THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200033. August 28, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ESMERALDO ABALOS Y PINE, EDGAR MACARAEG Y PARAYNO, ANGELITO SAMPANG Y LACSON, JOSEPH SINGH @ SRINDAL SINGH, SONNY SINGH Y SURGIT SINGH, JASVINDER PAL AND SUKWINDER KUMAR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated August 28, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200033 (People of the Philippines, v. Esmeraldo Abalos y Pine, Edgar Macaraeg y Parayno, Angelito Sampang y Lacson, Joseph Singh @ Srindal Singh, Sonny Singh y Surgit Singh, Jasvinder Pal and Sukwinder Kumar). — The records of this case were elevated to this Court on January 27, 2012, pursuant to the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated June 6, 2011, which gave due course to the notices of appeal filed by the accused.
In compliance with the Court's Resolution, dated February 27, 2012, the Office of the Solicitor General and the accused filed their respective manifestations stating that they were adopting their Appellee's and Appellant's Briefs, as their respective Supplemental Briefs. STaAcC
After a careful perusal of the records of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure of the accused to sufficiently show reversible error in the challenged decision warranting the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
In order for one to be convicted of the crime of kidnapping, the following elements must be established by the prosecution, namely:
1.That the offender is a private individual;
2.That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
3.That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
4.That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances under Article 267 of the RPC is present:
1.If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three (3) 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. THacES
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. 1
When the kidnapping or detention, however, was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, it is not necessary that one or any of such circumstances enumerated in the first paragraph of Article 267 be present. 2
In the case at bench, the above-mentioned elements were duly established. First, the offenders were private individuals. Second, they took the victim, Nahal, to Umingan, Pangasinan, where he was detained in a nipa house for four (4) days. Third, Nahal's detention was illegal and without legal basis. And fourth, the kidnapping or detention was perpetrated for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim's family.
Against the categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the accused could only offer the defense of denial. They insist that they were just randomly picked up by the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) operatives on that fateful night. They deny having met with the victim's nephew, Kuldiph. They maintain that when the operatives arrested them, they were already heading home after coming from a beerhouse. Denial, however, is a self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters. Like alibi, denial is inherently a weak defense, which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses who, as in this case, were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against the accused. 3
Again, the accused, particularly Abalos and Macaraeg, in their pursuit to exculpate themselves of the crime, averred that their constitutional right to an effective and vigilant counsel was violated during custodial investigation. As such, their extra-judicial confessions should be held inadmissible. cAISTC
This Court is not persuaded. Whether or not their admissions were illegally obtained is not material in the present controversy. The CA had explicitly stated that even disregarding the accused's extrajudicial confessions, their conviction must still remain in place. The victim's positive identification of the accused during the police line-up and during the trial itself sufficiently established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 4 Thus, any allegation of violation of rights during custodial investigation becomes immaterial. Such claim is relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused becomes the very basis of their conviction. 5 Hence, the claim of the accused that the trial court erred in not excluding evidence taken during the custodial investigation deserves scant consideration.
Finally, with respect to accused Sampang and Singh's argument that they should be exonerated because Nahal did not identify them as among his abductors, the Court finds it untenable. Both of them were positively identified by the PAOCTF operatives as among those who met with the victim's nephew Kuldiph in the early morning of March 22, 2001. During the meetings that transpired at the Caltex gasoline station and then at the church, both accused were there. When the plastic bag containing the ransom money was handed by Kuldiph to Abalos at the church, the operatives observed that Sampang and Singh stayed in front of Kuldiph's pick-up acting as look-outs. When Abalos was apprehended, they even attempted to escape. They might have not been identified by Nahal as among his kidnappers but their conspiratorial culpability was duly proven. ASDTEa
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Court AFFIRMS in toto the October 14, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01797.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. Uybuco, G.R. No. 178039, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 146, 161-162.
2.Revised Penal Code, Book II, L.B. Reyes, 17th ed., 2008, p. 578.
3.People v. Jacalne, G.R. No. 168552, October 3, 2011, 658 SCRA 358, 365.
4.Id. at 18.
5.Ho Wai Pang v. People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 624, 634.