People vs. Borja

A police officer who detains a person for the purpose of extorting ransom acts in a purely private capacity and may be prosecuted for kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, and the victim's subsequent arrest and conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 9165 neither negates that liability nor proves lawful arrest.

At about 10:00 a.m. on May 26, 2004, Ronalyn Manatad and her friend Vicky Lusterio were walking along Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City when a man later identified as PO3 Julieto Borja grabbed Ronalyn by her right forearm and forcibly loaded her into a gray van where three other men waited. Both women shouted for help; Lusterio managed to escape and immediately reported the incident to Ronalyn's mother, Adelina Manatad. Meanwhile, Borja and his companions drove the van around Quezon City, with one abductor identified as Major Clarito asking Ronalyn for her relatives' contact numbers, and she gave her brother Edwin G. Silvio's number.

Thereafter, Adelina received a call demanding P200,000.00 for Ronalyn's liberty, but when she pleaded inability to pay the caller hung up. When the kidnappers called again, Edwin negotiated the demand down to P100,000.00. At that juncture Ronalyn was transferred from the van to a gray car and driven to areas behind Sulo Hotel, McDonald's at Quezon Avenue, behind SSS, and in front of East Avenue Medical Center until about 3:00 p.m. Edwin sought help from Sergeant Abet Cordova of the National Anti-Kidnapping Task Force, who told him to continue negotiating and report developments, then relayed the matter to group commander Major Saiiti Cababasay who mobilized a team for entrapment.

At around 12:00 noon Edwin was instructed to place the money in an SM plastic bag and proceed to the Wildlife Park along Quezon Avenue at 3:00 p.m., which he relayed to Sgt. Cordova. Police operatives positioned themselves in the area, and when Edwin arrived, Borja approached and took the SM plastic bag containing the ransom. Upon seeing the exchange the operatives arrested Borja and recovered from him a 0.9 mm pistol, a cellphone, a wallet, and the P100,000.00. Despite the entrapment, Ronalyn was not rescued; while inside the van she heard an abductor say Borja had been entrapped, after which the others cursed her, saying Putang ina, iyung kapatid mo. Tumawag ng taga-NAKTAF, and later brought her to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency where she was charged with illegal sale of shabu.

According to Borja, he was with PO2 Ding Tan at Branch 79, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City that morning to testify as a witness, but the hearing was postponed and after securing a certificate of appearance he decided to go home at 12:00 noon. At around 2:00 p.m. he allegedly received a call from an unknown person seeking help to recover his arrested sister, and on a second call was told to go to the Wildlife Park to meet a certain Edwin wearing a white T-shirt and bull cap. Borja claimed he met Edwin, who said Ronalyn and Lusterio had been arrested in a buy-bust operation, advised Edwin to report to the police station, and waited about 30 minutes for Edwin's cousin when Captain Frederick Obar, SPO3 Eric Orellaneda and three unidentified persons approached, with Orellaneda shouting Meron lang ditong nag-eextortion to which he replied Wala naman akong alam, before his wallet, cellphone and firearm were confiscated and Sgt. Cordova shouted O, meron ditong P100,000.00 galing kay Borja. The trial court credited the prosecution's categorical testimonies over denial and alibi, while Ronalyn was separately found guilty of violation of Republic Act No. 9165 by the Court of Appeals on December 15, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03140, which dismissal of her appeal became final per Resolution dated February 1, 2012, and she was serving sentence at the Women's Correctional in Mandaluyong.

• Lawful Arrest and Drug Conviction: Petitioner argued that Ronalyn was not deprived of her liberty because she was lawfully arrested and charged with violation of Republic Act No. 9165.
• In Flagrante Delicto and Absurdity of Kidnapping: Petitioner maintained that it was absurd to convict him of kidnapping considering the alleged victim was caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation on the day of the incident, as confirmed by her conviction by both the Court of Appeals and this Court and her service of sentence in the Women's Correctional in Mandaluyong.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Respondent countered that the categorical and spontaneous testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses were sufficient to convict accused-appellant of kidnapping.
• Alibi and Physical Possibility: Respondent argued that the defense of alibi deserved no weight because it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the scene, since the Quezon City Hall of Justice was just a few blocks away from where the victim was taken.

• Kidnapping for Ransom: Whether accused-appellant PO3 Julieto Borja is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping punished under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Kidnapping for Ransom: Yes. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt was established, all elements of kidnapping under Article 267 having concurred and the separate drug case against the victim being immaterial to criminal liability for ransom extortion.

• Kidnapping for Ransom: The buy-bust operation against Ronalyn and her kidnapping were held to reasonably coexist, since violation of Republic Act No. 9165 bears no direct or indirect relation to kidnapping and her innocence or guilt would neither affirm nor negate its commission. All elements were proven: Ronalyn, a female, was forcibly taken by accused-appellant and loaded in a van where she was detained for several hours, acts unrelated to police functions and done to extort P200,000.00 later reduced to P100,000.00, as shown by her categorical testimony on the grabbing, van transfer to a gray car, circuit around Quezon City until 3:00 p.m., and overheard ransom demands. Although Article 267 speaks of a private individual, a public officer who detains for ransom was held to act in purely private capacity pursuant to People vs. Santiano and People vs. Trestiza, with the burden on the accused to prove official function, which bare denial and unauthenticated claim of legitimate operation failed to discharge. Alibi was rejected because Agham Road and the Quezon City Hall of Justice, judicially noticed to be a few blocks apart, made presence at the scene physically possible, compounded by highly irregular conduct in meeting Edwin outside a police station, waiting 30 minutes, and interfering in an operation to which he was unassigned, pointing to extortion as the purpose at the Wildlife Park.

