G.R. No. L-64699 July 11, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLICERIO MASILANG and TEODORO A. ZAMORA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Glicerio Masilang and Teodoro Zamora planned to kidnap Vivencio Cadiz for ransom. On April 22, 1975, they flagged down Cadiz’s jeep in Lucena City, requesting a ride. Upon reaching an isolated area in Bo. Calumpang, Zamora feigned a need to urinate. When he reboarded, Masilang, seated behind Cadiz, strangled him unconscious with a wire. Appellants took control of the jeep, drove to Lucban, dumped Cadiz’s body in a ravine, and took his personal effects. They then returned to Lucena, left the jeep in Brgy. Gulang-Gulang, and proceeded to prepare a ransom note.
The following morning, appellants left the victim’s wallet containing a ransom note for P12,000 at the residence of Cadiz’s father, Dr. Leoncio Cadiz. After discreetly coordinating with authorities, Dr. Cadiz delivered the ransom money as instructed in a subsequent note. Appellants successfully collected the money on April 25. Investigation eventually traced the victim’s wristwatch to Zamora. A third ransom note provided a handwriting lead to Masilang, leading to confessions and the discovery of the victim’s body. An information for kidnapping for ransom with murder was filed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellants of the crime of murder, not the complex crime of kidnapping with murder, and properly appreciated the qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder, not the complex crime. The legal logic is that kidnapping requires the actual deprivation of liberty. Here, the victim was killed almost immediately upon reaching the isolated location through strangulation. There was no period of confinement or restraint separate from the killing itself; the intent to kidnap was subsumed by the immediate execution of the murder. The demand for ransom, occurring after the victim’s death, did not convert the offense into kidnapping but was treated as an aggravating circumstance of demand for ransom or price.
The Court upheld the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The attack was sudden, from behind, using a wire, and executed in a manner that ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The appellants employed intellectual treachery by feigning a ride request and a stop to urinate, deliberately luring the victim to a secluded area to facilitate the attack without risk. The generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and use of a motor vehicle were also properly appreciated. The jeep was instrumental in luring the victim, transporting his body, and facilitating the appellants’ escape. However, due to the lack of necessary votes, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, and an indemnity of P30,000 was awarded to the heirs.