People vs. Ramos

Actual deprivation of liberty in kidnapping exists when the victim is detained or deprived of liberty in any manner, not only placed in an enclosure; and under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 7659, where a kidnapping-for-ransom victim is killed in the course of detention, the crime is the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or merely an afterthought.

Alicia Abanilla was a principal sponsor at the wedding of Benedicto Ramos and Cecilia Pascual. Ramos later claimed that he had been removed from Meralco after an accusation that he falsified a check of Atty. Pastor del Rosario and that he needed money for his wife's delivery. At the time of the events, RA No. 7659 had amended Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code by adding a last paragraph providing that when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of detention, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. That amendment created the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder or homicide and eliminated the prior distinction between a killing purposely sought and one committed as an afterthought.

Alicia Abanilla was a principal sponsor at the wedding of Benedicto Ramos y Binuya alias "Bennie" and Cecilia Pascual. Ramos later claimed that he had been removed from Meralco after an accusation that he falsified a check of Atty. Pastor del Rosario and that he needed money for his wife's delivery. On 13 July 1994, at about six-thirty in the morning, Malcolm Bradshaw was driving his car along EDSA to take his daughter Michelle to school. At the bus stop between Corinthian Gardens and the corner to White Plains Avenue, Quezon City, he saw Abanilla struggling to break away from the arms of a man later identified as Ramos. Abanilla hailed a passenger bus and then a white car to no avail; Bradshaw stopped his car and blew his horn repeatedly, and Abanilla ran to his car and hopped into the back seat. Ramos caught up with her and squeezed himself into the same car.

From EDSA, Bradshaw turned right towards White Plains Avenue, where a traffic policeman flagged him down. As Bradshaw slowed down, Ramos pulled out his gun and ordered him to go straight ahead, which Bradshaw obeyed. Along White Plains Avenue, Abanilla handed her wallet to Michelle and asked her to look for medicine; later Abanilla took the wallet back and looked for the medicine herself, and a receipt fell and landed on Michelle's left side. Abanilla asked Ramos, "Bennie, has Cecil had her baby?" Ramos answered, "No." When she asked whether Cecil was having it by caesarian and whether Cecil knew Ramos was holding her hostage, Ramos did not answer. Upon reaching Katipunan Avenue in front of Blue Ridge Subdivision, Ramos told Bradshaw to stop at Rajah Matanda Street, Project 4, Quezon City, where Ramos got off and pulled Abanilla out of the car. Abanilla clung to Michelle and said, "God bless you. Pray for me and notify my family." She then put her arm around Bradshaw's neck and whispered, "I will probably not get out of this with my life. Tell my family my situation." At about ten of seven, Ramos succeeded in pulling Abanilla out of the vehicle.

Bradshaw found the receipt containing Abanilla's name and residence telephone number. After taking his daughter to school, he called the number and the maid told him that Mr. and Mrs. Abanilla had already left for work at Meralco. Later that morning, at Bradshaw's instance, one of his employees called a friend at Meralco and was told that Abanilla was apparently being held hostage by a man demanding ransom for her release. At around seven-fifteen, Abanilla called her boss, Atty. Pastor del Rosario, at Meralco and begged him not to ask questions but said she needed P200,000.00 in cash immediately, otherwise she might not be able to go home anymore. She assured him she had enough funds in the bank to repay him and asked him to give the money to Inday, a lady messenger at Meralco, with instructions to deliver it to her at Glori Supermart at Sikatuna Village. Del Rosario suggested that Meralco security personnel deliver the money, but Abanilla refused, saying, "Please not security, I do not want them to know what happened to me." She entreated, "Sir, you are the only one who can help me now, I cannot turn to anyone else. Please help me." Del Rosario gathered P200,000.00 in cash, placed it in a white envelope and tucked it in a plastic bag, ordered his driver Serrano Padua to fetch Inday, gave her the money, and told Padua to take her to Abanilla at Glori Supermart with instructions to give the money to no one else but Abanilla.

