GR 123779; (April, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123779; April 17, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN SURIAGA y CHAVEZ, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On January 22, 1995, accused-appellant Ruben Suriaga, along with his live-in partner Rosita Dela Cruz, took two-year-old Nicole Ramos from her family’s care in Caloocan City under the pretense of buying barbeque. They failed to return the child. The victim’s grandfather subsequently received a ransom demand for ₱100,000.00 from Suriaga, which was reported to the police. The following day, Suriaga reiterated the demand to the child’s mother, Mercedita Ramos, with threats to harm Nicole if the money was not paid. A police operation was set, leading to the arrest of Suriaga and an accomplice, Joel Isidera, during the ransom pay-off at Fairview General Hospital, Quezon City. The child was successfully rescued from a shanty where she was detained.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Ruben Suriaga for the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. The Court meticulously reviewed the records and found the prosecution’s evidence, primarily the testimonies of eyewitnesses and the victim’s parents, to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish all elements of the crime. The defense of mere “borrowing” of the child proffered by Suriaga was deemed inherently unbelievable and was overwhelmingly contradicted by the proven facts, particularly the ransom calls and the clandestine detention. The Court held that the taking of the minor was attended by the specific intent to derive profit, constituting the special aggravating circumstance of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The minority of the victim and the demand for ransom, both alleged in the Information, were conclusively proven. While some Justices maintained their view on the unconstitutionality of the death penalty, the majority upheld its constitutionality and application. The penalty was thus affirmed in accordance with the law.