THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 210434. December 5, 2016.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee , vs. CHRISTOPHER

ELIZALDE y SUMAGDON and ALLAN PLACENTE y BUSIO , accused-
appellents.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated May 31, 2013 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05100, which af rmed the Decision 2 dated
March 4, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court ( RTC), Branch 195, Parañaque City, in Criminal
Case No. 05-0669 for kidnapping for ransom with homicide. HTcADC

The antecedent facts are as follows:

On June 3, 2005, an Information 3 was led against accused-appellants
Christopher Elizalde y Sumagdon and Allan Placente y Busio, together with their co-
accused Arcel Lucban y Lindero, Allan Dela Peña, Alden Diaz, and alias Erwin, charging
them with the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide as
de ned and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code ( RPC) for detaining
and depriving, with the use of rearms and threats, Letty Tan y Co of her liberty and
against her will, for the purpose of extorting a P20,000,000.00 ransom as a condition
for her release, by shoving her inside a red Toyota Lite Ace van, then later transferring
her to a jeepney where she was eventually found dead with gunshot wounds after an
armed encounter with police operatives. The accusatory portion of said Information
reads:
That on or about 6:30 in the evening of June 17, 2003 on Dr. A. Santos
St., Sucat Road, Parañaque City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, and mutually aiding
and abetting one another, with the use of rearms, employing force, threat, and
intimidation did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously take, carry
away, kidnap and deprive Letty Tan y Co of her liberty against her will by
shoving her inside a red Toyota Lite Ace van with plate number ULK 341 at
gunpoint and thereafter transferred her to a Mazda XLT jitney bearing plate
number CRV-299 where said victim was later found with gunshot wounds which
caused her death engaging in armed encounter with police operatives in Tarlac
City. The abduction of Letty Tan y Co was for the purpose of extorting ransom
from her family as in fact a demand for ransom was made as a condition for
her release amounting to Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00) to the damage
and prejudice of the heirs of said Letty Tan y Co in whatever amount may be
awarded them under the provisions of the New Civil Code. aScITE

Contrary to law. 4
Only appellants Elizalde and Placente as well as Dela Peña were arrested while
the rest remain at-large. Upon arraignment, they all pleaded not guilty to the offense
charged. 5 Thereafter, during trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 victim's husband, Antonio Tan, an eyewitness, Mario Ramos, and several police of cers,
namely, PO3 Nestor Acebuche, Police Inspector Joselito Nelmida, Dr. Ronaldo B.
Mendez, Kagawad Honorio Ramos Lundang, and SPO2 Miguel Acosta. 6
Antonio testi ed that at around 6:30 p.m. on June 17, 2003, while he was closing
their concrete products store, Nysan Concrete Products, along Dr. A. Santos Avenue,
Sucat, Parañaque City, Letty went inside their vehicle that was parked at the right side
of the road facing their store. Suddenly, a red Toyota Lite Ace van with plate number
ULK 341 arrived. He then saw about seven (7) armed men alight therefrom, three (3) of
which pointed their guns at him and told him not to move, while two (2) of the other
four (4) dragged Letty into their van. Thereafter, they sped away. Antonio immediately
called his children and his brother, Nick. In a series of telephone calls to the store's
phone, the kidnappers told them not to report the matter to the authorities and to be
ready with P20M the following day. Nevertheless, they called the Police Anti-Crime and
Emergency Response (PACER) unit of the PNP who met them at the Mandarin Oriental
Hotel at around 9:00 p.m. that same day. Through Antonio's cellular phone, they would
bargain with the kidnappers, telling them that they did not have the amount, to which
the kidnappers replied that they will not see Letty again without it. At noon of the next
day, the PACER team informed Antonio and his family about a shootout in Tarlac where
three (3) persons were killed. They proceeded to the Tarlac Provincial Hall where they
saw Letty's lifeless body with a gunshot below her chin. Antonio identi ed the other
bodies as those who kidnapped his wife and later learned that the others, appellants
included, were able to escape. 7
Sometime in April 2004, however, Antonio saw a news report on TV which
showed a picture of a wounded person involved in a shooting incident in Navotas. He
instantly recognized said person as appellant Elizalde and called a PACER agent to
inform him thereof. Consequently, together with the PACER team, he went to V. Luna
Hospital where Elizalde was con ned and identi ed him as one of the men who
dragged his wife into the red van. 8
A few years after, when appellant Placente was arrested in 2007, Antonio
identi ed him as one of the armed persons who poked a gun at him while the others
dragged his wife. This was through the cartographic sketches that the PACER team
drew at the time of the incident. Antonio also identi ed Placente, who was apparently
also involved in the April 2004 kidnapping, when he was shown several photos of
suspects from PACER's gallery. According to Antonio, he easily recognized appellants
for they were all not wearing masks at the time of the incident. 9
HEITAD