At around seven-thirty, a taxi driven by Antonio Pineda passed by, and Ramos and Abanilla boarded it and took the back seat. They proceeded towards Anonas Extension in Sikatuna Village near Glori Supermart, where Ramos instructed Pineda to park in front of the supermarket because they had to wait for someone. For P700.00, Pineda agreed to wait so he could later take them to Norzagaray, Bulacan. Padua and Inday arrived; Pineda, whom Abanilla asked to receive the money, approached them and asked about the package, but Inday refused to give the money because she was instructed to deliver it only to Abanilla. Pineda returned to the taxi and informed his passengers. Abanilla gave her identification card to Pineda and told him to ask Inday to face the taxi and show herself through the window. Pineda gave Inday the ID and asked her to approach the taxi; Inday recognized Abanilla and handed the money to Pineda. Ramos then told Pineda, "Tara, deretso tayo sa Norzagaray." On the way to Norzagaray along Commonwealth Avenue, Ramos changed his mind and decided to head for Bocaue, Bulacan instead. During the trip, Pineda noticed that Abanilla looked very pale, fidgety, and apparently perturbed.

Upon arriving in Bocaue, they went straight to the St. Paul Hospital compound and parked. Pineda and Ramos got off to relieve themselves by a fence, and Pineda noticed a revolver tucked in Ramos's waist. Ramos told Pineda to leave the taxi for a while because he was going to discuss something with his companion. As Pineda waited, he observed Abanilla keep opening and closing the rear door of the taxi as if trying to get out. Pineda became uneasy and inched towards the taxi, where he saw Ramos strangling Abanilla. Pineda told Ramos, "Boss, iba na yata iyang ginagawa mo ah, baka mapadamay ako diyan!" He boarded the taxi and asked his passengers to transfer to another vehicle because he did not want to get involved, but Abanilla pleaded, "Mama, huwag mo akong iiwanan dito dahil papatayin ako ng lalaking ito. May kapatid ka din na babae." Ramos retorted, "Hoy! pati iyong isip ng driver nililito mo," and ordered Pineda to take them back to MacArthur Highway. As Pineda drove out of the hospital compound, Abanilla panicked and held him by the shoulder, pleading, "Huwag mo akong iiwanan dito." At MacArthur Highway near Sto. Niño Academy in Bocaue, Pineda saw traffic aide Gil Domanais directing traffic with a gun on his waist. Pineda stopped the cab, got off, and told Domanais that his male passenger had been strangling his female companion and that his passengers had refused to get off and had not paid him. Domanais suggested bringing the passengers to the police station. Domanais peeped through the taxi window and saw Ramos with his left arm around Abanilla's shoulders; she was crying and told Domanais that Ramos was armed with a revolver and was hurting her. Ramos pulled out his gun, prompting Domanais and Pineda to run and take cover. Ramos transferred to the driver's seat and drove the cab away. Abanilla opened the left rear door and jumped out, but her blouse was caught and she was dragged by the vehicle. Ramos stopped the taxi, and as Abanilla attempted to rise, he aimed his gun at the back of her head and fired twice, hitting her just above the nape. Domanais, armed with a .38 caliber pistol, fired at Ramos but missed, then called for police assistance as Ramos fled on foot.

On the same day, responding elements of the Bocaue Police Station apprehended Ramos in a grassy area at the Violeta Metroville Subdivision. The police confiscated his .22 caliber Smith and Wesson Magnum with four live ammunitions and two spent shells, and recovered a bag containing P138,630.00 consisting of P1,000.00 and P500.00 bills. Abanilla's body was left at the scene, lying face down parallel to the taxi. Dr. Benito B. Caballero, Medico-Legal Officer of the Province of Bulacan, conducted the autopsy and testified that the cause of death was "shock due to massive external . . . intracranial . . . hemorrhage due to gunshot wound in the head penetrating the skull and the brain tissues." An Information was filed against Ramos charging him with the complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder, to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution and defense agreed during pre-trial that the testimony of their witnesses would be in the form of affidavits which would be the bases for cross-examination.

