REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 21 March 2022 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 257175 (People of the Philippines v. Blas Abucay y Tumino

@ Bala). - This appeal 1 challenges the October 29, 2020 Decision 2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12976, which affirmed the June
28, 2013 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 208,
Mandaluyong City. The CA found accused-appellant Blas Abucay y Tumino
(Blas) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping for Ransom, in violation
of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act
No. (RA) 7659. 4

The Antecedents:

In November 2005, Blas, together with 12 others namely Sozimo Lauzon

@ Sosing (Sozimo), Alejandro Aldas@ Ali (Alejandro), Feliciano Esposa@
Pili (Feliciano), Efren Abucay (Efren), Juan Casanas @ Pusong (Juan),
Ponciano Esposa @ Mamo/Palopako (Ponciano), Gregorio Dela Cruz @ Gorio
(Gregorio), Iluminada Aldas, Jr. @ Oni (Iluminado ), Efren Patcho (Patcho ),
Alias Noel, Alias Nono and Alias Kapitan, was charged with Kidnapping for
Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659. The accusatory
po1iion of the Information5 reads:

That on or about 11 :30 a.m. of March 11 , 2002, in the City of

Mandaluyong, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one

1
Rollo, pp. 3-4
Id. at 8-24. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Assoc iate
Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
3 Id. at. 26-36; penned by Presiding Judge Esteban A. T ac)a, Jr.
4
Entitled "AN Acr TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN H EINOUS CRIMES, AM ENDING FOR THAT
PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED, OTHF.R SPECIAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
Approved: D ecember 13. I 993.
Records_ pp. 2-4.

(118)URES - more -
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 257175

another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously kidnap and
deprive IMELDA E. BENGZON of her liberty and against her will by means of
threat and intimidation with the use of firearms , and then bring her to a safe house
in Naic, Cavite, wherein she was detained for a period of two (2) days, and that
the abduction of said victim was for the purpose of extorting ransom from her
family, as in fact, the amount of Three Million Pesos (Php3,000,000.00) and three
watches consisting of one (1) Rolex and (2) Bulovas were actually delivered to
the above-mentioned accused in exchange for the release of the victim to the
damage and prejudice of Imelda E. Bengzon in whatever amounts may be
awarded her under the provision of the new Civil Code.

CONTRARY TO LAW.6

Blas and the other accused pleaded not guilty during their arraignment. 7
The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely: (1) Imelda Bengzon
(Imelda); (2) Augusto Bengzon (Augusto), husband of Imelda; (3) William
Jaducan (Jaducan); and (4) Police Senior Inspector Roy Michael Malixi (PSI
Malixi). 8 On the other hand, the defense presented Sozirno, Ponciano, Gregorio,
Alejandro, Jaducan, and Blas.9

Version of the Prosecution:

Imelda recalled that she was in her office in Mandaluyong City until 10:00
a.m. of March 11, 2002. Thereafter, she and her driver Efren drove to San Juan
City using a green CR-V vehicle. Along Addition Hills, she noticed a
motorcycle following them, then two men who were wearing police uniform
flagged them and one tried to unlock the car's door. She instructed Efren to
proceed but the latter did not follow her. Imelda tried to escape but two men
brought her back to the car. 10

Imelda was made to wear sunglasses covered with tape. The perpetrators
were carrying firearms and talking to someone on a cellular phone for
directions. They were taken to a place where she heard sounds of water and the
ground was full of sand. They were subsequently brought to a nipa hut where
Imelda sensed and heard numerous people talking, and that a certain individual
said they have to call general to inform that Imelda was already there. 11

After 10 to 15 minutes, a certain General arrived and told Imelda not to

worry because she would be released, as they only wanted to get the ransom.
He asked for her cellphone so that he could call Imelda's husband Augusto.
Over the phone, he demanded Pl0,000,000.00 from Augusto. Imelda was told
to sit or lie down and wait, and that they would give her anything she wanted

6
Id. at 2-3.
7
Rollo, p. 9.
8 Id.
9
Id. at 16.
10
Id. at 10-11.
1
' Id. at 10.

(118)URES - more -
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 257175

because she was six months pregnant during that time. After 24 hours of being
detained, Imelda was informed that Augusto already paid for her ransom in the
amount of P3,000,000.00 and that she would already be released. 12

Imelda and Efren were taken back to her car. After driving for an hour,
Imelda and Efren were made to alight from the car and were given Pl ,000.00
for their transportation. She discovered that they were in Parafiaque after taking
off the sunglasses covered with tape. 13

Meanwhile, Augusto narrated that he was in a coffee shop in Makati at

around 1:15 p .m . of March 11, 2002 when he then received a call from a man
demanding Pl0,000,000.00 as ransom in exchange for his wife. Augusto
appealed for them not to hurt Imelda and asked if he could talk to her. Imelda
was able to say hello but the man took back the phone and reminded Augusto
to cooperate if he wanted his wife back. Augusto reiterated his plea but the man
turned off the phone. 14

Augusto then sought the assistance of the Police Anti-Crime and

Emergency Response Unit (PACER). They waited for further instructions from
the perpetrators. At around 5 :45 p.m., the perpetrators reiterated their demand
for a Pl 0,000,000.00 ransom but Augusto needed time to raise said amount. 15

Eventually, the ransom money was decreased to P3 ,000,000.00 and one

Rolex and two Bulova watches. At about 9:30 p.m., Augusto received a call
instructing him to proceed to South Expressway and park at Shell Select Station
South Bound. Since Augusto already passed by said gas station, they were just
ordered to park at Petron. The same was aborted because the perpetrators
assumed that police officers were following them. 16

Augusto then received another call instructing him to proceed to Alabang-

Zapote road and exit the highway. At the Kabihasnan area in Parafiaque,
Augusto was ordered to pull over and meet the perpetrators. He gave the black
bag containing the money and watches to a man who then headed to a residential
area in Kabihasnan. 17 At 1:00 a.m. of March 13, 2002, Augusto arrived home.
After 15 minutes, Imelda was also back home. At 1:30 a.m., the perpetrators
called and informed them that Imelda's car was parked at McDonald's Quezon
City and that the keys were inside the exhaust pipe. 18

12
ld.atl0-11.
13
Id. at I I.
14 Id.
15
Id.at 11 - 12.
16
Id. at 12 .
i1 Id.
IS Id.

(118)URES - more -
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 257175

As for Jaducan, he testified that he was a rent-a-car driver. At around 8:00

a.m. of March 11 , 2002, Sozimo, Alejandro, Feliciano, Gregorio, alias Nono,
and Juan visited him in his home in Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City because
they needed a driver. He agreed so they boarded a Lite Ace van and went to San
Rafael Street in Mandaluyong City. In front of a warehouse, they had snacks in
a carinderia. Alejandro instructed Juan to check the car owned by Imelda inside
the warehouse. When Juan returned, they boarded the van and headed to Acacia
Lane where Feliciano changed his clothes to a police uniform. Feliciano and
alias Nono prepared the .45 caliber firearms while Juan took out a baby annalite.
Jaducan was ordered to keep quiet when he asked why there are guns. 19

They followed a Honda CR-V vehicle that passed them. They stopped at
Gomez Street where Feliciano boarded a motorcycle driven by alias Nono.
Feliciano and Nono followed the Honda CR-V while the Lite Ace van tagged
along. The motorcycle overtook the Honda CR-V in Addition Hills. Imelda tried
to escape but alias Nono caught her and brought her back to the CR-V. Juan
instructed Efren to move to the back seat. At the back seat, alias Nono and Juan
secured Imelda and Efren. Alejandro ordered Jaducan to drive the Honda CR-
Y, then Juan put the sunglasses covered with tape on Imelda and Efren.20

Jaducan further disclosed that after capturing Imelda, they headed to Shaw
Boulevard but Feliciano ordered him to stop along the way so that Juan could
change the Honda CR-V's plate number. Their trip ended in Naic, Cavite,
particularly in a house near the seashore. After a while, the Lite Ace van
likewise arrived. Inside the house, Blas, alias Kapitan and Iluminado were
already waiting for them. Alejandro approached the Honda CR-V and asked
Imelda for her name, number, address and the name and number of her husband.
Juan took Efren and said that the latter should keep up so that Imelda would not
be suspicious. After around 30 minutes, Jaducan was tasked to hide the Honda
CR-V so he drove the car to Dasmarii'ias, Cavite and parked thereat then went
home. 21

At around 7:00 p.m. of March 12, 2002, Alejandro called Jaducan to get
the Honda CR-V. He did as ordered and fetched Alejandro and others in Juan's
store in Fort Bonifacio. They proceeded to Kabihasnan, Parafiaque where
Alejandro's group and Augusto met. Ponciano took the black bag from
Augusto. Alejandro then instructed him to drive to Naic, Cavite where Imelda
was detained and ordered him to take Imelda to a 7- l l Store in Sucat,
Parafiaque. They passed by C-5 where Feliciano alighted and headed to Quezon
City where the Honda CR-V was left. Jaducan gave the car keys to Blas who
placed them inside the exhaust pipe of the car. Jaducan received PS,000.00 from
Blas for his services and went home. 22
19
Id. at 13.
20 Id.
21
Id. at 13-14.
22
Id. at 14.

(118)URES - more -
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 257175

Lastly, PSI Malixi testified that he was assigned at the National Anti-
Kidnapping Task Force in Camp Crame, Quezon City on March 11, 2002. He
received a call from Augusto regarding the kidnapping of the latter's wife
Imelda. A team was organized to help Augusto's family. He recounted that the
initial ransom money was Pl0,000,000.00 which was reduced to P3,000,000.00
and three watches. The ransom was paid on March 12, 2002 then Imelda was
released and came back home safely in the morning of March 13, 2002. 23

Version of Blas:

Blas testified that he was residing at Veterans Village, Barangay Holy

Spirit, Quezon City in March 2002. He knew Feliciano, Ponciano and Jaducan
because they were all from his hometown in Eastern Samar. On the date
surrounding the incident, Iluminada fetched him and he accompanied
Iluminado to Naic, Cavite. When they arrived, it was his first time to meet alias
Kapitan who wanted to hire him to make fiberglass boats. He saw individuals
alighting from a vehicle and a woman wearing sunglasses. Juan told him to look
after their companions, a woman and a man. Out of fear, he followed and did
not say anything. He knew that Juan was a former military man who had a bad
reputation due to his involvement in crimes. When Juan, Ponciano and
Alejandro left, he, together with Feliciano and lluminado, guarded the victims
for two days. Thereafter, he was informed that the victims would be released.
He was with them when they were released in Parafiaque. Then he was taken to
Philcoa where he alighted, and was given Pl 00,000.00 as his payment for
looking after Imelda and Efren. Blas justified that he did not escape in Naic,
Cavite out of fear that he might die while doing so. Juan threatened to kill him
if he refused to guard Imelda and Efren.24

Sozimo, Ponciano, Gregorio and Alejandro proffered their respective alibi.

Sozimo claimed that he was in Baranagy Haro, Tacloban, Leyte on March 11,
2002 because his mother was sick. 25 Ponciano was in Bloomfields Subdivision
in Imus, Cavite on said date when he was called to drive for Feliciano, Jaducan
and two others to Mandaluyong, and that he went back to Cavite thereafter.26
Gregorio was in Guiguinto, Bulacan where he lives. 27 Finally, Alejandro could
not recall where he was or what he was doing on said date, but he was in Bicol
before the case was filed. He only visited Manila to do scrap work. He denied
being involved in the kidnapping case.28

