G.R. No. 193833 ; November 16, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PO1 FROILAN L. TRESTIZA, P/S INSP. LORIEMAN L. MANRIQUE, and RODIE J. PINEDA @ “Buboy,” Accused. PO1 FROILAN L. TRESTIZA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant PO1 Froilan L. Trestiza, along with P/Insp. Lorieman L. Manrique and Rodie Pineda, were charged with Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Information alleged that on or about November 7, 2002, in Makati City, the accused, armed with firearms and conspiring with one PO2 Reynel Jose, willfully kidnapped Lawrence Yu and Maria Irma Navarro to extort a ransom of ₱1,000,000.00 for their release. Trestiza was separately charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition (Criminal Case No. 02-3394), of which he was acquitted on April 15, 2004, due to a discrepancy between the serial number stated in the Affidavit of Arrest and the actual firearm seized. The prosecution filed a Motion to Withdraw the Information for Kidnapping and to substitute it with an Information for Robbery, but private complainants opposed this. The trial court proceeded with the kidnapping case. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Trestiza, Manrique, and Pineda guilty as principals by direct participation of Kidnapping for Ransom, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Trestiza appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment finding accused-appellant PO1 Froilan L. Trestiza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings and conclusions of the lower courts. The elements of Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, were sufficiently proven: (1) the accused were private individuals (the fact that Trestiza and Manrique were police officers did not preclude their classification as such for the purpose of the crime when acting without public authority); (2) they kidnapped or detained another, depriving them of liberty; (3) the detention was illegal; and (4) the detention was committed by simulating public authority, a qualifying circumstance under the law. The conspiracy among the accused was established through their collective actions in abducting the victims, detaining them, and demanding ransom. The defense of denial and alibi proffered by Trestiza could not prevail over the positive identification by the victims and other witnesses. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, as the kidnapping did not result in the death of the victims. The award of damages was sustained.