GR 195196; (July, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 195196 , July 13, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Estanly Octa y Bas, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
On September 25, 2003, Johnny Corpuz and Mike Adrian Batuigas were kidnapped in Manila by armed men. The kidnappers demanded a ransom from Johnny’s wife, Ana Marie Corpuz. After negotiations, the ransom was set at ₱538,000. On September 30, 2003, Ana Marie delivered the ransom at a designated location to a man she described as good-looking, lightly built, in his early 20s, around 5’4″ in height, and with dimples, whom she later identified in court as accused-appellant Estanly Octa. The victims were released on October 1, 2003. Accused-appellant was arrested on December 4, 2003, and identified by Ana Marie in a police line-up. He was charged with kidnapping for ransom. The defense presented denial and alibi, claiming he was in Daet, Camarines Norte, at the time of the kidnapping and was himself abducted and tortured by police in December 2003. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
1. Whether the prosecution positively identified accused-appellant as the ransom taker.
2. Whether accused-appellant was a conspirator to the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
3. Whether the conviction was based merely on circumstantial evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court held:
1. The positive identification of accused-appellant by prosecution witness Ana Marie Corpuz was credible, categorical, consistent, and without ill motive. The trial court’s findings on credibility are accorded high respect. The alleged inconsistencies in her testimony were minor and did not affect her positive identification.
2. Accused-appellant was a co-conspirator. His act of receiving the ransom money while the victims were still detained was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit kidnapping for ransom.
3. The evidence was not merely circumstantial. The positive identification constituted direct evidence of his participation.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The awards of actual damages (₱538,000) and moral damages (₱100,000) were sustained. Exemplary damages were increased from ₱50,000 to ₱100,000 in accordance with recent jurisprudence.