23
Id. at 15-16 .
24
ld.at l9.
25
Id. at 16-17.
26
Id. at 17- 18.
27
Id. at 18.
28
Id. at 18- 19.

(118)URES - more -
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 257175

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In a Decision 29 dated June 28, 2013, the RTC found Blas, Sozimo,
Alejandro and Gregorio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping for
Ransom. The prosecution proved the existence of each element of the crime.
The defenses of denial and alibi forwarded by the perpetrators were disregarded
because they failed to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to
have been at the scene of the crime. Moreover, the alibis were not corroborated
by any other evidence or testimonies. 30 The RTC observed unity of purpose and
that their conce1ied actions pointed to a single intent - to deprive Imelda of her
libe1iy in exchange for ransom. Hence, the act of one is the act of all.3 1

Thefallo of the RTC Decision reads in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding

Accused Sozimo Lauzon, Accused Alejandro Aldas, Accused Gregorio Dela
Cruz, and Accused Blas Abucay GUILTY of the crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom as defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

Accordingly, Accused Sozimo Lauzon, Accused Alejandro Aldas,

Accused Greogrio Dela Cruz, and Accused Blas Abucay are hereby each
sentenced to reclusion perpetua with no possibility of parole and ordered to pay,
jointly and severally, Pl00,000 moral damages, Pl00,000 exemplary damages
and Tlu·ee Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) and the value of the three watches
consisting of one (1) Rolex and (2) Bulovas, if the same can no longer be
retrieved from the Accused, as actual damages.

SO ORDERED. 32

Aggrieved, Blas appealed33 the case to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

In its October 29, 2020 Decision, 34 the CA affirmed the RTC's findings
and convicted Blas of the crime charged. The CA held that inconsistencies as
to minor details did not impair the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. 35
As to the defense of denial, Blas did not present corroborative evidence to
support his denial. Blas even volunteered the information that he received
Pl 00,000.00 for his participation in the crime. Blas benefited from the fruit of
the illegal act and did not even bother to report the incident to the authority. His

29
CA rollo, pp. 72-82.
30
Id. at 79-80.
31
Id. at 81.
32
Id. at 81-82.
33
ld.atl 7-1 8.
34
Rollo, pp. 8-24.
35
Id. at 20-23 .

(118)URES - more -
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 257175

acts were contrary to his contention that he was forced or threatened to

paiiicipate to the crime. 36

The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED and the

decision dated June 28, 20 13 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 208,
Mandaluyong City in Criminal Case No. MC05-9674-H is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 37

Unrelenting, Blas appealed38 before this Court. In his brief,39 Blas insists
that Jaducan's testimony was full of inconsistencies which tainted his credibility
as a witness, hence, the prosecution failed to prove Blas' guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. 40 In addition, Blas contends that he should have been
exempted from criminal liability under A1iicle 12(5) and (6) of the RPC because
he was only compelled by an irresistible force to look after Imelda.41 Lastly,
mere presence at the scene of the crime did not amount to conspiracy that would
link him directly to the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom.42 Hence, Blas prays
that he be acquitted of the crime charged. 43

The People, in its brief, 44 maintains that Blas was a co-conspirator for the
crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and that the prosecution adequately
established the elements of the crime. The conduct of Blas during and after the
commission of the crime showed adherence to a common purpose and design,
and he was not merely a passive participant to the crime. 45 As to the exempting
circumstance, the People argues that duress or intimidation must be
characterized as imminent and impending, excluding a threat of future injury. 46
Additionally, even the minor inconsistent statements were sufficiently
explained.47 Finally, the defenses of denial and lack of motive could not prevail
over the prosecution's positive testimonies. 48

All told, the sole issue before this Court is whether Blas is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom.

J(, Id. at 23 .
37
Id . at 23-24.
38
Id. at 3-4.
39
CA rollo, pp. 52-70.
40
Id. at 63-6S.
41
Id. at 65-66.
42
Id. at 66-68.
43
Id. at 68.
44
Id. at 92-1 18.
45
Id.at 103-107.
46
Id. at I 08- 11 0.
47
Id. at 110-11 4.
48
Id. at 114- 11 6.

