G.R. No. 214502 , November 25, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Franco Darmo de Guzman y Yanzon, a.k.a. Darmo Yazon y Cortez, a.k.a. Franco de Guzman y Cortez, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed against appellant Franco Darmo de Guzman for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of the minor victim AAA, his father BBB, his brother CCC, and arresting officers, established that on October 1, 2010, appellant, after claiming his belongings were stolen, sought help from 17-year-old AAA in Isetann Mall, Recto, Manila. With permission from AAA’s mother, appellant stayed at AAA’s house. On October 6, 2010, appellant, accompanied by AAA, CCC, and a friend, went to a Citibank in Makati under the pretext of withdrawing money and obtaining ATM cards. Appellant took AAA with him to the bank but instead brought him to an old house in Cogeo, Antipolo, where AAA was detained from October 6 to October 14, 2010. Appellant threatened AAA with bodyguards, deprived him of liberty, and subjected him to sexual acts under the guise of completing “missions.” AAA’s absence was reported to the police and a news program. On October 14, 2010, barangay officials and police, acting on a tip from a news report, rescued AAA from the house where he was found with appellant. The defense version claimed appellant and AAA were friends, that AAA insisted on accompanying him to Antipolo, and that AAA was never detained, as he could freely leave the house. Appellant denied the sexual allegations.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention as defined under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which found appellant guilty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the minor victim AAA, whose testimony on the deprivation of liberty was corroborated by his brother, father, and the arresting officers. The Court found no reason to overturn these credibility findings. Appellant’s defense of denial was deemed weak and uncorroborated. The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention were present: (1) appellant is a private individual; (2) he kidnapped or detained AAA, or deprived him of liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping was illegal; and (4) the detention lasted for more than three days and the victim was a minor. The duration of detention (eight days) and the minority of the victim qualified the crime under Article 267. The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to RA 9346, plus moral and exemplary damages. The appeal was dismissed.