Ramos denied having kidnapped and killed Abanilla. In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, he narrated that Abanilla was his ninang sa kasal; that he had no job after being removed from Meralco and asked Abanilla for a loan because his wife was about to give birth; that Abanilla told him she would help when his wife gave birth but forbade him from going to her house or office, so they talked by phone; that because she did not want him at her house or office and told him to wait for her at EDSA corner White Plains, he went there; that when they met, he told her he needed the promised help, but she said she would give it the next day at the same place; that he refused and they argued because his wife was going to the hospital and he needed money now; and that while they were arguing, Bradshaw's Toyota Corolla station wagon arrived, Abanilla hailed it, and both of them boarded. He further claimed that at St. Paul Hospital in Bocaue, he learned his wife was not there, so he told Abanilla they would go to Norzagaray, to his mother-in-law's house, where Cecil might be; that Abanilla did not want to go because she was embarrassed before his mother-in-law, so they argued; that he asked the taxi driver to move away for a while because he and Abanilla would talk; that he told Abanilla she needed to go with him to Norzagaray and give the money to Cecil so Cecil would know it came from her, because if he gave the money himself Cecil might suspect it came from a bad source and be shocked and bleed; and that his fear arose because he had been accused of falsifying Atty. del Rosario's check, which was the reason for his removal from Meralco. He also claimed that when the driver returned, they left; that at MacArthur Highway the driver stopped and talked to the traffic aide; that when the traffic aide peeped into the taxi, Abanilla said Ramos had a gun; that the traffic aide and driver ran away; that he moved to the driver's seat to drive to Norzagaray because he was worried about Cecil; that Abanilla suddenly stood, grabbed the gun beside him, opened the left rear door to get down, and in their struggle the gun fired twice; that another shot followed and Abanilla fell to the road; and that he got down, picked up the gun she dropped and her bag, and ran away because he remembered the traffic aide hiding by the wall. The RTC found the testimonies of Pineda and Domanais credible, treating their minor inconsistencies as badges of unrehearsed testimony, and described their testimony as categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Kidnapping: Petitioner (accused-appellant) argued that kidnapping was never sufficiently established because Abanilla was not under detention at any moment and was not deprived of liberty; any pressure or force was merely persuasion that moved her to go with him voluntarily.
• Absence of Ransom Demand: Petitioner argued that there was no proof he demanded or received money from anybody because it was Abanilla herself who asked Atty. Del Rosario for P200,000.00; her statement that she needed the money immediately or might not be able to go home did not suggest that someone was demanding money or that she was kidnapped; if his intention was to kidnap for ransom, he could have left the victim and brought the money; and when the money was delivered, he dropped it on the floor of the taxi and Abanilla picked it up and placed it in her bag.
• Credibility of Witnesses on Murder: Petitioner argued that the testimonies of Pineda and Domanais contained contradictions on the positive identification of the shooter; Pineda testified on direct examination that he saw the victim shot twice but on cross-examination said he did not see the person who fired the shots; Pineda gave two birthplaces and two versions of who caused the taxi to stop; Domanais was merely presuming that petitioner fired the gun; and therefore the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Petitioner argued that the lower court erred in concluding that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt, in disregarding vital evidence in his favor, and in finding him guilty of kidnapping for ransom and murder.

• Kidnapping: Whether the victim was actually deprived of her liberty and detained against her will, or merely persuaded to go with accused-appellant.
• Ransom: Whether the P200,000.00 obtained constituted ransom, and whether a demand for ransom must be made by the accused directly to the victim's relatives or friends.
• Murder and Identification: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant shot and killed the victim despite the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Pineda and Domanais.
• Special Complex Crime and Penalty: Whether the killing of the victim in the course of kidnapping for ransom constitutes the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 7659, and warrants the maximum penalty of death.

• Kidnapping: Yes. Actual deprivation of liberty existed from the moment Ramos forcibly prevented Abanilla from going to work and took her against her will to Bulacan; armed coercion and her repeated escape attempts showed detention, not mere persuasion.
• Ransom: Yes. The P200,000.00 was ransom; actual demand by the accused directly to relatives or friends is not necessary because the demand may be made on the victim herself, and delivery to the victim who handed it to Ramos gave him actual and constructive possession.
• Murder and Identification: Yes. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ramos shot the victim; Pineda and Domanais positively identified him, and the alleged inconsistencies were minor, explained, or did not impair credibility.
• Special Complex Crime and Penalty: Yes. The killing during detention made the crime the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder under Art. 267 as amended by RA No. 7659; the maximum penalty of death was imposed.

• Kidnapping: The essence of kidnapping under Art. 267, as amended by Sec. 8 of RA No. 7659, is actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with indubitable proof of intent to effect restraint; "actual deprivation" includes detaining or depriving in any manner, not only placing in an enclosure, citing People vs. Gungon. Here, Ramos forcibly prevented Abanilla from going to work at Meralco and took her against her will to Bulacan while armed with a .22 caliber revolver that instilled fear. Bradshaw and Pineda testified to her distress; she tried to escape at EDSA, at St. Paul Hospital, and at MacArthur Highway. Her statements to Bradshaw, Del Rosario, and Pineda showed she was at Ramos's mercy. The force—pulling her from Bradshaw's car, strangling her, pulling her back into the cab, and shooting her—was not mere persuasion. Occasional conversation did not negate kidnapping; it was her way of coping. No enclosure is required; it is enough that she was deprived of liberty and unable to move as she pleased, citing People vs. Dayon.
• Ransom: Abanilla's statement that she needed P200,000.00 immediately or might not go home must be read with the surrounding circumstances: she was already held hostage by Ramos, who was armed and violent. Ramos admitted asking for money, though he claimed it was a loan; his words "hindi ako pumayag," "doon kami nagtalo," and "ngayon din kailangan ko ng pera" showed demand, not borrowing. The amount P200,000.00 was far beyond hospitalization expenses and suspicious given his doubtful capacity to pay. Actual demand by the accused from relatives or friends is not necessary; the demand may be made directly on the victim herself. Delivery to the victim did not make it less ransom because she handed it to Ramos, who had actual and constructive possession.
• Murder and Identification: The shooting occurred in the presence and within the auditory perception of Pineda, who was ten meters away; he heard the shots from the taxi whose lone occupant was Ramos and had earlier seen Ramos strangling Abanilla. Pineda's birthplace inconsistency was explained: his father was Visayan, his mother Bicolana, and he was born in Manila. The other inconsistencies were minor and did not impair credibility; they even showed his testimony was unrehearsed, citing People vs. De la Torre. Domanais categorically testified that Ramos shot Abanilla twice in the head and gave a detailed account; his sworn statement said the same. The medico-legal officer testified that the entry wound measured 0.75 centimeters and the bullet came from a .22 caliber gun similar to the one confiscated from Ramos, not Domanais's .38 caliber pistol. Domanais fired only after Ramos shot the victim. The trial court's credibility findings are not disturbed absent overlooked facts, citing People vs. Clemente and People vs. Dela Cruz. Ramos's bare denial cannot prevail over positive identification absent ill motive.
• Special Complex Crime and Penalty: Before RA No. 7659, where the kidnapped victim was subsequently killed, the crime was either the complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Art. 48 if the kidnapping was a necessary means of murder, citing Parulan vs. Rodas, or two separate crimes if the killing was an afterthought, citing People vs. Enanoria. RA No. 7659 amended Art. 267 by adding a last paragraph: "When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed." This introduced the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder or homicide and eliminated the distinction between a killing purposely sought and one committed as an afterthought. The rule now is that where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide cannot be complexed under Art. 48 nor treated as separate crimes, but are punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267. Here, kidnapping for ransom was consummated with the demand even before the ransom was delivered, and the deprivation of liberty persisted until Abanilla was killed while trying to escape; her death was a consequence of the kidnapping for ransom. The SC noted that four members maintained their separate opinions in People vs. Echegaray that RA No. 7659's death penalty is unconstitutional but acceded to the majority ruling that the law is constitutional and the death penalty should be imposed.

