007 PEOPLE v.

LIDASAN (Yap) during Ragos's first day of captivity, Adil and Kamir were among those who
4 September 2017 | Perlas-Bernabe, J. | Rule 112 §11 questioned Ragos as to whom to contact for ransom; and (d) Alunan and
Adil were the ones who collected the P4.83 million ransom money in
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines Quezon City; (2) as to the accomplices (ie., Brahim Lidasan, Nhokie
RESPONDENTS: Brahim Lidasan, Nhokie Mohamad, Rocky Mocalam, Mohambad, Rocky Mocalam, Teng Usman, Ali Matoc, Muslimen Wahab,
Teng Usman, Ali Matoc, Muslimen Wahab, Jimmy Alunan, Rowena Amal and Rowena Amal Rajid): They were positively identified by Ragos as those
Rajid, Omar Kamir, Alex Daliano, and Bayan Abbas Adil alias “Jordan” who guarded her during her captivity until she was rescued by PAOCTF
operatives; and (3) as to those acquitted (Saimona Camsa, Sofia Hassan,
SUMMARY: (long facts because of the number of accused, take note of and Sumulong Lawan): there was reasonable doubt due to the insufficiency
their degree of participation in the crime to distinguish them, and also take of evidence presented by the prosecution to establish their participation to
note of who appealed and who did not) An information was filed against the criminal design of the other accused. (4) Bauting, one of the security
the accused (named later in the RTC decision) charging them of the guards in the beginning, was discharged as state witness. Only Wahab,
kidnapping for ransom committed against Michelle Ragos. It alleged that Rajid, Mohamad, Lidasan, Usman, Matoc, Mocalam, and Alunan seemed
Ragos was in the family’s office/residential compound in Valenzuela City, to have appealed. The CA affirmed the respective convictions of Adil,
guarded by security guards Bauting and Daliano (who were also charged), Alunan, Daliano, and Kamir as principals, and Wahab and Matoc as
when suddenly Bansuan and 2 others entered her bedroom and declared accomplices, with modification lowering the sentence of the principals to
“kidnapping ito.” Adil served as lookout, while the other men tied Ragos's reclusion perpetua and that of the accomplices to reclusion temporal
hands, sealed her mouth with packaging tape, ransacked all the cabinets and pursuant to RA 9346 which suspended imposition of the death penalty.
drawers, and took with them cash and personal items amounting to Now, Lidasan et al. filed an Urgent MR and Notice to File Appeal with
P200,000.00. Ragos was later transferred to St. Joseph Subdivision and Leave of Court, praying that they be allowed to appeal (still to the CA) the
thereafter to Samantha Village in Las Piñas City, where she was alternatly RTC’s conviction against them since they were mistakenly omitted by
guarded by the other co-accused. A deal was entered into, lowering the defense counsel Atty. Rogelio Linzag in the appeal, when in fact they were
ransom from PHP30M to PHP4.83M. On the agreed pay-off date (ie., 7 days of the understanding that Atty. Linzag will also represent them before the
later), the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) team CA, especially after his secretary assured them of the same since Atty.
proceeded to Kitanlad Street, Quezon City to witness the pay-off. P/Supt. Linzag represented them together with the other accused who appealed. The
Arnado saw Alunan and Adil arrive on board a motorcycle and take the bag motion was granted but the CA still affirmed their convictions on the same
containing the ransom money from someone inside a "Nissan Blue Bird" grounds as those who first appealed. Now, only Kamir, Daliano, and Adil
car. Immediately thereafter, the PAOCTF team chased the kidnappers, appealed before the SC assailing their conviction.
resulting in a shoot-out and the eventual arrest of the kidnappers, except for
Bansuan who remained at large, while the rest were brought to Camp Crame The issue is whether Kami et al.’s convicions should be upheld.
for investigation. On the same day, PAOCTF operatives swooped in the
kidnappers' safe-house, resulting in Ragos's rescue, as well as the arrest of The SC ruled in the affirmative, but modified the CA decision by adding
other suspects. All the accused denied the charges against them. They penalties representing civil liability ex delicto. First, it is undisputed that
likewise offered separate, albeit similar narrations that they were based in accused-appellants, among others, illegally detained the victim Ragos
Mindanao and just went to Metro Manila to attend to certain matters when against her will for the purpose of extorting ransom from her family.
