GR 134203; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134203 ; May 27, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ELVIE EJANDRA, MAGDALENA CALUNOD, ANTONIO HUERA, ROEL REVILLA CERON, and EDWIN TAMPOS, appellants.
FACTS
On July 2, 1997, nine-year-old Ed Henderson Tan was abducted outside his school in Quezon City. Appellants Edwin Tampos, armed with a revolver, chased the victim and forced him onto a motorcycle where appellants Elvie Ejandra and Roel Revilla were waiting. The boy was taken to a house where he saw appellants Magdalena Calunod and Antonio Huera. The kidnappers, with Ejandra appearing as the leader, compelled the victim to write his father’s contact details. They then used a cellphone to contact the boy’s father, Eddie Tan, demanding a ransom of Ten Million Pesos (₱10,000,000) and threatening to mutilate and kill the victim if unpaid.
Eddie Tan, in a state of terror, negotiated with the kidnappers, who eventually reduced the ransom demand. He managed to borrow ₱548,000, which he delivered as instructed. Following the payment, the victim was released in a public market. The appellants were subsequently arrested and charged with kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellants for the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the young victim, Ed Henderson Tan, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent even under rigorous cross-examination. His positive identification of all appellants, detailing their specific roles in his abduction, detention, and the ransom negotiations, constituted conclusive proof of their conspiracy. The fact of ransom payment was also established through the father’s testimony and the recovery of marked money from appellant Calunod.
The defense of denial and alibi proffered by the appellants was inherently weak and could not prevail over the victim’s positive identification. Conspiracy was evident from their collective actions leading to the deprivation of the victim’s liberty for the purpose of extorting ransom. The crime was thus qualified under Article 267, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 , warranting the imposition of the death penalty. However, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and the awards for moral and actual damages were modified accordingly.