SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208682. July 7, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO PATLONAG Y DADALI, ANTONIO ESCOTON Y GERVACIO, JR., RICK LUMACANG Y PUZON, JIMMY MALINAO Y SENDAY, REX ANTHONY PORTADO Y DALEON, FRANCISCO MULLON Y CABALQUINTO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208682 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Mario Patlonag y Dadali, Antonio Escoton y Gervacio, Jr., Rick Lumacang y Puzon, Jimmy Malinao y Senday, Rex Anthony Portado y Daleon, Francisco Mullon y Cabalquinto, accused-appellants.
A thorough review of the records of the case reveals that the appeal is devoid of merit. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 85 and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom. The crime of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is committed with the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; b) it is committed by simulating public authority; c) serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public officer. 1 All the foregoing elements were duly established by the testimonial and physical evidence for the prosecution. First, appellants are private individuals. Second, appellants kidnapped Vlademir and detained him in a secluded safe house. Third, the victim was taken against his will. And fourth, appellants kidnapped the victim for the purpose of exacting ransom. Republic Act (RA) No. 7659 provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the motive of the kidnappers is to extort ransom for the release of the victim although none of the circumstances mentioned under paragraph 4 of the elements of kidnapping were present. The trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, found that the prosecution witnesses positively testified on the fact of kidnapping as well as the identities of the appellants. Moreover, the prosecution was able to present direct evidence of the conspiracy showing that the conduct of appellants overwhelmingly pointed to their unanimity in design, intent and execution of the crime against the victim.
Regarding the validity of their arrest, we agree with the courts below that this issue has been deemed waived in view of appellants' failure to raise any objection thereto before they entered their pleas. DETACa
All the above findings deserve our concurrence since we find no cogent reason to overturn the same. Besides, "[w]hen an accused challenges the witness' identification of the perpetrators, the credibility of the witness is put to doubt. As a general rule, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case." 2
The Court of Appeals correctly sentenced appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of the penalty of death considering the passage of RA No. 9346. 3 In addition, appellants shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 thereof. 4 However, we find it necessary to modify appellants' civil liabilities. Appellants are ordered to pay jointly and severally the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, which the courts below failed to grant. We maintain the award of moral damages but to a reduced amount of P100,000.00 in line with existing jurisprudence. The grant of P100,000.00 by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages is proper since the crime was attended by a demand for ransom and by way of example or correction. Moreover, an interest of 6% per annum shall be imposed on all the damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. We ADOPT the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The assailed January 22, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04556 finding appellants Mario Patlonag y Dadali, Antonio Escoton y Gervacio, Jr., Rick Lumacang y Puzon, Jimmy Malinao y Senday, Rex Anthony Portado y Daleon, and Francisco Mullon y Cabalquinto GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that appellants are not eligible for parole and are ordered to pay jointly and severally the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; and the award of moral damages is reduced to P100,000.00. Furthermore, an interest of 6% per annum is imposed on all the damages awarded from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. (Mendoza, J., on official leave from July 4-22, 2016 per Resolution dated June 21, 2016 in A.M. No. 16-06-05-SC). HEITAD
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. People v. Cruz, Jr., 616 Phil. 424, 437 (2009).
2. People v. Martin, 588 Phil. 355, 362 (2008).
3. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines.
4. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.