they were arrested by the authorities and were made to answer for the Moreover, the collective testimonies of prosecution witnesses, such as
aforesaid crime. The RTC found that: (1) As to the pricnipals (ie., Jimmy victim Ragos and state witness Bauting, positively identified the
Alunan, Omar Kamir, Alex Daliano, and Bayan Abbas Adil alias “Jordan”): perpetrators to the kidnapping - including accused-appellants Adil, Daliano,
(a) The actual taking of Ragos was done by Bansuan and two unidentified and Kamir - as well as narrated in detail the events that transpired from
men, with Adil acting as look-out; (b) Daliano knew about the criminal plot Ragos's abduction up to her rescue. Hence, the elements of kidnapping for
way in advance, and aside from no longer reporting for work after the ransom were established. Second, (doctrine). Pursuant to RA 9346, the SC
incident, he was seen going to the kidnappers' safe-house in Las Piñas; (c) affirmed the CA ruling lowering the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua
for the principals, and reclusion perpetua to reclusion temportal for the and alternately guarded again by the other co-accused. The
accomplices. The SC ADDED fines arising from civil liability ex delicto kidnappers initially demanded ransom money in the amount
against those who appealed (ie., Kamir et al.). The SC reasoned that of P30 million, but they eventually settled to a reduced
although none of the accomplices appealed the CA’s ruling, it still applied amount of P4.83 million. As security guards Daliano and
the effect of RA 9346 as it is favorable and applicable to them, but did not Bauting no longer reported for work following the
order them jointly and solidarily liable for civil liability ex delicto with kidnapping, the Presidential Anti- Organized Crime Task
those who appealed since such imposition is clearly not favorable to them Force (PAOCTF) formed a team headed by P/Supt. Vicente
since they no longer appealed their conviction before the Court. Arnado (P/Supt. Arnado) who monitored the activities of the
kidnappers until the agreed pay-offdate
DOCTRINE: Rule 112 §11 provides that “an appeal taken by one or more c. 7 days later, the PAOCTF team proceeded to Kitanlad Street,
of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar Quezon City to witness the pay-off. P/Supt. Arnado saw
as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the Alunan and Adil arrive on board a motorcycle and take the
latter.” (provision only because the Court really just applied it, nothing bag containing the ransom money from someone inside a
special) "Nissan Blue Bird" car. Immediately thereafter, the PAOCTF
team chased the kidnappers, resulting in a shoot-out and the
eventual arrest of the kidnappers, except for Bansuan who
FACTS: remained at large, while the rest were brought to Camp Crame
for investigation. On the same day, PAOCTF operatives
1. An information was filed before the RTC of Las Piñas charging the swooped in the kidnappers' safe-house, resulting in Ragos's
crime of kidnapping for ransom against (grouped them already rescue, as well as the arrest of other suspects.
according to RTC ruling): 3. All the accused denied the charges against them. They likewise
a. Principals – Jimmy Alunan, Omar Kamir, Alex Daliano, and offered separate, albeit similar narrations that they were based in
Bayan Abbas Adil alias “Jordan;” Mindanao and just went to Metro Manila to attend to certain matters
b. Accomplices – Brahim Lidasan, Nhokie Mohambad, Rocky when they were arrested by the authorities and were made to answer
Mocalam, Teng Usman, Ali Matoc, Muslimen Wahab, and for the aforesaid crime.
Rowena Amal Rajid; a. The RTC found them guilty of kidnapping for ransom and
c. Acquitted – Saimona Camsa, Sofia Hassan, and Sumulong sentenced the principals to suffer the capital punishment of
Lawan; and death, the accomplices to suffer reclusion perpetua (ie., one-
d. Discharged as state witness – Tadioden Bauting. degree lower), and acquitted the others on the ground of
2. The information alleged that at 10pm on 30 October 1998, Michelle reasonable doubt.
Ragos was in the family’s office/residential compound in Valenzuela, b. The RTC found that:
guarded by security guards Bauting and Daliano (the discharged state i. As to the pricnipals: (a) The actual taking of Ragos
witness and one of the principals), when suddenly Bansuan and 2 was done by Bansuan and two unidentified men, with
others entered her bedroom and declared “kidnapping ito.” Adil served Adil acting as look-out; (b) Daliano knew about the
as lookout, while the other men tied Ragos's hands, sealed her mouth criminal plot way in advance, and aside from no
with packaging tape, ransacked all the cabinets and drawers, and took longer reporting for work after the incident, he was
with them cash and personal items amounting to P200,000.00. seen going to the kidnappers' safe-house in Las Piñas;
a. Ragos was then brought to Novaliches, QC, and eventually to (c) during Ragos's first day of captivity, Adil and
a bungalow in St. Joseph Subdivision, Las Piñas City. The Kamir were among those who questioned Ragos as to
other accused were identified here, since they took turns in whom to contact for ransom; and (d) Alunan and Adil
guarding her. were the ones who collected the P4.83 million ransom
b. The following day, she was transferred to a house in Samantha money in Quezon City.
