapping was planned in an apartment rented by Edra and Franco in May 1993. During the planning, Edra was assigned as a lookout to signal the victim’s departure, while Franco’s role was to stay in the apartment to receive phone calls and relay instructions.
The defense of Edra and Franco consisted of denial and alibi. They claimed they were merely present in the apartment where planning occurred but were not participants. Franco asserted he only allowed co-accused to use his telephone for personal calls, unaware of any kidnapping plot. The trial court found their defenses not credible, noting the inherent improbability of their claims given their consistent presence during critical conspiratorial activities and the use of their residence as a communication hub for the ransom negotiations.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellants Romy Edra and Boy Franco for the crime of kidnapping for ransom was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings, emphasizing that the testimonies of the state witnesses, corroborated by circumstantial evidence, sufficiently established the appellants’ participation in the conspiracy. The legal logic rests on the principle of conspiracy, where an act of one is the act of all, and direct participation in every detail of the execution is not required. The appellants’ specific roles—Edra as a lookout and Franco as the communication liaison—were integral to the scheme’s success. Their presence during the planning sessions and the operational use of their apartment for coordination demonstrated a conscious and deliberate sharing of the criminal intent to kidnap for ransom.
The Court found the defenses of denial and alibi weak and inherently unpersuasive against the positive identification and detailed narration provided by the state witnesses. The appellants’ claim of non-participation was contradicted by their continued presence and facilitation of key logistical elements of the crime. The evidence established that Franco’s apartment was the nerve center for communications, and his role in receiving and transmitting messages was vital to extorting the ransom. Consequently, their individual contributions, performed in concert with the group, made them equally liable for the complex crime of kidnapping for ransom. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus correctly imposed.