G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PETRUS YAU a.k.a. “John” and “Ricky” and SUSANA YAU y SUMOGBA a.k.a. “Susan”, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Petrus Yau and Susana Yau were charged with Kidnapping for Ransom. The prosecution alleged that on January 20, 2004, Petrus, driving a white Toyota taxi, picked up Alastair Joseph Onglingswam from Makati Shangri-La Hotel. While Onglingswam was on a phone call along EDSA near SM Megamall, he felt groggy and lost consciousness. He awoke handcuffed and chained inside a house in Bacoor, Cavite, owned by Susana. A masked man named “John” (identified as Petrus) informed him he was kidnapped for a ransom of US$600,000 and a daily fee of Php20,000. During his 22-day captivity, he was maltreated and forced to call his family for money. Deposits were made to an account under “Ong Kwai Ping.” On February 11, 2004, police officers, after locating the taxi, arrested Petrus. He led them to his house where Onglingswam was found and rescued. DNA tests matched Petrus to a mask used by the captor. The defense denied the accusations. Petrus claimed he was arrested while on his way to the bank, beaten, and his personal items confiscated. He alleged the case was a setup. Susana claimed she was separated from Petrus and was not involved.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Petrus Yau as principal and Susana Yau as accomplice to the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATIONS to the awards of damages. The Court held that the prosecution proved the guilt of both accused beyond reasonable doubt.
For Petrus Yau: The elements of kidnapping for ransom were all established: (1) Onglingswam was deprived of his liberty; (2) the deprivation was illegal; (3) the kidnapping was for the purpose of extorting ransom; and (4) the accused was the kidnapper. Petrus was positively identified by the victim as the taxi driver and captor “John.” His leading the police to the victim’s location constituted a judicial admission. The DNA match to the mask was conclusive. His defenses of denial, frame-up, and alibi were weak and unsubstantiated.
For Susana Yau: She was correctly convicted as an accomplice. An accomplice is one who, not being a principal, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. The evidence showed she owned the house where the victim was detained for 22 days. She visited the house, knew of the detention, and provided meals to the victim. Her acts of supplying food and failing to report the crime, despite having the liberty to do so, constituted indispensable cooperation. Her defense of separation from Petrus was belied by evidence of her continued involvement with the house and the victim.
The awards of damages were modified. Petrus Yau was ordered to pay the victim: Php100,000 as civil indemnity, Php100,000 as moral damages, and Php100,000 as exemplary damages. Susana Yau, as an accomplice, was ordered to pay: Php50,000 as civil indemnity, Php50,000 as moral damages, and Php50,000 as exemplary damages. Both were ordered to pay interest on all damages at 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid. The actual damages awarded by the lower courts were deleted for lack of sufficient evidence.