SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 199710, August 02, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PO3 JULIETO BORJA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Extortion done by police themselves amounting to kidnapping with ransom undermines the government efforts to establish the rule of law in general and the proper prosecution against drug traffickers in particular. Even the subsequent prosecution of the victim of extortion does not negate the criminal liability of the accused for the crime the latter committed against the former.
This resolves the appeal to the March 14, 2011 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03998, finding PO3 Julieto Borja (PO3 Borja) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom.
In the Information dated May 28, 2004, Borja was charged of kidnapping punished under Article 2672 of the Revised Penal Code. The accusatory portion of the information read:
That on or about May 26, 2004, at or about 10:10 in the morning, at the vicinity of Brgy. Central, Diliman, Quezon City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with an unknown companion, conspiring and confederating with one another, mutually aiding and assisting one another, by the use of force, violence and intimidation and without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and illegally detain victim/hostage RONALYN G. MANATAD, and thereafter demanded and received the ransom money in the amount of P100,000.00 from Edwin G. Silvio, the victim's brother, for the release of said RONALYN G. MANATAD on same date.3PO3 Borja entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued.4
WHEREFORE, finding the accused PO3 Julieto Borja GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom, defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act [No.] 7659, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. With costs against the accused.PO3 Borja appealed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.32 He argued that Ronalyn was not deprived of her liberty because she was lawfully arrested and charged with violation of Republic Act No. 9165.33
SO ORDERED.31
Although the crime of kidnapping can only be committed by a private individual,52 the fact that the accused is a public official does not automatically preclude the filing of an information for kidnapping against him.
- The offender is a private individual[;]
- That individual kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of liberty[;]
- The act of detention or kidnapping is illegal[;]
- In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
- The kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days.
- It is committed by one who simulates public authority.
- Any serious physical injury is inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or any threat to kill that person is made.
- The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, a female or a public officer.51 (Citation omitted)
The fact alone that appellant Pillueta is "an organic member of the NARCOM" and appellant Sandigan [is] "a regular member of the PNP" would not exempt them from the criminal liability for kidnapping. It is quite clear that in abducting and taking away the victim, appellants did so neither in furtherance of official function nor in the pursuit of authority vested in them. It is not, in fine, in relation to their office, but in purely private capacity, that they have acted in concert with their co-appellants Santiano and Chanco.54 (Citation omitted)The burden is on the accused to prove that he or she acted in furtherance of his or her official functions. In People v. Trestiza,55 this Court noted:
Before the present case was tried by the trial court, there was a significant amount of time spent in determining whether kidnapping for ransom was the proper crime charged against the accused, especially since Trestiza and Manrique were both police officers. Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code specifically stated that the crime should be committed by a private individual. The trial court settled the matter by citing our ruling in People v. Santiano[.]Accused-appellant's membership in the Philippine National Police does not automatically preclude the filing of an information for kidnapping or serious illegal detention against him. He may be prosecuted under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code if it is shown that he committed acts unrelated to the functions of his office.
....
In the same order, the trial court asked for further evidence which support the defense's claim of holding a legitimate police operation. However, the trial court found as unreliable the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet presented by the defense. The sheet was not authenticated, and the signatories were not presented to attest to its existence and authenticity.56 (Citations omitted)
The first two (2) and the last elements of the crime of kidnapping are present in this case, Ronalyn, a woman, was forcibly taken by accused-appellant and loaded in a van where she was detained for several hours. These acts are completely unrelated to accused-appellant's functions as a police officer, and as such, he may be prosecuted under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
Q: While you were, as you said, about to go out of your house on that morning of May 26, 2004, do you remember any untoward incident that transpired? A: I was surprised when a male person suddenly grabbed me. .... Q: You said that a male person suddenly grabbed you, do you know that person? A: No, ma'am. Q: After that male person suddenly grabbed you, by the way, on what part of your body were you grabbed? A: The right forearm, ma'am. Q: After you were grabbed by your arm, what happened next? A: I shouted. .... Q: Where were you b[r]ought? A: I was loaded in a van. Q: Do you remember what the van looked like? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Could you describe it to the court? A: It was big. Q: What color was it? A: Gray. Q: Did you happen to see the plate number of the van? A: No, ma'am. Q: You said that you were suddenly grabbed by your arm and you were loaded inside a gray van, what happened thereafter? A: They drove me to the Circle. Q: You said they, so, there must be more than one person? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: How many were they in that van, including the male person who suddenly grabbed you? A: About three, ma'am. Q: Including the person who took you to the van? A: He was the fourth. .... Q: After that conversation, what happened, if any? A: I was transferred to another vehicle. Q: And could you describe that car that you transferred to from that van? A: It was a car. Q: Do you know the color? A: Gray. .... Q: What happened after you were transferred to that gray car? A: We went to McDonald's at Quezon Avenue. .... Q: Where exactly were you taken after you were transferred to the gray car? A: At the back of Sulo Hotel and then McDonald's and then the back of SSS and then in front of East Avenue Medical Center. Q: Until what time were you in that car? A: 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, ma'am.64
All the elements of kidnapping were sufficiently proven by the prosecution, which cannot be overturned by accused-appellant's bare denial and alibi. These two (2) defenses are inherently weak considering that they can be easily contrived.66
Q: You said you heard them calling your brother, what did you hear from them in their conversation? A: They were asking for money. Q: By the way, who was that person who called your brother? .... A: Major Clarito, ma'am. .... Q: You said that you heard Major Clarito telling your brother to prepare money, is that correct? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: What else did you hear from him? A: They asked my brother to give P200,000.00 and then I would be released. .... Q: What else did you hear in that phone conversation? .... A: To prepare the P200,000.00 and to meet at Wildlife.65
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member per raffle dated February 16, 2013.