Prosecution witness P/Insp. Nelmilda, who had been stationed at the Intelligence
Unit of the Police Non-Commissioned Of ce ( PNCO) Tarlac City for sixteen (16) years,
likewise testi ed that in the morning of June 18, 2003, he received information that a
stolen red Toyota Light Ace van would be passing their area. Two (2) police cars were
dispatched. Aboard one (1) of the two (2) cars, Nelmida and his team tailed the red van
after seeing it pass through their control point. Upon seeing both police cars, the
passengers of the red van alighted and red at Nelmida and the other police of cers. A
shootout ensued during which a colorless jeepney passed by and likewise red at the
police. Nelmida recalled being shot at the buttocks by appellant Elizalde, who was
riding the jeepney. He further recalled that after the shootout, the jeepney passengers
eventually dumped said vehicle near a bridge along Sitio Barbon, Tarlac, wherein he saw
Letty's lifeless body. 1 0
P/Insp. Nelmida's testimony was corroborated by Mario Ramos who narrated
that at around noon on June 18, 2003, while he was walking towards Sitio Barbon with
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 his friend to go shing, he saw a colorless jeepney crisscrossing along the road. After
passing through fteen (15) meters from where they were standing, the jeepney
stopped. He then heard three (3) gunshots from inside it. Thereafter, he saw four (4)
armed persons alight therefrom to head towards the irrigation area. He recalled
appellant Elizalde being the last person to alight the jeepney. When the door of the
vehicle opened, he saw the dead body of a fat, fair-skinned Chinese woman with a bullet
hole in her head, her clothes ripped apart. When the police of cers arrived at the scene,
Ramos and his friend left. 1 1
The defense countered by presenting the testimonies of appellants, Technical
Sergeant Ortillano, who prepared appellant Elizalde's clinical records, and a certain Nilo
Avelina. 1 2
Appellant Elizalde denied the charges against him, claiming that he did not know
Antonio, Letty or any of his co-accused. 1 3 According to him, he went to Manila for the
rst time on April 15, 2003 from Samar, where he was working in a bakery, to look for
his mother. He lived with his cousin in Sta. Cruz, Manila. On the day of the alleged
kidnapping on June 17, 2003, Elizalde testified that he was in Blumentritt, Manila, selling
boiled peanuts in a pushcart from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Afterwards, he went straight
home for fear of getting lost, being in Manila for the first time. 1 4
Almost a year thereafter, on April 1, 2004, Elizalde narrated that another one of
his cousins visited him at home and promised that he would help him nd a job. They
then boarded a small red vehicle with three (3) other persons he did not know. Elizalde
asked his cousin who said persons were and where they were going but his cousin
would not tell him. After an hour, he was surprised to hear gunshots. He was hit at the
right portion of his chest below the naval and thereafter lost consciousness. When he
woke up, he was already at the V. Luna Hospital and learned that he was the only one
who had survived. He recounted that after a week thereat, several police of cers came
with a man in handcuffs he later came to know as Nilo Avelina. According to Elizalde,
the police of cers forced Avelina to point at him as one of the perpetrators in a
kidnapping case in Quezon City, even if Avelina did not know who he was. A week after,
a different set of police of cers came and forced him to admit to being involved in said
case, which he succumbed to even if he had no knowledge thereon for fear of what said
of cers might do to him. The Quezon City RTC eventually convicted Elizalde and Avelina
for kidnapping. Meanwhile, several police of cers came to inform him that he was
going to be brought to Tarlac to face Frustrated Murder and Carnapping charges
against him. He was convicted by the Tarlac RTC of Frustrated Murder, but was
subsequently acquitted on appeal. Thereafter, he was again informed of another case,
this time, on the instant Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide accusation. 1 5 ATICcS

