G.R. No. 184179 , April 12, 2010.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JULIAN PAJES y OPONDA and MIGUEL PAGHUNASAN y URBANO, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Private complainant Amelita Yang Cesar, manager of NC Farms in Angeles City, was at her office on January 31, 2002, when a man posing as a chicken buyer (later identified as appellant Miguel Paghunasan alias “Yoyoy”) rang the doorbell. After a chicken was handed over, Paghunasan pushed the gate and five armed men forced their way inside. They barged into Cesar’s office, with the leader, Serio Panday, pointing a gun at her and extorting roughly ₱130,000.00 in payroll money. The men then took Cesar against her will, using her delivery van as a getaway vehicle. They drove to a mountain in Capas, Tarlac, picking up a guide and appellant Julian Pajes alias “Mario,” who replaced the driver. En route, a kidnapper demanded a ₱50,000,000.00 ransom from Cesar’s brother-in-law via her phone. The group detained Cesar in a nipa hut at the mountain top, where she saw Pajes, who was introduced as the driver and later ordered to dispose of the van. Negotiations continued, with Paghunasan ultimately agreeing to an ₱800,000.00 ransom. On February 1, 2002, Pajes accompanied Cesar to the Capas cemetery for the pay-off, where Paghunasan collected the ransom from Cesar’s husband (who had coordinated with the National Anti-Kidnapping Task Force) and signaled her release. A hot pursuit operation led to the arrest of appellants. They were charged with Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court convicted both appellants and initially imposed the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to Republic Act No. 9346 . Appellants appealed, with Paghunasan raising alibi and challenging the identification, and Pajes claiming he was merely an innocent driver.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of appellants Julian Pajes and Miguel Paghunasan for the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the prosecution proved all elements of Kidnapping for Ransom beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the accused kidnapped or detained another person; (2) the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (3) the kidnapping or detention was for the purpose of extorting ransom. The positive identification of appellants by the victim and witnesses was credible and consistent, overcoming Paghunasan’s weak alibi and Pajes’s claim of being an innocent driver. The Court found that both appellants actively participated in the conspiracy: Paghunasan acted as the poseur-buyer, guarded the victim, negotiated the ransom, and collected it; Pajes served as the driver, guarded the victim, and accompanied her to the ransom pay-off. Their collective actions demonstrated a common purpose to kidnap for ransom. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was proper, and appellants were also ordered to pay ₱130,000.00 as indemnity for the stolen money and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages.