Title
People vs. Binsol
Case
G.R. No. L-8346
Decision Date
Jan 22, 1957
Dr. Siasoco kidnapped for ransom in 1953; accused Binsol, Pellerva, and Perolino convicted based on credible co-conspirator testimony, weak alibis, and proven conspiracy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-8346)

Charges and Initial Proceedings

The defendants were charged with kidnapping, with the trial commencing only for Binsol, Pellerva, and Perolino, as eight other co-accused were never apprehended, and one co-defendant, Marciano Fenol, was released from the complaint. Following the trial, the court found Binsol, Pellerva, and Perolino guilty, sentencing them to life imprisonment and requiring them to indemnify Dr. Siasoco in the amount of P10,000.

Nature of the Crime

The evidence revealed a calculated plan to kidnap Dr. Siasoco for ransom. The kidnapping was executed by a group that specifically targeted Dr. Siasoco during his visit to his estate in Bukid, Cavite. The intent was to extort a ransom of P150,000, although the actual amount paid by the victim’s family turned out to be P10,000.

Prosecution's Evidence

Isabelo Jeciel, a crucial witness for the prosecution, testified that he participated in the planning and execution of the kidnapping. He noted meetings with Binsol and other participants, during which Binsol articulated the plan and provided firearms for the operation. Details of how the actual kidnapping unfolded were meticulously described, including how they lured Dr. Siasoco and the subsequent events where he was held for ransom.

Defense Testimonies

The defendants maintained that they were not involved in the kidnapping. Binsol claimed he was working on behalf of the provincial governor to secure Dr. Siasoco’s release without ransom. Both Pellerva and Perolino provided alibis for their locations during the crime. Their defense emphasized that they were, at the time, performing official duties related to their roles as police officers.

Legal Issues Raised

A legal contention arose concerning the prosecution's decision not to charge Jeciel as an accomplice. The defense argued that this omission undermined the prosecution's case, suggesting that had Jeciel been part of the information, his testimony would be suspect. However, precedent indicates that the prosecution is not required to include every participant in the crime in the information prior to presenting them as witnesses.

Appellate Review

The appellate court considered the credibility of the witness testimonies, particularly Jeciel's, alongside corro

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.