People of the Philippines vs. Yusop Tadah

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention committed for ransom is punishable by death under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, but RA No. 9346 reduces the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; the use of a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts cannot affect the penalty because Article 63 applies a single indivisible penalty regardless of aggravating circumstances.

Yusop Tadah was one of several accused charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The charges were governed by Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 8 of RA No. 7659, which prescribed death for kidnapping for ransom. RA No. 9346, the Anti-Death Penalty Law, took effect on June 30, 2006 and prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, reducing sentences to reclusion perpetua and rendering persons so sentenced ineligible for parole under Section 3.

On September 9, 1998, Gina Yang y Bersañez, Princess Jane "Cha-Cha" Yang, Joy Sagubay, Yang Wang Tao Chiu, and Nicomedes Santa Ana were kidnapped and illegally detained. Gina, Cha-Cha, and Nicomedes were released on November 21, 1998 upon the payment of a ransom of ₱500,000.00, while Joy and Yang Wang Tao Chiu were released sometime in January 1999 upon the payment of a ransom of ₱1,500,000.00. The total ransom paid was ₱2,000,000.00, and the RTC ordered appellant to pay Bien Yang that amount for the ransom paid.

At trial, Nicomedes and Cha-Cha, then eight years old, testified straightforwardly and identified appellant as one of the kidnappers. The RTC gave credence to their testimonies, found no motive affecting their credibility, rejected appellant's denial and alibi, and found conspiracy from the concerted acts of the accused. It also appreciated that the kidnapping was committed to extort ransom and that a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts were used. Appellant's co-accused remained at large.

• Denial and Alibi: Appellant Yusop Tadah maintained defenses of denial and alibi, which the RTC rejected in light of the victims' positive identification and the absence of any motive affecting their credibility.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Identification: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant conspired to kidnap and illegally detain the victims for ransom, notwithstanding his defenses of denial and alibi.
• Penalty: Whether the imposable penalty for kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom is death under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, and whether it must be reduced to reclusion perpetua without parole under RA No. 9346.
• Aggravating Circumstance: Whether the use of a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts affects the penalty when Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes a single indivisible penalty.
• Civil Liability: Whether the appellant's civil liability should be modified to include civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each count.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Identification: Yes. The conviction was affirmed; the victims' positive identification and proof of conspiracy established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering alibi unworthy of credit.
• Penalty: Reclusion perpetua without parole. Although Article 267 prescribes death for kidnapping for ransom, RA No. 9346 prohibits death and Section 3 makes the reduced sentence ineligible for parole.
• Aggravating Circumstance: No. The use of a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts cannot affect the penalty because Article 63 applies a single indivisible penalty regardless of aggravating circumstances.
• Civil Liability: Yes, modified. Civil indemnity of ₱75,000.00, moral damages of ₱75,000.00, and exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00 are awarded for each count, in addition to restitution of ₱2,000,000.00.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Identification: The RTC's findings, affirmed by the CA, were not reversed because Nicomedes' and Cha-Cha's testimonies amply established the prosecution's case. No motive affecting their credibility was imputed. Appellant's positive identification as one of the perpetrators rendered his alibi unworthy of credit. The prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused conspired to kidnap the victims for ransom and illegally detained them until release after receipt of the ₱2,000,000.00 ransom.
• Penalty: Under the second paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty is death for kidnapping and serious illegal detention committed for ransom. RA No. 9346, however, prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, so the CA correctly reduced the sentence to reclusion perpetua. Section 3 of RA No. 9346 provides that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences are reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. The appellant is thus sentenced to reclusion perpetua without parole for each count.
• Aggravating Circumstance: Although the use of a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts was alleged and proven, it cannot affect the imposable penalty. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code states that in all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, like reclusion perpetua and death, it shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
• Civil Liability: The Court found it necessary to modify the appellant's civil liability. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the appellant is liable for ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, awarded if the crime warrants the imposition of the death penalty; ₱75,000.00 as moral damages because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries without need of proof; and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good, for each count of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. These are in addition to restitution of ₱2,000,000.00 for the ransom paid.

• Positive Identification Over Alibi — Where victims positively identify the accused as a perpetrator, the defense of alibi is unworthy of credit, especially absent any motive to falsely testify. The Court relied on Nicomedes' and Cha-Cha's straightforward testimonies and positive identification to reject appellant's denial and alibi.
• Conspiracy as Basis for Liability — Conspiracy may be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt of concerted acts in furtherance of a common design. The prosecution proved conspiracy to kidnap the victims for ransom and to detain them until ransom was paid; the RTC noted that conspiracy attended the crime due to the concerted acts of the accused.
• Single Indivisible Penalty Under Article 63 — When the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The use of a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts, though alleged and proven, could not affect the penalty for kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom.
• Effect of RA No. 9346 on the Death Penalty — RA No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences are reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. The Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua without parole for each count.
• Civil Liability for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention — In line with prevailing jurisprudence, a person convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom is liable for civil indemnity of ₱75,000.00, moral damages of ₱75,000.00, and exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00 for each count, in addition to restitution of the ransom paid. Civil indemnity is awarded if the crime warrants death; moral damages are presumed without need of proof; exemplary damages are imposed for the public good.

• "Since the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused conspired to kidnap the victims for ransom, and kidnapped and illegally detained them until they were released by the accused after the latter received the ₱2,000,000.00 ransom, the imposable penalty is death as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code." — States the ratio for the imposable penalty based on proof of conspiracy, ransom, and illegal detention.
• "The aggravating circumstance of using a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts, while alleged and proven, cannot affect the imposable penalty because Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code states that in all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty (like reclusion perpetua and death), it shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed." — Articulates the Article 63 rule on single indivisible penalties and explains why the aggravating circumstance did not alter the penalty.
• "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended." — Quotes Section 3 of RA No. 9346, the basis for the Court's added ruling that the appellant is not eligible for parole.
• "In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the appellant is also liable for ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime warrants the imposition of the death penalty; ₱75,000.00 as moral damages because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, without need of proof; and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good, for each count of kidnapping and serious illegal detention." — States the modified civil liability awards for each count.

• People of the Philippines vs. PO1 Froilan L. Trestiza, G.R. No. 193833, November 16, 2011 — Cited as part of prevailing jurisprudence supporting the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in the modified civil liability.
• People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 524, 546 — Cited together with Trestiza as prevailing jurisprudence for the same civil liability awards.

• Article 267, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 8 of RA No. 7659 — Defines kidnapping and serious illegal detention; its second paragraph imposes death when the kidnapping is committed for ransom. The Court held this was the imposable penalty, subject to RA No. 9346.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides that in all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Applied to disregard the aggravating circumstance of using a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts.
• Republic Act No. 9346 (Anti-Death Penalty Law) — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The Court applied it to reduce the sentence to reclusion perpetua.
• Section 3, Republic Act No. 9346 — States that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences are reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. Applied to declare appellant ineligible for parole.
• Act No. 4180 (Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended) — Referenced in Section 3 of RA No. 9346 as the parole law under which persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua under RA No. 9346 are not eligible.

Antonio T. Carpio, Jose Portugal Perez, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, and Bienvenido L. Reyes.