People vs. Avancena, 826 SCRA 414, G.R. No. 200512 June 7, 2017
G.R. No. 200512. June 7, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELMER AVANCENA y CABANELA, JAIME POPIOCO y CAMBAYA and NOLASCO TAYTAY y CRUZ, accused-appellants.
Ponente: J. Leonen;
Doctrines:
In kidnapping for ransom, the prosecution must be able to establish the following elements:
[first,] the accused was a private person;
[second,] he [or she] kidnapped or detained or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty;
[third,] the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and
[fourth,] the victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom.
Accused-appellants claim that they were agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency’s Task Force Hunter but were unable to present any evidence to substantiate their claim. The prosecution, however, was able to present Police Inspector Nabor of the Human Resource Service of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, who testified that accused-appellants “[were] not in any manner connected with [Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency].” It also submitted to the trial court a letter sent by P/Supt. Edwin Nemenzo of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency to Philippine National Police P/Sr. Supt. Allan Purisima stating that the accused-appellants were not agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. Nonetheless, even if they were employed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, detaining any private person for the purpose of extorting any amount of money could not, in any way, be construed as within their official functions. If proven, they can be guilty of serious illegal detention. Their badges or shields do not give them immunity for any criminal act.
The fact that the victim voluntarily went with the accused does not remove the element of deprivation of liberty if the victim went with the accused on a false inducement without which the victim would not have done so.—In order to prove kidnapping, the prosecution must establish that the victim was “forcefully transported, locked up or restrained.” It must be proven that the accused intended “to deprive the victim of his liberty.” The act of handcuffing Rizaldo and physically harming him to prevent escape falls under this definition. Accused-appellants, however, claim that Rizaldo was not kidnapped because he voluntarily went with the accused-appellants. “[T]he fact that the victim voluntarily went with the accused [does] not remove the element of deprivation of liberty [if] the victim went with the accused on a false inducement without which the victim would not have done so.” Rizaldo would not havegone with the accused-appellants had they not misrepresented themselves as Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency agents who allegedly caught him selling illegal drugs.
The elements of simple robbery are
a) that there is personal property belonging to another;
b) that there is unlawful taking of that property;
c) that the taking is with intent to gain; and
d) that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
During the entrapment operation, accused-appellants arrived in the designated place in a white Toyota Revo. Accused-appellant Avancena approached Alfonso and received the marked money from him. When they drove away, NAKTAF agents followed them and were able to apprehend them. NAKTAF was able to recover the marked money from them. In this instance, there was a taking of personal property belonging to Alfonso by means of intimidation. “Taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if [the offender] has no opportunity to dispose of the [thing].” The marked money was recovered from the accused-appellants when they were arrested, which proves that they were able to gain possession of Alfonso’s money.
Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person or persons; or payment that releases from captivity. (People vs. Octa, 762 SCRA 509 [2015])
Since accused-appellants’ guilt for the crime of kidnapping for ransom had been established beyond reasonable doubt, they should be meted the penalty of death under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. However, Republic Act (RA) No. 9346 already prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. Consequently, the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly sentenced accused-appellants to reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, without eligibility for parole. (People vs. Gregorio, 792 SCRA 469 [2016])