G.R. No. 95322 March 1, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pablito Domasian and Dr. Samson Tan, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On March 11, 1982, eight-year-old Enrico Paulo Agra was walking with a classmate in Lopez, Quezon, when he was approached by a man (later identified as Pablito Domasian) who requested his help in getting a medical certificate signed by his father, Dr. Enrique Agra. Enrico agreed and was taken by tricycle and minibus to Gumaca. During the journey, Domasian restrained and threatened Enrico to stop crying. In Gumaca, Domasian handed a jeepney driver an envelope addressed to Dr. Agra. They then took another tricycle to San Vicente. The tricycle driver, Alexander Grate, became suspicious, reported to barangay tanods, and pursued them. Domasian fled, leaving Enrico behind. Enrico was reunited with his parents. Later that day, Dr. Agra received the envelope containing a ransom note demanding P1 million for Enrico’s release. Dr. Agra recognized the handwriting as that of Dr. Samson Tan, a resident physician in his hospital. The NBI confirmed Tan authored the note. Enrico identified Domasian from a police folder of pictures. Both accused were charged with Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention. Their defenses were alibi and denial. The trial court convicted them.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution witnesses are credible.
2. Whether the handwriting analysis proving Dr. Tan authored the ransom note is reliable.
3. Whether the crime committed is Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention.
4. Whether there was a conspiracy between Domasian and Tan.
5. Whether constitutional rights violations alleged by Domasian affect the conviction.

RULING

1. Yes. The trial court found the victim, Enrico, “straight-forward, natural and consistent.” His classmate, Tirso Ferreras, and tricycle driver, Alexander Grate, positively identified Domasian. These witnesses had no ill motive. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect.
2. Yes. The NBI expert’s opinion, found more comprehensive by the trial court, was bolstered by Dr. Agra’s testimony that he was familiar with Tan’s handwriting from daily hospital records. The defense expert’s contrary opinion was accorded less weight.
3. Yes. Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime not only by confinement in an enclosure but by any manner of deprivation of liberty. Domasian deprived Enrico, a minor, of his liberty by restraining and dragging him to various locations. The purpose of extorting ransom also qualifies the crime.
4. Yes. Conspiracy was established by the unity of purpose and concerted actions: Domasian detained the boy and delivered the ransom note; Tan, with motive (a denied loan request), wrote the note. Their acts were complementary to the common objective of extorting ransom.
5. No. Domasian’s claims of warrantless arrest, torture, and being held incommunicado do not vitiate the conviction as he never gave a confession. The claim of warrantless seizure of handwriting samples fails because the documents were taken by Dr. Agra, a private individual, not by state agents. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on official, not private, action.
The appealed decision convicting both accused of Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detination under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED. The Commission on Human Rights is directed to investigate Domasian’s allegations of rights violations.