PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RODRIGO AWID AND
MADUM GANIH G.R. No. 185388, June 16, 2010
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
Kidnapping for ransom
FACTS:
On January 9, 2000 only Mrs.
Lee was left in the house, accompanied by three housemaids, and the accused
Ernesto Andagao, a gardener-houseboy. They all slept in an extension of the main
house, which extension had three rooms. Mrs. Lee was in one with her 11
Japanese Spitz puppies. Next to hers was the room where Andagao slept, and then
there was the room of the housemaids.
Part of Mrs. Lee’s night routine was to let her puppies out of her room about midnight so they could take a leak. At the early dawn of January 10, 2000, after opening the door of her room to let her puppies out, Mrs. Lee was surprised to see a stranger, a man, standing a few meters from her door. She immediately went back in and tried to shut her door close but the man succeeded in pushing the door open and pulling her out of the room just as another man appeared. Someone struck Mrs. Lee with a gun on both shoulders and kicked her on the ribs. When she fell down, she received a kick on her buttocks.
Although she cannot recognized the faces of her abductors because she was blindfolded and covered by black cloth, she noticed that they left Zamboanga City. After traveling three to four hours, they arrived in a house which she later knew that it belonged to a certain Suod Hussain. On January 10, 2000, Mrs. Lee met accused Madum Ganih. She was held for 20 days and during that time she communicated her husband with the order of Ganih to prepare a ransom of P15,000,000. Mr. Lee asked the kidnappers to lower the amount since he could only raise an amount of P1,000,000. Calling her family a third time, the kidnappers reduced their demand to P4 million and threatened to cut off Mrs. Lee’s head unless this was paid.
In the evening of May 5, 2000, Ganih told Mrs. Lee that they would release her the next day. At about 4:00 a.m. of May 6, 2000, her abductors brought Mrs. Lee to Arena Blanco in Zamboanga City where Ganih gave her P100.00 for fare and an M203 bullet as memento. She eventually got home.
Sometime after, the police arrested some men which in a police line-up, Mrs. Lee later positively identified as her abductors. For his part, Ganih denied the allegations and claimed an alibi that he was in his house at the said incident.
On May 21, 2002 the RTC rendered judgment,convicting Ganih of the crime charged and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death. The RTC, however, acquitted Awid for insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUE:
Part of Mrs. Lee’s night routine was to let her puppies out of her room about midnight so they could take a leak. At the early dawn of January 10, 2000, after opening the door of her room to let her puppies out, Mrs. Lee was surprised to see a stranger, a man, standing a few meters from her door. She immediately went back in and tried to shut her door close but the man succeeded in pushing the door open and pulling her out of the room just as another man appeared. Someone struck Mrs. Lee with a gun on both shoulders and kicked her on the ribs. When she fell down, she received a kick on her buttocks.
Although she cannot recognized the faces of her abductors because she was blindfolded and covered by black cloth, she noticed that they left Zamboanga City. After traveling three to four hours, they arrived in a house which she later knew that it belonged to a certain Suod Hussain. On January 10, 2000, Mrs. Lee met accused Madum Ganih. She was held for 20 days and during that time she communicated her husband with the order of Ganih to prepare a ransom of P15,000,000. Mr. Lee asked the kidnappers to lower the amount since he could only raise an amount of P1,000,000. Calling her family a third time, the kidnappers reduced their demand to P4 million and threatened to cut off Mrs. Lee’s head unless this was paid.
In the evening of May 5, 2000, Ganih told Mrs. Lee that they would release her the next day. At about 4:00 a.m. of May 6, 2000, her abductors brought Mrs. Lee to Arena Blanco in Zamboanga City where Ganih gave her P100.00 for fare and an M203 bullet as memento. She eventually got home.
Sometime after, the police arrested some men which in a police line-up, Mrs. Lee later positively identified as her abductors. For his part, Ganih denied the allegations and claimed an alibi that he was in his house at the said incident.
On May 21, 2002 the RTC rendered judgment,convicting Ganih of the crime charged and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death. The RTC, however, acquitted Awid for insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUE:
Is accused Ganih, in
conspiracy with others, guilty of kidnapping for ransom?
RULING:
Significantly, Ganih offered nothing but his bare denial and unsubstantiated alibi to counter the overwhelming evidence that the prosecution adduced against him. His other contention is that the police made Mrs. Lee identify him, not in a proper police line-up but in a mere show-up after giving her some improper suggestions.
What the Court condemns are prior or contemporaneous improper suggestions that point out the suspect to the witness as the perpetrator to be identified. Besides, granting that the out-of-court identification was irregular, Mrs. Lee’s court testimony clearly shows that she positively identified Ganih independently of the previous identification she made in front of the police station. Mrs. Lee could not have made a mistake in identifying him since she had ample opportunities to study the faces and peculiar body movements of her kidnappers in her almost four months of ordeal with them.Indeed, she was candid and direct in her recollection, narrating events as she saw them take place. Her testimony, including her identification of the appellant, was positive, straightforward, and categorical.
The totality of the prosecution’s evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that Ganih and the others with him kidnapped Mrs. Lee for ransom. The crime was punishable by death at the time of its commission but, with the enactment of Republic Act 9346 that prohibits the imposition of such penalty, the CA was correct in lowering the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.