PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
PABLO ESTACIO AND MARITESS ANG G.R. No.
171655, July 22, 2009
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
Kidnapping with murder
FACTS:
At
around 10:00 in the evening of October 10, 1995, Maritess, together with
Estacio and Sumipo, arrived at Casa Leonisa, a bar-restaurant at Examiner
Street, Quezon City where the three of them would meet with Charlie Mancilla
Chua (the victim). Maritess had earlier told Sumipo that she would settle her
debt to the victim and then "deretsong dukot na rin x x x kay Charlie [the
victim]." Sumipo assumed, however, that Maritess was just joking.
Not long after, Estacio pulled out a gun and ordered the victim to pull the car over. As the victim complied, Estacio, with a gun pointed at him, pulled him to the backseat as Maritess transferred to the backseat, sat beside the victim, tied the victim’s hands behind his back, and placed tape on his mouth. While Sumipo tried to dissuade appellants from pursuing their plan, they replied that they would kill the victim so that he would not take revenge. On Estacio’s instruction, Sumipo drove towards San Jose del Monte, Bulacan and on reaching a secluded place, Estacio ordered Sumipo to stop the car as he did. Maritess and Estacio then brought the victim to a grassy place. Estacio with bloodied hands later resurfaced.
After which, they called the victim’s mother and demanded money from her. The victim’s mother having agreed to the demand, Maritess and Estacio directed her to place the money in a garbage can near Pizza Hut in Greenhills at 11:30 in the evening. Estacio and Sumipo later proceeded to Pizza Hut, and as they were seated there, a patrol car passed by, drawing them to leave and part ways. Sumipo soon learned that Maritess and Estacio sold Chua’s gun, watch, and necklace from the proceeds of which he was given P7,000.
On May 16, 1996, Sumipo surrendered to the National Bureau of Investigation. On May 23, 1996, Estacio surrendered to the police. The police then informed the victim’s mother that Estacio had admitted having killed her son, and that he offered to accompany them to the crime scene.
ISSUE:
Not long after, Estacio pulled out a gun and ordered the victim to pull the car over. As the victim complied, Estacio, with a gun pointed at him, pulled him to the backseat as Maritess transferred to the backseat, sat beside the victim, tied the victim’s hands behind his back, and placed tape on his mouth. While Sumipo tried to dissuade appellants from pursuing their plan, they replied that they would kill the victim so that he would not take revenge. On Estacio’s instruction, Sumipo drove towards San Jose del Monte, Bulacan and on reaching a secluded place, Estacio ordered Sumipo to stop the car as he did. Maritess and Estacio then brought the victim to a grassy place. Estacio with bloodied hands later resurfaced.
After which, they called the victim’s mother and demanded money from her. The victim’s mother having agreed to the demand, Maritess and Estacio directed her to place the money in a garbage can near Pizza Hut in Greenhills at 11:30 in the evening. Estacio and Sumipo later proceeded to Pizza Hut, and as they were seated there, a patrol car passed by, drawing them to leave and part ways. Sumipo soon learned that Maritess and Estacio sold Chua’s gun, watch, and necklace from the proceeds of which he was given P7,000.
On May 16, 1996, Sumipo surrendered to the National Bureau of Investigation. On May 23, 1996, Estacio surrendered to the police. The police then informed the victim’s mother that Estacio had admitted having killed her son, and that he offered to accompany them to the crime scene.
ISSUE:
Are the accused guilty of kidnapping for
ransom?
RULING:
In the case at bar, kidnapping was not
sufficiently proven. Although appellants bound and gagged Chua and transported
him to Bulacan against his will, they did these acts to facilitate his killing,
not because they intended to detain or confine him. As soon as they arrived at
the locus criminis, appellants wasted no time in killing him. That appellants’
intention from the beginning was to kill the victim is confirmed by the
conversation which Sumipo heard in the car in which Maritess said that a knife
would be used to kill him so that it would not create noise.The subsequent
demand for ransom was an afterthought which did not qualify appellants’ prior
acts as kidnapping.RULING:
where the evident purpose of taking the victims was to kill them, and from the acts of the accused it cannot be inferred that the latter’s purpose was actually to detain or deprive the victims of their liberty, the subsequent killing of the victims constitute the crime of murder, hence the crime of kidnapping does not exist and cannot be considered as a component felony to produce the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. The crime committed was thus plain Murder. The killing was qualified by treachery. The victim was gagged, bound, and taken from Quezon City to an isolated place in Bulacan against his will to prevent him from defending himself and to facilitate the killing.