People v. Fiel Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 6, 1979, Conchita Laruga and her brother-in-law, Rosendo Laruga, were preparing to sail their pumpboat to Cebu City to sell shrimps. Antonio Alzate and an unidentified person boarded their pumpboat, along with three other companions, for a fee. While at sea, the passengers revealed firearms and a hunting knife, identifying themselves as rebels and ordering the complainants to sail for Leyte. They were forced to stop to buy gasoline, during which Conchita was threatened with stripping if she did not provide money. She gave them the shrimps she intended to sell, valued at P550.00, which they used to buy gasoline. The journey continued towards Leyte, but the accused Arcadio Fiel, Jr. took over the helm and steered the boat towards Samar, refusing the complainants' plea to be dropped off in Leyte for fear they would report the incident. The next morning, the accused destroyed parts of the pumpboat to prevent identification. They landed in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, to buy more gasoline, where Conchita signaled to an ICHDF soldier that she was being held captive. The soldiers intervened, leading to the arrest of four of the accused, including appellants Fiel, Jr., Alzate, and Campo. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Bohol convicted Arcadio Fiel, Jr., Antonio Alzate, and Jerry Campo of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. The accused interposed the present appeal. The Petition: The accused-appellants denied depriving the offended parties of their liberty, claiming they were escaping from a religious sect engaged in subversive activities and had hired the pumpboat for passage to Cebu, later diverting to San Luis due to fear. They asserted that the offended parties willingly agreed to the changes in itinerary.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused deprived the offended parties of their liberty and whether the elements of the crime of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code are present. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution's evidence over the appellants' version of the facts. On the qualifying circumstance and penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, finding the accused guilty of kidnapping and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. The judgment was declared in accordance with law and evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of deprivation of liberty and the elements of kidnapping: The Court held that the offended parties were deprived of their liberty. Their testimony was found credible, especially considering their destination was Cebu to sell shrimps, yet they found themselves in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, approximately thirty-three hours later. This deviation could not have been willingly consented to by the offended parties given the dangerous nature of the sea voyage and the unknown companions. The Court emphasized that deprivation of liberty does not require confinement within an enclosure; it is sufficient that the victims were unable to move as they pleased, not even to leave their craft, under threats of death. The act of the offended parties jumping off the boat upon seeing soldiers and Conchita's spontaneous declaration that they were being held captive by rebels constituted res gestae and provided considerable weight to discredit the appellants' defense. The presence of arms, a map, and a compass further supported the prosecution's claim that the appellants were the aggressors and not escaping rebels. Therefore, all the elements of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code were present, including the use of violence or intimidation, and the deprivation of liberty. On the credibility of witnesses and the trial court's findings: The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court's finding of credibility in favor of the prosecution's witnesses. The opposing testimonies presented a clear issue of credibility, and the trial court, having observed the witnesses firsthand, was in a better position to assess their veracity. The Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that findings of fact by the trial court, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding upon appellate courts. The circumstances, such as the significant deviation from the intended route, the duration of the voyage, the threats made, and the eventual rescue, lent complete credibility to the offended parties' account of being captives. The appellants' version of escaping from a subversive group was deemed pure fiction and an obviously futile pretense, especially given their possession of weapons and navigational tools, which made them appear to be the rebels themselves. On the qualifying circumstance and penalty: The Court noted that a woman, Conchita Laruga, was one of the offended parties. This qualifying circumstance, as mentioned in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, justified the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as provided therein. The conviction and sentence were thus affirmed.
Main Doctrine
The crime of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is committed when a person is deprived of liberty by means of violence, intimidation, or deception, even if not confined within an enclosure, as long as the victim is unable to move as they please under threat of death.