G.R. No. 232361 September 26, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. FRANCISCO DAMAYO Y JAIME, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The prosecution’s case established that on August 7, 2008, accused-appellant Francisco Damayo, known to the 11-year-old victim Jerome Rosario as “Kuya Frank,” fetched Jerome from his school in Muntinlupa City. Damayo instructed Jerome to accompany him, and they traveled by jeep and bus to an undisclosed location. When Jerome failed to return home, his parents reported him missing. The following day, Jerome’s mother, Edna, received a call from Damayo demanding a ransom of ₱150,000.00 for Jerome’s release, with instructions for a solo meeting in Dau, Pampanga. Edna and her husband reported the demand to the police, who orchestrated an entrapment operation. On August 9, at the designated terminal, Edna identified Damayo, leading to his arrest. Upon interrogation, Damayo revealed Jerome’s location at a house in San Fernando, Pampanga, where the boy was safely recovered.
The defense presented a starkly different narrative. Damayo claimed he was in a romantic relationship with Edna and that they were living together in Pampanga. He alleged that Edna instructed him to fetch Jerome to facilitate the boy’s transfer to a school in Pampanga, with a plan to meet afterward. Damayo asserted that Edna failed to meet them, and he subsequently brought Jerome to Pampanga. He denied making any ransom demand, stating that the call to Edna was merely to arrange for Jerome’s return after Edna’s husband discovered their plan. He claimed his arrest at the terminal was a setup.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Damayo’s guilt for the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously evaluated the conflicting testimonies and found the prosecution’s evidence to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish all elements of the crime. The fact of Jerome’s deprivation of liberty was proven by his sudden removal from school and detention in Pampanga without his parents’ knowledge or consent. The purpose of extorting ransom was conclusively demonstrated by the direct ransom demand made by Damayo to Edna, which was corroborated by the successful police entrapment. The Court gave greater weight to the testimonies of the victim and his mother, finding them straightforward and corroborated by police officers, over the self-serving and uncorroborated denial and alternative story presented by Damayo. The defense’s tale of an illicit affair and a plan to transfer schools was deemed a mere fabrication to evade liability, as it was not supported by any evidence and was inherently improbable. The Court held that denial, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over positive identification and clear evidence of the ransom demand. Consequently, the Court upheld the finding of guilt and the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, as the kidnapping involved a minor and was for the purpose of extorting ransom, circumstances which would have warranted the death penalty prior to its abolition.