Asiga Mining Corporation Vs. Manila Mining Corporation and Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation

People of the Philippines Vs. Christopher Elizalde y Sumagdon and Allan Placente y Busio
G.R. No. 210434. December 5, 2016

The prosecution witnesses testified in a categorical and straightforward manner, positively identifying appellants as part of the group who kidnapped the victim. Particularly, Antonio 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 boarded said vehicle before speeding away. He recognized appellants from the photographs in the PACER gallery for all throughout the incident, their faces remained visible, uncovered by any sort of mask.

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.

Moreover, no admission or confession was elicited from the accused.

1.    Appellants argue that the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses should not be given any weight and credence. Will the defense prosper?

No.

Trial court’s 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. 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.

2.    What is the strength of alibi and denial as defense?

Well settled is the rule that alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused. It is only axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.

3.    Appellants assert that there is no showing that they were informed of their constitutional rights at the time of their arrest. Will the defense prosper?

No.

Even assuming said failure to inform, the same is immaterial considering that no admission or confession was elicited from them. This is because their guild is was established by the strength of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies.

4.    When does Conspiracy exist?

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

5.    What is the liability of conspirators?

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.

6.    Is direct proof necessary to establish conspiracy?

No.

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.

7.    Is there a conspiracy in this case?

Yes.

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.

8.    The accused are liable of what crime?

The appellants are liable of special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide

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 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.

9.    May kidnapping and murder or homicide be complexed under Art. 48?

No.

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.