(118)URES - more -
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 257175

Our Ruling

The appeal lacks merit.

This Court affirms the conviction of Blas for Kidnapping for Ransom.

It is a hornbook doctrine that the trial court's factual findings as well as its
conclusion pe11aining to the credibility of the witnesses should be accorded
great weight and respect. Evidently, trial courts hold the lenses to personally
examine and observe the demeanor, manner and body language of the witnesses
as they testified during trial. 49 In this case, the RTC found the testimonies of the
prosecution's witnesses to be credible and sufficient to prove every element of
the crime charged.50 The perpetrators, including Blas, implemented their plan
to deprive Imelda of her liberty and be released in exchange for ransom
money. 51

These findings of fact by the trial court, as affinned by the CA, and absent
any reason that would impel Us to overturn or disregard the same, deserve due
respect. It is noteworthy to echo the pronouncement in People v. Nocido 52 that
minor inconsistencies even enhance the credibility of a witness for the same
showcase lack of scheming and spontaneity.

This Court likewise finds that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of Kidnapping for Ransom. Article
267 of the RPC provides:

Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private

individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive
him[or her] of his[or her] 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 penalty 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.

49
People v. .Jagdon, Jr. , G .R. No. 242882, September 9, 2020.
°
5
51
CA rollo, pp. 73-76. See also pp. 79-80.
Id. at 80.
52
G.R. No. 240229, June 17, 2020.

(118)URES - more -
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 257 175

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. (Emphasis supplied)

People v. Fajardo 53 sets forth the particular elements of said crime that
must concur: ( 1) that the offender is a private individual; (2) said offender
kidnaps or detains another person, or deprives the latter of his or her liberty; (3)
the detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and ( 4) the commission of the crime
must be in any of the circumstances: (a) the detention lasts for more than three
days; (b) the crime was committed by simulating public authority; ( c) serious
physical injuries were inflicted upon the person kidnapped or threats to kill him
or her were made; or (d) the individual kidnapped or detained is a minor, a
female or a public officer. 54

The first and second elements were evidently present in this case. Blas,
as well the other accused, was a private individual. He detained and guarded
Imelda and Efren for about two days until they were released after the ransom
money was delivered.55 As for the third and fourth elements, Imelda, a woman,
was deprived of her liberty and against her will, which was contrary to law and
simply illegal. Imelda was detained for about two days, and was only released
after the perpetrators received the ransom money amounting to P3,000,000.00
and three watches. 56 Since all the elements were clearly established by the
prosecution, it cannot be gainsaid that the perpetrators, including Blas, are
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of said crime.

In his attempt for exoneration, Blas argues that conspiracy was not
established and the exempting circumstance under Article 12(5) 57 of the RPC
applies as to him.

We are not convinced.

There is conspiracy when two or more persons agreed to the commission

of an offense and they decided to commit the same. This Court, however,
emphasizes that conspiracy may also be inferred from the acts of the
perpetrators such as when their overt acts display adherence to a common
purpose and design, and community of interests. As in People v. Fajardo, 58 the
meeting of minds need not be express so long as the same could be inferred
from the concerted actions of each perpetrator. In this case, Blas was proven to

53
830 Phil. 289 (2018).
54
Id. at 300.
55
Rollo, p. 19.
56
Id.at 10-1 6.
57
ARTICLE 12 . Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal Liability. - The following are exempt from
criminal liabi lity:
xxxx
(5) Any person who acts under the compu lsion of an irresistible force.
58
Supra note 53 at 292.

