male companions, all armed with guns, arrived and immediately boarded the van.
Appellant Flores took the drivers
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DOMINGO REYES, ALVIN ARNALDO AND JOSELITO
FLORES G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
Kidnapping for ransom
FACTS: The Yao family owns and operates a poultry farm in Barangay Santo Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. On
16 July 1999, at about 11:00 p.m., the Yao family, on board a Mazda MVP van, arrived at their poultry farm in
Barangay Sto. Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Yao San alighted from the van to open the gate of the farm,
appellant Reyes and a certain Juanito Pataray (Pataray) approached, poked their guns at Yao San, and dragged him
inside the van. Appellant Reyes and Pataray also boarded the van. Thereupon, appellants Arnaldo and Flores, with two
seat and drove the van. Appellants Reyes and Arnaldo and their cohorts then blindfolded each member of the Yao
family inside the van with packaging tape.
Appellant Flores and his male companion told Yao San to produce the amount of five million pesos
(P5,000,000.00) as ransom in exchange for the release of Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and Abagatnan.
Thereafter, appellant Flores and his male companion left the van and fled; while Yao San, Lenny, Matthew, Charlene
and Josephine remained inside the van. Upon sensing that the kidnappers had already left, Yao San drove the van
towards the poultry farm and sought the help of relatives. Meanwhile, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and
Abagatnan were taken on foot by appellants Reyes and Arnaldo, Pataray and one male companion to a safe-house
situated in the mountainous part of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan where they spent the whole night.
On the morning of 19 July 1999, appellants again called Yao San via a cellular phone and threatened to kill Chua Ong
Ping Sim and Raymond because of newspaper and radio reports regarding the incident. Yao San clarified to appellants
that he did not report the incident to the police and also pleaded with them to spare the life of Chua Ong Ping Sim and
Raymond. Appellants then instructed Yao San to appear and bring with him the ransom of P5 million at 3:00 p.m. in
the Usan dumpsite, Litex Road, Fairview, Quezon City. Yao San arrived at the designated place of the pay-off at 4:00
p.m., but none of the appellants or their cohorts showed up. Yao San waited for appellants call, but none came. Thus,
Yao San left.
On 23 July 1999, the corpses of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were found at the La Mesa Dam, Novaliches,
Quezon CitY.Both died of asphyxia by strangulation.On 26 July 1999, appellant Arnaldo surrendered.
ISSUE: Are the appellants guilty of kidnapping?
RULING: After carefully reviewing the evidence on record and applying the foregoing guidelines to this case, we
found no cogent reason to overturn the RTCs ruling finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible.
Prosecution witnesses Abagatnan, Robert, and Yao San positively identified appellants and their cohorts as their
kidnappers during a police line-up and also during trial.
Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San testified in a clear and candid manner during the trial. Their respective
testimonies were consistent with one another. They were steadfast in recounting their ordeal despite the grueling cross
examination of the defense. Moreover, their testimonies were in harmony with the documentary evidence adduced by
the prosecution. The RTC and the Court of Appeals found their testimonies credible and trustworthy. Both courts also
found no ill motive for Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San to testify against appellants.
Although the Yao family was blindfolded during the incident, it was, nevertheless, shown that it took appellants and
their cohorts about 10 minutes before all members of the Yao family were blindfolded. During this considerable length
of time, Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San were able to take a good look at the faces of appellants and their cohorts. In
addition, Abagatnan and Robert narrated that their respective blindfolds loosened several times, giving them the
opportunity to have a glimpse at the faces of appellants and their cohorts.
It is significant to note that Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were brutally killed as a result of the kidnapping. It is
difficult to believe that Robert and Yao San would point to appellants and their cohorts as their kidnappers if such were
not true. A witness relationship to the victim of a crime makes his testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for
a relative interested in vindicating a crime done to their family to accuse somebody other than the real culprit.
Relationship with a victim of a crime would deter a witness from indiscriminately implicating anybody in the crime.
His natural and usual interest would be to identify the real malefactor and secure his conviction to obtain true justice for
the death of a relative. Finally, we observed that the RTC and the Court of Appeals denominated the crime committed
by appellants in the present case as the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with double homicide since
two of the kidnap victims were killed or died during the kidnapping.
 2. that the physical force must be
irresistable
Exempting Circumstances
3. that the physical force must come
Art. the following are exempt from criminal from a third person
12. Circumstances liability:
which exempt from
criminal liability.
6. impulse of an 6. Any person who acts under the impulse 1. That the threat which causes the
1. An imbecile or an 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless When the imbecile or an insane person has uncontrollable fear of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or fearis of an evil greater than, or at
insane the latter has acted during a lucid interval. committed an act which the law defines as a greater injury. least equal to, that which h is
felony (delito), the court shall order his required to commit
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he 2. That it promises an evil of such
shall not be permitted to leave without first gravity and imminence that the
obtaining the permission of the same court. ordinary man would have
succumbed to it

7. insuperable cause. 7. Any person who fails to perform an act 1. That an act is required by law to be
2. under nine years 2. A person under nine years of age. R.A 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act :15 required by law, when prevented by some done
of age yrs old lawful insuperable cause.
2. That a person fails to perform such
act
3. A person over 3. A person over nine years of age and R.A 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act :
nine years of age under fifteen, unless he has acted with above 15 but below 18 yrs old 3. That his failure to perform such act
and under fifteen, discernment, in which case, such minor is due to some lawful or insuperable
unless he has acted shall be proceeded against in accordance When such minor is adjudged to be criminally cause
with discernment with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code. irresponsible, the court, in conformably with
the provisions of this and the preceding
paragraph, shall commit him to the care and
custody of his family who shall be charged
with his surveillance and education otherwise,
he shall be committed to the care of some
institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.

4. Accident 4. Any person who, while performing a 1. Person is performing a lawful act
lawful act with due care, causes an injury
by mere accident without fault or intention 2. With due care
of causing it.
3. E causes injury to another by mere
accident

4. Without fault or intention of causing

it

1. compulsion of irresistible
force.

5. Any person who act under the 1. that the compulsion is by means of
compulsion of irresistible force. physical force