During trial, the defense also presented Avelina to corroborate appellant

Elizalde's testimony as to the latter's claim that the former pointed to him as co-
kidnapper in the Q.C. case even if Avelina did not know who he was and merely because
he was told that he would be freed if he did as he was told. 1 6
In addition, appellant Placente next testi ed and also denied knowing any of his
co-accused as well as the accusations against him. According to Placente, he came to
Manila in 1982 from Samar. On the alleged day and time of the kidnapping, he was
merely working, driving a tricycle owned by his neighbor on his way to the market in
Pasig City. His job normally ends at 8:00 p.m., and on that day, he claimed that he did
not go anywhere other than his daily route. Thereafter, he parked the tricycle in front of
his neighbor's house and returned the key, as he normally did. In August 2003, he began
driving a taxi. In 2005, however, he went back to Samar with his pregnant wife and his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 son so that his wife can give birth there. He worked as a laborer and a farmer until he
was arrested on May 9, 2007. 1 7
On March 4, 2011, the RTC found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide and rendered its
Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court nds both accused CHRISTOPHER ELIZALDE Y
SUMAGDON AND ALLAN BUSIO PLACENTE, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of the special complex crime of KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH
HOMICIDE and hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua without eligibility for parole.
TIADCc

Accused Elizalde and Placente are likewise ordered to pay the heirs of
Letty Tan y Co the following: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P500,000.00 as
moral damages; P25,000.00 as temperate damages; and P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
As regards accused ALLAN DELA PEÑA, for failure of the prosecution to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby ordered ACQUITTED. The
City Jail Warden of Parañaque City is hereby ordered to release said accused
from his custody unless he is being held for some other legal cause/s.
With respect to accused Arcel Lucban y Lindero @ Nonoy, Alden Diaz and
one Alias Erwin, the instant case is hereby ordered ARCHIVED. Let Alias
Warrants of Arrest be issued against them.
SO ORDERED. 1 8
The RTC gave credence not only to the fact that the prosecution witnesses
testi ed in a positive, categorical, unequivocal and straightforward manner, but also to
the inherent weakness of appellants' defenses of denial and alibi. According to the trial
court, the prosecution duly established all the following elements of the crime of
kidnapping for ransom: (a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his
liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and (c) motive of the accused,
which is extorting ransom for the release of the victim. 1 9 Antonio, in positively
identifying the appellants, convincingly testified on the events that transpired on the day
of the alleged incident. Said testimony was even strengthened by the testimonies of the
other prosecution witnesses, especially in light of the fact that there exists no showing
that said witnesses were impelled with improper and ill motive. 2 0
Aside from this, the trial court further noted that the appellants' defense of denial
was not even corroborated by any credible witness. Elizalde's testimony that he was
just selling peanuts, as well as Placente's testimony that he was merely driving his
neighbor's tricycle, are self-serving statements unsupported by any substantiating
evidence. Elizalde's cousin or Placente's neighbor could have been presented to
corroborate their claims. The defense, however, failed to do so. Moreover, Avelina's
testimony that he was forced by policemen to point at appellant Elizalde as one of his
cohorts in the kidnapping case in Quezon City, even if true, has no bearing in this case
simply because it was an entirely different case. 2 1 Thus, in view of the clarity of the
prosecution's version of events, the trial court found the presence of conspiracy shown
by Placente's act of poking a gun at Antonio, while Elizalde and their cohorts dragged
Letty into the van. 2 2
On appeal, the CA af rmed the RTC Decision, but reduced the moral damages to
P100,000.00. The CA ruled that when the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses
and their respective testimonies, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 great weight and respect. On the one hand, the prosecution witnesses unerringly
established the crime in a clear and candid manner, positively identifying appellants as
Letty's abductors. The argument that Antonio's testimony contains inconsistencies is
inconsequential for they merely refer to minor details which actually serves to
strengthen rather than weaken his credibility as they erase suspicion of being
rehearsed. 2 3 On the other hand, the appellate court ruled that appellants' defense
cannot prosper having failed to prove that they were at some other place at the time
when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for them to be at
the locus criminis at the time. 2 4 Appellants merely alleged their bare alibis of selling
peanuts and driving a tricycle without even attempting to present any credible witness
that could corroborate the same. 2 5 .. AIDSTE

