GR 173308; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173308; June 27, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ELMER DE LA CRUZ and TRANQUILINO MARTINEZ, appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Elmer de la Cruz, the family driver, and Tranquilino Martinez were charged with kidnapping for ransom of eight-year-old Aaron Dennis Ong. The prosecution established that De la Cruz proposed the kidnapping, citing his employer’s wealth. On November 9, 1998, De la Cruz fetched Aaron from school, feigned car trouble, and signaled accomplices. Martinez entered the car, handcuffed Aaron to De la Cruz, and the group transported the boy to a safehouse in Bulacan. Martinez later directed a co-accused to call the victim’s father, Erwin Ong, demanding a three-million-peso ransom for the boy’s safe release.
The following day, a barangay official discovered Aaron and De la Cruz in a vacant house. De la Cruz gave a false story, but Aaron revealed they had been kidnapped. Both gave statements at the barangay hall, leading to police involvement and the arrest of the appellants. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of kidnapping for ransom and imposed the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, prompting this automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants for the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the credibility of witnesses, particularly the minor victim, is accorded great respect. Aaron’s positive identification of De la Cruz and Martinez as his kidnappers was clear and consistent. The element of deprivation of liberty was proven by the forcible taking and restraint. The demand for ransom was conclusively established through the testimony on the phone call demanding three million pesos, a distinct element elevating the crime from simple kidnapping to kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court rejected the defenses of denial and alibi, which are inherently weak against positive identification. It also found the discharge of a co-accused as a state witness to be proper, as his testimony was essential and corroborative. Applying Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the death penalty, the Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without parole. The awards of damages were also adjusted, granting civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim. The decision of the Court of Appeals was thus affirmed with modifications to the penalty and damages.