GR 229658; (August, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 229658 . August 28, 2019.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELMAR SANTOS Y DEL CARMEN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
On August 18, 2009, Engr. Roman Pugeda was driving home in Cavite when four armed men blocked his vehicle. They forced him into the backseat at gunpoint, blindfolded him, and commandeered his car. The kidnappers demanded a ransom of one million pesos and two Armalite rifles for his release. They took his personal belongings, including his ATM card. During the ordeal, the group also kidnapped other individuals from a Toyota Fortuner. Pugeda, under threat, negotiated the ransom down to one hundred thousand pesos and instructed his wife to deposit the money into his account, from which the kidnappers withdrew twenty thousand pesos.
The accused-appellant, Elmar Santos, was identified as one of the kidnappers. He was charged with kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Santos appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and questioning the credibility of the victim’s identification.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant Elmar Santos’s conviction for the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification. The Court held that all elements of kidnapping for ransom were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the accused deprived the victim of his liberty; (2) the deprivation was illegal; and (3) the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. The victim’s positive identification of Santos as one of the armed kidnappers who detained and threatened him was categorical and consistent. The Court found no ill motive for the victim to falsely testify, and his detailed account of the prolonged captivity, including the ransom negotiations and payment, was credible and corroborated by other evidence.
The defense of denial and alibi proffered by Santos was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification. The Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 , and affirmed the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court also ordered Santos to pay the amount extorted from the victim, with interest. The appealed decision was affirmed with modifications as stated.