In this regard, the CA agreed with the RTC as to the existence of conspiracy
among appellants and their cohorts. Their community of criminal design could be
inferred from their arrival at Antonio's store already armed with weapons, Placente and
companions pointing their guns at Antonio, while Elizalde and companions dragged
Letty into their van. Moreover, they demanded P20M for Letty's freedom which never
materialized as she was killed during captivity by the kidnappers before evading arrest.
Thus, having been proven that they each took part in the accomplishment of their
common criminal design, appellants are equally liable for the complex crime of
kidnapping for ransom with homicide. 2 6
Consequently, appellant led a Notice of Appeal 2 7 on June 25, 2013. Thereafter,
in a Resolution 2 8 dated February 26, 2014, the Court noti ed the parties that they may
le their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from
notice. Both parties, however, manifested that they are adopting their respective briefs
led before the CA as their supplemental briefs, their issues and arguments having
been thoroughly discussed therein. Thus, the case was deemed submitted for decision.
In their Brief, appellants essentially assigned the following error:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED BY
GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S
EVIDENCE. 2 9
Appellants argue that the positive identi cation made by the prosecution
witnesses should not be given any weight and credence. This is because Antonio only
recognized appellant Elizalde on television in April 2004, or ten (10) months after the
incident. In fact, a day after the incident, no cartographic sketch was made of Elizalde.
Thus, if Antonio could not describe Elizalde's physical appearance a day after the
incident, it would be highly incredible that he would be able to identify his wife's
abductors ten (10) months after. This lapse of time would de nitely affect his memory.
In addition, Antonio's identi cation of Elizalde at the hospital was marked by
suggestiveness for he was already informed beforehand that Elizalde was involved in
the instant kidnapping. Thus, Antonio was inclined to point to just anybody. Appellants
also raise inconsistencies in Antonio's testimonies as to the time his family left
Mandarin Hotel, the number of PACER people who met them there, the exact number of
his wife's abductors, and such other factual circumstances that cast doubt on his
credibility. Thus, while it is true that alibi is a weak defense, the prosecution cannot
pro t therefrom, but on the strength of its own evidence. Finally, appellants assert that
there is no showing that they were informed of their constitutional rights at the time of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 their arrest. Consequently, the entire proceedings are a nullity. AaCTcI

We affirm appellants' conviction, with modification as to the award of damages.