• Kidnapping under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code — The essence is actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with indubitable proof of intent to effect restraint; "actual deprivation" includes detaining or depriving in any manner, not only placing the victim in an enclosure. Applied: Ramos forcibly prevented Abanilla from going to work and took her to Bulacan under armed coercion; her escape attempts showed detention.
• Ransom demand — Actual demand for ransom by the accused from the victim's relatives or friends is not necessary; the demand may be made directly on the victim herself, and delivery to the victim who hands it to the accused constitutes actual and constructive possession. Applied: Abanilla asked Del Rosario for P200,000.00 and handed the money to Ramos.
• Special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder — Under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659, when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, the maximum penalty is imposed; this eliminated the distinction between a killing purposely sought and one committed as an afterthought. Applied: Abanilla was killed during continued detention, so Ramos was convicted of the special complex crime, not separate kidnapping and murder.
• Treachery — Murder is qualified by treachery when the accused suddenly, unexpectedly, and without warning shoots the victim from behind while the victim is in a pitiable state of helplessness. Applied: Ramos shot Abanilla twice from behind after she failed to escape and was dragged by the cab.
• Credibility of witnesses and minor inconsistencies — Minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony do not impair credibility and may even bolster it as signs of unrehearsed testimony; the trial court's credibility findings are not disturbed absent overlooked facts of weight and substance. Applied: Pineda's birthplace and who stopped the taxi were minor or explained; Domanais's identification was categorical.
• Denial vs. positive identification — A bare denial cannot prevail over clear and positive testimony of prosecution witnesses absent evidence of ill motive. Applied: Ramos's denial failed against Pineda's and Domanais's positive identification.

• "The essence of the crime of kidnapping as defined and penalized under Art. 267 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 8 of RA No. 7659, is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with an indubitable proof of intent on the part of the malefactor to effect such restraint on the offended party' liberty." — This defines the core of kidnapping and supports the SC's rejection of Ramos's claim that Abanilla was not detained.
• "For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that the offended party be kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion. It is enough that, as in the instant case, she was in any manner deprived of her liberty, unable to move — and get out — as she pleased." — The SC uses this to explain that detention need not be physical enclosure; armed control and restriction of movement suffice.
• "While it may be true that it was the victim, not accused-appellant, who made the call and asked for the money, it must be stressed nonetheless that actual demand for ransom by the accused from the relatives or friends of the victim is not necessary, much less essential, as the demand may be made directly on the victim herself." — This rejects Ramos's argument that there was no ransom demand because Abanilla herself called Del Rosario for the money.
• "Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659." — This is the ratio for convicting Ramos of the special complex crime instead of two separate crimes.

• People vs. Gungon, G.R. No. 119574, 19 March 1998 — Cited for the definition of actual deprivation of liberty in kidnapping.
• People vs. Dayon, G.R. No. 94704, 21 January 1993, 217 SCRA 335 — Cited to hold that kidnapping does not require enclosure; any manner of deprivation of liberty suffices.
• People vs. De la Torre, G.R. Nos. 90804-05, 1 July 1991, 198 SCRA 663 — Cited on minor inconsistencies not impairing witness credibility.
• People vs. Clemente, No. L-23463, 28 September 1967, SCRA 261 — Cited for the rule that trial court credibility findings are generally respected.
• People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, 8 February 1994, 229 SCRA 754 — Cited with the credibility rule; positive testimony prevails over denial.
• Parulan vs. Rodas, 78 Phil. 355 (1947) — Cited for the pre-RA No. 7659 rule that kidnapping with murder could be a complex crime under Art. 48 when kidnapping was a necessary means of murder.
• People vs. Enanoria, G.R. No. 92957, 8 June 1992, 209 SCRA 577 — Cited for the pre-RA No. 7659 rule that killing after kidnapping as an afterthought produced two separate crimes.
• People vs. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, 7 February 1997, 267 SCRA 682 — Cited in the SC's note that four members maintained separate opinions that RA No. 7659's death penalty is unconstitutional but acceded to the majority ruling upholding the law.

• Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 8, RA No. 7659 — Defines kidnapping and serious illegal detention; provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, death where the kidnapping or detention was for extorting ransom, and the maximum penalty when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of detention. Applied to convict Ramos of the special complex crime and impose death.
• Art. 48, Revised Penal Code — Penalty for complex crimes; discussed as the old rule before RA No. 7659. The SC held it no longer applies because Art. 267 as amended created a special complex crime.
• RA No. 7659 — Amended the Revised Penal Code, including Art. 267, and introduced the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder or homicide; applied to Ramos.
• Art. 83, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 25, RA No. 7659 — Requires forwarding the records to the President for exercise of pardon power after finality; applied in the dispositive portion.