G.R. No. 158797 July 29, 2005
People of the Philippines vs. Elpidio Enriquez, Jr. and Emiliano Enriquez

FACTS

On January 24, 1985, appellants Elpidio “Bonggo” Enriquez, Jr. and Emiliano “Emil Tate” Enriquez were charged with kidnapping Alexander Pureza. The prosecution evidence established that around 6:50 p.m., while Pureza was with friends in Rosario, Cavite, Elpidio, dressed in military attire and armed with a revolver, arrived on a tricycle driven by Emiliano. Declaring “Huwag kayong tatakbo, awtoridad ako,” Elpidio singled out Pureza, poked a gun at him, forced him into the tricycle, and sped away. The victim was never seen again. Eyewitness Rogelio Andico immediately reported the incident, and his account was later corroborated by Feliciano Castro, who witnessed the struggle but initially remained silent out of fear, as Elpidio was the grandson of the incumbent mayor.
The appellants denied involvement, interposing alibi. Elpidio claimed he was in Sorsogon during the incident, while Emiliano asserted he was at home caring for his child and that his tricycle was non-operational. They alleged the prosecution witnesses were motivated by vendetta due to prior conflicts involving family members. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, imposing an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, certifying the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellants for the crime of kidnapping and in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution evidence, primarily the positive and credible testimonies of two eyewitnesses who consistently identified the appellants, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Their detailed accounts of the forcible taking, wherein Elpidio simulated public authority and used a firearm, were clear and convincing. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected, as it was not physically impossible for the appellants to have been at the crime scene. The appellants failed to substantiate their claims of improper motive on the part of the witnesses, which, even if true, did not detract from the credible and straightforward narration of the kidnapping event.
Regarding the penalty, the crime was committed in 1985 under the old Article 267, where the deprivation of liberty lasting more than five days was a qualifying circumstance warranting the death penalty. Since the victim was never recovered, this circumstance was duly proven. However, pursuant to the constitutional prohibition against the death penalty unless Congress provides for it for heinous crimes, and considering Republic Act No. 7659 had not yet taken effect at the time of the commission, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court thus affirmed the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. The civil indemnity awarded to the victim’s heirs was also sustained.