Time and again, the Court has held that the question of credibility of witnesses is
primarily for the trial court to determine. 3 0 Its assessment of the credibility of a
witness is conclusive, binding, and entitled to great weight, unless shown to be tainted
with arbitrariness or unless, through oversight, some fact or circumstance of weight
and influence has not been considered. 3 1 Absent any showing that the trial judge acted
arbitrarily, or overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances
of weight which would affect the result of the case, his assessment of the credibility of
witnesses deserves high respect by the appellate court. 3 2
After a careful review of the records, the Court nds no cogent reason to
overturn the trial court's ruling, as af rmed by the appellate court, nding the
prosecution witnesses' testimonies credible. According to the lower courts, the
prosecution witnesses testi ed in a categorical and straightforward manner, positively
identifying appellants as part of the group who kidnapped the victim. Particularly,
Antonio unmistakably and convincingly narrated, in detail, the series of events that
transpired on the day of the incident from the moment he saw appellants alight from
their red van, who thereafter split up into two (2) groups, one, pointing guns at him, and
the other, dragging his wife to their van, up until the time when they successfully
boarded said vehicle before speeding away. In fact, he easily recognized appellants
from the photographs in the PACER gallery for all throughout the incident, their faces
remained visible, uncovered by any sort of mask. We quote the pertinent portions of his
testimony, thus:
Q: Did you recognize any of the persons or the pictures in the photo gallery of
PACER?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you know the names of these persons whom you recognized there in
the photo gallery of PACER?
A: The face I can recall but the name I can no longer remember, sir.
Q: And would you be able to tell if it's the same person just by looking on the
cartographic sketch?
A: Yes, sir. EcTCAD

Q: I'm showing you the prosecution's EXHIBITS "D", "E" and "F", Mr. Witness,
can you tell us if the persons depicted therein are the same ones you are
referring to?
A: Yes sir, these are the pictures of the persons I identi ed when I was
brought to the photo gallery of PACER.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT:
Q: What is the relation of these pictures to those persons who kidnapped your
wife (EXHIBITS "D", "E", and "F")?
A: The people in these pictures, your Honor, were the ones who
pointed at me.
Q: Pointed what?
A: They were the ones who poked a gun on me.
Q: Those three persons?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 A: Yes, your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Mr. Witness, after you were shown scanned photographs of the
other suspects and these are EXHIBITS "D" for the picture of Arcel
Lucban; EXHIBIT "E" for the picture of Allan Dela Peña and
EXHIBIT "E" for the picture of Allan Placente, you mentioned that
they were the ones who came up to you and pointed their guns at
you. Now, Mr. Witness, how about accused Christopher Elizalde,
what did he do during the abduction of your wife?
A: He was one of the two persons who pulled out my wife from the
vehicle, sir.
COURT:
Q: From which vehicle?
A: Our car, your Honor. 33

In addition, such testimony was duly corroborated and further strengthened by

other prosecution witnesses, such as P/Insp. Nelmida, who was personally engaged in
the shootout and whose buttocks were even shot by appellant Elizalde, as well as Mario
Ramos, who personally saw appellants alight from the jeepney where he eventually saw
the lifeless body of the victim. The Court cannot, therefore, turn a blind eye to the
probative value of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, consistent with each
other, given in the absence of any showing of ill motive. HSAcaE

This is especially so when, as noted by the trial court, the appellants' defenses of
alibi and denial were not even corroborated by any credible witness. Well settled is the
rule that alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when
the prosecution has suf ciently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.
It is only axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony. 3 4 In the
instant case, it seems as if appellants urge Us to accept — hook, line, and sinker — their
self-serving statements that Elizalde was merely selling peanuts while Placente was
simply driving his neighbor's tricycle without even attempting to corroborate the same
with any supporting evidence. As aptly pointed out by the RTC, Elizalde's cousin or
Placente's neighbor could have been presented to substantiate their stories.
Regrettably, appellants failed to convince.
Neither is the Court persuaded by appellants' assertions in their appeal in view of
the CA's refutations thereof. Contrary to appellants' argument that Antonio's positive
identi cation of Elizalde should not be given credence due to the fact that Antonio only
recognized Elizalde on television in April 2004 and that the day after the incident, no
cartographic sketch was made, the CA held that Antonio actually identi ed Elizalde as
his wife's abductor twice prior to con rming his identity in the hospital. 3 5 The day after
the incident, Antonio recognized Elizalde from four (4) cartographic sketches based on
the descriptions given by Antonio. Thus, appellants' claim that there was no
cartographic sketch of Elizalde made after the crime has no basis. Thereafter, Antonio
again recognized Elizalde on television prompting him to immediately call the PACER
agents. Verily, the Court cannot give credence to appellants' assertion that Elizalde's
identi cation at the hospital was marked by suggestiveness for as clearly narrated, it
was Antonio who rst recognized Elizalde on television and who instantly contacted the
PACER agents, not the other way around. Antonio categorically testified, viz.:
Q: Mr. Witness, after this incident on June 17, 2003, what, if any, incident took
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 place which is related to the abduction of your wife?
A: While I was watching TV sir in April 2004, I saw a news item
regarding a shooting incident I saw in Navotas.
Q: And what about that footage you saw? HESIcT