(118)URES - more -
Resolution 10 G.R. No. 257175

have participated in achieving a common design and purpose when he, together
with Feliciano and Iluminado, guarded Imelda and Efren for two days in Naic,
Cavite. Such fact was elicited from Blas' himself. 59 Even more, Jaducan also
received the amount of PS,000.00 from Blas for the former's services.60 Worse,
Blas accepted Pl 00,000.00 as payment for guarding Imelda and Efren. These
overt acts affirm conspiracy and negate Blas' outcry for exemption from
criminal liability allegedly due to compulsion of an irresistible force. This Court
reiterates its pronouncement in People v. Paredes, Jr. :61

The argument of accused-appellant that he only acted under the compulsion

of an irresistible force which consequently exempts him from criminal liability
is of no moment and cannot be given credence by this Honorable Court. Under
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal liability
if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of
an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such person does not
act with freedom. However, it was held that for such a defense to prosper, the
duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be present, imminent and
impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension
of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury
is not enough. We have held that in order for the circumstance of
uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary that the compulsion be of such
a character as to leave no opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal
com bat. 62 (Emphasis supplied) (Citations omitted)

Blas claims that he was threatened with death if he would not guard Imelda
and Efren, and that he was fearful of Juan who had a reputation for his
involvement in crimes. However, all these are bare assertions wanting in any
substantiation. Besides, B las' actions manifest his willingness to perform the
tasks assigned to him. He continued to guard Imelda until her release and even
received Pl 00,000.00 for doing so.

All matters considered, the prosecution's evidence prevail over the

contentions of Blas. He is, therefore, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Kidnapping for Ransom. While the penalty for this crime is death
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty to be imposed is
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in view of the passage of RA
9346. 63 Likewise, the trial comi, as affirmed by the appellate court, correctly
ordered the payment of Pl00,000.00 moral damages, P l00,000.00 exemplary
damages, and actual damages in the amount of P3,000,000.00 and the value of
the three watches, if the same could no longer be retrieved and returned, as
imposed jointly and severally against the perpetrators namely Sozimo,

59
Rol/o,p. 19.
60 Id. at 14.
61
G.R. No. 238745 (Notice), January 30, 20 19.
62 Id.
6
J Entitled, "AN A CT PROHIBITING TH E I MPOSITION OF DEATII PENALTY IN TIIE PHI LIPPINES." Approved: June
24, 2006.

(118)URES - more -
Resolution I1 G.R. No. 257175

Alejandro, Gregorio and Blas. 64 Moreover, all these monetary awards shall earn
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this
Resolution until full payment.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed October 29,

2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12976
finding accused-appellant Blas Abucay y Tumino @ Bala guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Kidnapping for Ransom and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole 65 is AFFIRMED
with modification in that all the monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate
of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full
payment.

SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J, on official leave; Hernando,

J, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2882 dated March 17, 2022).

By authority

4"
INOTUAZON
rk of Court "'d~/:Jb
O M.l'IR 2022
THE DIRECTOR (reg)
*OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg) Bureau of Corrections
134 Amorsolo Street I 770 Muntinlupa City
1229 Legaspi Village
Makati City JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)
Supreme Court, Manila
*PUBLIC ATTORNEY' S OFFICE (reg)
Special & Appealed Cases Service PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)
Department of Justice LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
PAO-DOJ Agencies Building [For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]
NIA Road corner East Avenue
1104 Diliman, Quezon City OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)
OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
*BLAS ABUCA Y y TUMINO@ BALA (reg) PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x)
Accused-Appel !ant Supreme Court, Manila
c/o The Di rector
Bureau of Corrections COURT OF APPEALS (x)
I 770 Muntinlupa City Ma. Orosa Street
Ermita, I 000 Manila
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg) CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12976
Regional Trial Court, Branch 208
1550 Mandaluyong City *with copy of the Decision dated 29 October 2020
(Criminal Case No. MC05-9674-H)
Please notify the Court ofa11y c/ia11ge i11 your address.
GR257175. 03/21/2022(l 18)URES
64
Rollo, p . 82. See also People v. Niegas, 722 Phil. 301, 313-314 (2013); People v. f'epino, 636 Phil. 297.
310-312 (2010).
65
A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC or the Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole"
in Indivisible Penalties: "If at all, the qualification of "without e ligibility for parole" may be applied to
qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the appellant should have been sentenced to suffer the
death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.

(118)URES - more -