Village, Las Piñas City and kept in a room on the second floor
 ii. As to the accomplices: They were positively from her family. Moreover, the collective testimonies of prosecution
identified by Ragos as those who guarded her during witnesses, such as victim Ragos and state witness Bauting, positively
her captivity until she was rescued by PAOCTF identified the perpetrators to the kidnapping — including accused-
operatives; and appellants Adil, Daliano, and Kamir — as well as narrated in detail
iii. As to those acquitted: there was reasonable doubt due the events that transpired from Ragos's abduction up to her rescue.
to the insufficiency of evidence presented by the
prosecution to establish their participation to the RULING: WHEREFORE, petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED with
criminal design of the other accused. MODIFICATION reducing sentence of principals to reclusion perpetua, and
c. Only Wahab, Rajid, Mohamad, Lidasan, Usman, Matoc, accomplices to reclusion temporal.
Mocalam, and Alunan seemed to have appealed. The CA
affirmed the respective convictions of Adil, Alunan, Daliano, RATIO:
and Kamir as principals, and Wahab and Matoc as
accomplices, with modification lowering the sentence of the 1. The elements of kidnapping for ransom are:
principals to reclusion perpetua and that of the accomplices to a. the offender is a private individual;
reclusion temporal pursuant to RA 9346 which suspended b. he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the
imposition of the death penalty. latter of his liberty;
4. Now, Lidasan et al. filed an Urgent MR and Notice to File Appeal with c. the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
Leave of Court, praying that they be allowed to appeal (still to the CA) d. in the commission of the offense any of the following
the RTC’s conviction against them since they were mistakenly omitted circumstances is present:
by defense counsel Atty. Rogelio Linzag in the appeal, when in fact i. the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three
they were of the understanding that Atty. Linzag will also represent days;
them before the CA, especially after his secretary assured them of the ii. it is committed by simulating public authority;
same since Atty. Linzag represented them together with the other iii. any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the
accused who appealed. person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are
a. PAO and OSG did not oppose, hence the CA granted the made; or
motion on the ground that Atty. Linzag's omission of their iv. the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female,
names can be deemed as gross negligence of counsel which or a public officer.
cannot bind the client. 2. Otherwise stated, the prosecution must establish the deprivation of
b. Therafter, the CA still their convictions as accomplices. liberty of the victim under any of the above-mentioned circumstances
Similar to its findings in the 24 September 2008 Decision, the coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect the
CA held that Usman, Mocalam, Mohamad, and Lidasan's bare same. There must be a purposeful or knowing action by the accused
denials and alibis cannot prevail over Ragos's positive to forcibly restrain the victim coupled with intent.
identification of them as among those who guarded her during a. Here, it is undisputed that accused-appellants, among others,
her captivity. illegally detained the victim Ragos against her will for the
purpose of extorting ransom from her family. Moreover, the
ISSUE/s: collective testimonies of prosecution witnesses, such as
victim Ragos and state witness Bauting, positively identified
1. Whether the convictions of Kamir, Daliano, and Adil (the only parties the perpetrators to the kidnapping - including accused-
who appealed) should be upheld. YES — because the elements of appellants Adil, Daliano, and Kamir - as well as narrated in
kidnapping for ransom were proven beyond reasonable doubt. it is detail the events that transpired from Ragos's abduction up to
undisputed that accused-appellants, among others, illegally detained her rescue.
the victim Ragos against her will for the purpose of extorting ransom
 b. These easily trump Kamir et al.’s denial and alibi which are pursued the present appeal, are held jointly and solidarily
inherently weak defenses that cannot be accorded greater liable for such amounts, since such imposition is clearly not
evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by credible favorable to their co-accused who no longer appealed their
witnesses. conviction before the Court.
c. Moreover, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the
factual findings of the courts a quo as there is no indication
that the trial court, whose findings the CA affirmed,
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding
facts and circumstances of the case.
3. As to the proper penalties to be imposed on accused-appellants,
Article 267 of the RPC originally prescribes the death penalty for the
commission of said crime made for the purpose of extorting ransom.
Hence, the RTC meted such penalty on the principals, and the penalty
one (1) degree lower — i.e., reclusion perpetua — on the accomplices
pursuant to Article 52 of the RPC.
a. However, and as the CA correctly pointed out in its decision,
the passage of RA 9346 effectively lowered the imposable
penalty to the principals, e.g., accused-appellants, to reclusion
perpetua, 36 without eligibility for parole.
b. Resultantly, the imposable penalty to the accomplices must
likewise be lowered to reclusion temporal, thereby entitling
them to the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
c. Thus, the accomplices must be sentenced to suffer the penalty
of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of ten (10) years
of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and
four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
4. [MOST IMPORTANT] At this point, it is worthy to note that none of
the accomplices made any appeal to the Court. This notwithstanding,
the Court deems it proper to adjust their sentence as it is favorable and
beneficial to them, in accordance with Section 11, Rule 122 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the pertinent part of which
provides that “an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall
not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment
of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.”
5. Finally, the Court deems it proper to impose civil liability ex delicto
against accused-appellants in the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum
from finality of judgment until fully paid, in accordance with
prevailing jurisprudence.
a. [ALSO MOST IMPORTANT] To clarify, however, only
accused-appellants Adil, Daliano, and Kamir, or those who