A: When a picture of a wounded person from the shooting incident

in Navotas was ashed on the screen, I recall that that person
was one of the persons who kidnapped my wife, sir.
Q: And what, if any, did you do about it, Mr. Witness?
A: I immediately called up PACER, sir.
Q: And what did the PACER do, if any?
COURT:
No. Why did you call the PACER?
A: I told the agent of the PACER that the person I saw on TV was
one of the persons who kidnapped my wife, your honor.
Q: Was that person whom you saw on TV one of those who were shot during
that encounter in Navotas?
A: Yes, your honor.
COURT:
Proceed.
PROS. MARAYA: caITAC

Q: What, if any, did PACER do after you informed them that you
recognized one of the persons who were shot in that encounter in
Navotas?
A: We decided to go personally to the person I identi ed on TV to
personally identify, sir.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT:
Q: So you went to Navotas?
A: No, your honor.
Q: Where did you go after calling the PACER?
A: We went to the hospital, your Honor.
Q: What hospital?
A: V. Mapa hospital, your Honor.
Q: Did you see the person whom you said you have identified as one
of the kidnappers of your wife [in] that hospital?
A: Yes, your Honor. 36

With respect to the contention that Antonio's testimony contains inconsistencies,

the Court agrees with the appellate court when it ruled that the so-called
inconsistencies are inconsequential for they merely refer to minor details which actually
serve to strengthen rather than weaken his credibility as they erase suspicion of being
rehearsed. This is so because what really prevails is the consistency of the testimonies
of the witnesses in relating the principal occurrence and positive identi cation of the
appellants. 3 7 As for the alleged nullity of the proceedings due to the absence of any
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 showing that the police of cers informed appellants of their constitutional rights, the
Court sustains the CA's ruling that even assuming said failure to inform, the same is
immaterial considering that no admission or confession was elicited from them. 3 8 As
previously discussed, their guilt was established by the strength of the prosecution
witnesses' testimonies.
In view of the foregoing, the Court sustains the ndings of the trial court, as
positively af rmed by the appellate court, insofar as the existence of conspiracy is
concerned. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 3 9 When conspiracy is
established, the responsibility of the conspirators is collective, not individual, rendering
all of them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participations. 4 0
Accordingly, direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, as it can be presumed
from and proven by the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose, design,
concerted action, and community of interests. 4 1 As aptly held by the CA, the
community of criminal design by the appellants and their cohorts is evident as they
each played a role in the commission of the crime. While appellant Placente and
companions pointed their guns at Antonio, Elizalde and companions simultaneously
dragged Letty into their van. Thereafter, they demanded ransom money as a condition
for her release, which, however, never materialized due to a shootout that sadly led to
her death. Consequently, therefore, appellants are equally liable for the crime charged
herein. ICHDca