1Rollo, pp. 2-23. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Latnpas Peralta and Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Special Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2 REV. PENAL CODE, art. 267 provides:
Article 267. 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 inflicted 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.
3Rollo, p. 3.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 3-4.
6 Id. at 4.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 CA rollo, p. 26.
10Rollo, p. 4.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 5.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 5.
16 Id. at 6.
17 CA rollo, p. 26.
18 Id.
19Rollo, p. 6.
20 Id. at 6-7.
21 CA rollo, p. 28.
22Rollo, p. 7.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 CA rollo, p. 28.
27Rollo, p. 7.
28 CA rollo, pp. 25-31. The Decision, docketed as Crim. Case No. Q-04-127167, was penned by Presiding Judge Alexander S. Balut of Branch 76, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.
29 Id. at 31.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 32-34, Accused-Appellant's Notice of Appeal.
33 Id. at 60, Manifestation.
34Rollo, pp. 2-23.
35 Id. at 22.
36 Id. at 24-26.
37 Id. at 27.
38 Id. at 29-30.
39 Id. at 50.
40 Id. at 66-75.
41 Id. at 57-58.
42 Id. at 67.
43 Id. at 69. The Decision dated December 15, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03140 was penned by then Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Danton Q. Bueser of the Eleventh Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila. In her appeal, Ronalyn Manatad raised the defense that she was kidnapped. However, according to the Court of Appeals, there was enough evidence on record that a buy-bust operation was conducted against her. The Court of Appeals relied on the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, the pre-operation coordination sheet, and entries in the police log book.
44Rollo, p. 69, Supplemental Brief. In the Resolution dated February 1, 2012 this Court dismissed Ronalyn Manatad's appeal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 15, 2010.
45 Id.
46 CA rollo, pp. 150-151.
47 Id. at 152.
48 RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 2 provides:
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
49 RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 2.
50People v. Lumibao, 465 Phil. 771, 781 (2004) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
51People v. Obeso, 460 Phil. 625, 633 (2003) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
52 REV. PENAL CODE, art. 267.
53 359 Phil. 928 (1998) [Per J. Vitug, First Division].
54 Id. at 943.
55 676 Phil. 420 (2011) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
56 Id. at 457-458.
57People v. Mamantak, 582 Phil. 294, 303 (2008) [Per J. Corona, En Banc].
58 Id.
59People v. Obeso, 460 Phil. 625, 634 (2003) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
60 Id. at 633.
61People v. Jacalne, 61A Phil. 139, 147 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
62Rollo, p. 18.
63 Id. at 3-6.
64 Id. at 12-14.
65 Id. at 13.
66People v. Panlilio, 325 Phil. 848, 857 (1996) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division]; People v. Enriquez, Jr., 503 Phil. 367, 376 (2005) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
67People v. Enriquez, Jr., 503 Phil. 367, 376 (2005) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
68 CA rollo, p. 153.
69 An Act Prohibiting the imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines (2006).
70People v. Gregorio, G.R. No. 194235, June 8, 2016, 792 SCRA 469, 504 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]; People v. Gambao, 718 Phil. 507, 531-532 (2013) [Per J. Perez, En Banc].
71See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al., 716 Phil. 267, 281-283 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].