• Elements of kidnapping or serious illegal detention — The offense requires concurrence of: (a) offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of liberty; (c) the detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (d) in its commission any of the following is present: detention lasts more than three days, commission by simulating public authority, infliction of serious physical injuries or threats to kill, or victim is a minor, female, or public officer, with death as penalty where committed to extort ransom. Applied here, all requisites concurred as Ronalyn, a female, was forcibly taken, driven around for at least five hours, and held for P100,000.00 ransom.
• Private capacity of public officers under Article 267 — A public officer who detains a person to extort ransom is not acting in furtherance of official function or pursuant to vested authority but in purely private capacity and may be prosecuted under Article 267, with the burden on the accused to prove official function. Applied through People vs. Santiano and People vs. Trestiza, Borja's PNP membership did not exempt him absent reliable proof of legitimate police operation.
• Essence of kidnapping; restriction of movement — The essence is actual deprivation of liberty coupled with intent to effect it, satisfied by restriction of liberty of movement without need for imprisonment. Applied to the forcible loading into the van, driving around Quezon City for hours, and transfer to another car until 3:00 p.m.
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Requires only moral certainty or that degree of proof producing conviction in an unprejudiced mind, not absolute certainty excluding possibility of error. Applied to sustain conviction on categorical victim and entrapment testimonies despite the separate drug prosecution.
• Weakness of denial and alibi — Bare denial and alibi are inherently weak and easily contrived; alibi prospers only upon showing physical impossibility of presence at the scene at the time of commission. Applied to reject Borja's claim of being at the Hall of Justice, a few blocks from Agham Road, and his irregular presence at the Wildlife Park.
• Penalty for kidnapping for ransom; Republic Act No. 9346 — Although Article 267 as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 prescribes death for kidnapping for ransom, Republic Act No. 9346 proscribed its imposition, leaving reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, with increased civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages per current jurisprudence. Applied to impose reclusion perpetua without parole and P100,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages plus 6% interest.

• "Extortion done by police themselves amounting to kidnapping with ransom undermines the government efforts to establish the rule of law in general and the proper prosecution against drug traffickers in particular." — States the policy premise that police extortion constituting kidnapping for ransom is not excused by anti-drug enforcement.
• "Even the subsequent prosecution of the victim of extortion does not negate the criminal liability of the accused for the crime the latter committed against the former." — States the ratio that Ronalyn's drug prosecution and conviction coexist with and are immaterial to Borja's kidnapping liability.
• "The essence of the crime of kidnapping is "the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it."" — Gives the canonical definition applied to find deprivation through forcible taking and hours-long detention in vehicles.
• "For the defense of alibi to prosper, there must be a showing that it was physically impossible for the accused "to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission."" — States the strict standard applied to reject alibi given the short distance between the Hall of Justice and Agham Road.

• People vs. Santiano, 359 Phil. 928 (1998) — Followed as controlling that NARCOM and PNP members who abducted the victim not in furtherance of official function acted in purely private capacity and were liable for kidnapping.
• People vs. Trestiza, 676 Phil. 420 (2011) — Followed to place the burden on police-accused to prove legitimate operation and to reject unauthenticated pre-operation sheets, supporting prosecution under Article 267.
• People vs. Obeso, 460 Phil. 625 (2003) — Cited for the elements of kidnapping and that deprivation need not be imprisonment if liberty of movement is restricted.
• People vs. Mamantak, 582 Phil. 294 (2008) — Cited for the essence of kidnapping as actual deprivation of liberty with intent and that deprivation may be committed in different ways.
• People vs. Jacalne, 61A Phil. 139 (2011) — Cited to hold the second element met upon showing restriction of the victim's liberty of movement.
• People vs. Enriquez, Jr., 503 Phil. 367 (2005) — Cited for the weakness of denial and alibi and the physical-impossibility standard that Borja failed to meet.
• People vs. Gregorio, G.R. No. 194235, June 8, 2016; People vs. Gambao, 718 Phil. 507 (2013) — Followed as current jurisprudence to increase civil indemnity and moral damages to P100,000.00 each and impose P100,000.00 exemplary damages.

• Article 267, Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes kidnapping and serious illegal detention, including death where committed to extort ransom; applied to convict Borja for forcible taking and detention of a female victim for P100,000.00 ransom.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits imposition of the death penalty; applied to retain reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole instead of death.
• Republic Act No. 9165 — Punishes illegal sale of shabu; invoked by defense as lawful buy-bust, but held to bear no relation to and immaterial to liability for kidnapping.
• Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court — Provides proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only moral certainty producing conviction in an unprejudiced mind; applied as quantum to sustain conviction.

Carpio, Chairperson, Bersamin, Mendoza, and Martires, JJ., concur.