In this respect, Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic
Act (RA) No. 7659, provides:
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who
shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty,
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three
days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been in icted upon the
person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have
been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when
the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer;
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or
any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned
were present in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts,
the maximum penalty shall be imposed. 4 2
Accordingly, in People v. Mercado , 4 3 the Court explained that when the person
kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, the same shall be punished as a
special complex crime, to wit:
I n People v. Ramos, the accused was found guilty of two separate
heinous crimes of kidnapping for ransom and murder committed on July 13,
1994 and sentenced to death. On appeal, this Court modi ed the ruling and
found the accused guilty of the "special complex crime" of kidnapping for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 ransom with murder under the last paragraph of Article 267, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659. This Court said: TCAScE

. . . This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the

concept of 'special complex crime' of kidnapping with murder or
homicide. It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the
courts between those cases where the killing of the kidnapped
victim was purposely sought by the accused, and those where the
killing of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was
merely an afterthought. Consequently, the rule now is: Where
the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the
detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely
sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and
murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art.
48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be
punished as a special complex crime under the last
paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659. 4 4
On this score, the Court nds no reason to disturb the rulings of the lower courts
for they aptly convicted appellants with the special complex crime of kidnapping for
ransom with homicide. As clearly proved by the prosecution, appellants succeeded in
executing their common criminal design in abducting the victim herein, demanding for
the payment of money for her release, and thereafter, killing her as a result of the
encounter with the police of cers. Accordingly, the Court af rms the lower court's
imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, which
should have been death, had it not been for the passage of Republic Act No. 9346,
entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines"
prohibiting the imposition thereof.
There is, however, a need to modify the amounts of damages awarded. Verily,
pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 4 5 the amount of damages are increased to
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, and that an
interest be imposed on all damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum
from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid. 4 6 cTDaEH

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated May
31, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05100 nding appellants
Christopher Elizalde y Sumagdon and Allan Placente y Busio guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide, as de ned and penalized
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, in accordance with the mandate under
Republic Act No. 9346, prohibiting the imposition of death penalty, and to pay Letty Tan
y Co's heirs the amounts of P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages, with MODIFICATIONS in view of prevailing jurisprudence, 4 7 that
the amount of damages be increased to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P50,000.00 as temperate damages, and that an interest be imposed on all damages
awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of nality of this Decision until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Del Castillo, * Perez and Reyes, JJ., concur
Footnotes

* Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raf e
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 dated September 22, 2014.
1. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Associate Justices Remedios A.
Salazar-Fernando and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring; rollo, pp. 2-25.

2. Penned by Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal; CA rollo, pp. 28-43.

3. Rollo, p. 3.
4. CA rollo, pp. 28-29.
5. Rollo, p. 4.

6. Id. at 4-5.
7. Id. at 5-8.
8. Id. at 8.
9. Id. at 8-9.
10. Id. at 9.

11. Id. at 10.

12. Id.

13. Id.
14. Id. at 11.

15. Id. at 11-13.

16. Id. at 13-14.

17. Id. 14-15.

18. CA rollo, pp. 42-43.

19. Id. at 39-40.

20. Id. at 40.

21. Id. at 39.

22. Id. at 41.

23. Rollo, p. 20.

24. Id. at 21.

25. Id. at 22.

26. Id. at 22-23.

27. Id. at 26.

28. Id. at 32.

29. CA rollo, p. 67.

30. People v. Dionaldo, G.R. No. 207949, July 23, 2014, 731 SCRA 68, 76.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 31. Id.

32. Id.
33. CA rollo, pp. 132-133. (Emphasis ours)

34. People v. Torres, et al., G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014, 735 SCRA 687, 704.

35. Rollo, p. 20.

36. CA rollo, pp. 137-138. (Emphasis ours)

37. People v. Montanir, et al., 662 Phil. 535, 552 (2011).

38. Rollo, pp. 23-24.

39. People v. Dionaldo, supra note 30, at 77.

40. Id.
41. Id.

42. Emphasis ours.

43. 400 Phil. 37 (2000).

44. People v. Mercado, supra, at 82-83. (Emphasis ours)

45. People v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.

46. Id.

47. Id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com