Title
People vs. Bisda
Case
G.R. No. 140895
Decision Date
Jul 17, 2003
A 5-year-old girl was kidnapped for ransom in Marikina City, Philippines, in 1998. Appellants lured, detained, and demanded P5M; rescued after 6 days. Supreme Court upheld death penalty, awarded damages.
kidnapping for ransom
appellants
demand for ransom
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140895)

Factual Background

A five-year-old pupil, Angela Michelle Soriano, was taken from her school on September 3, 1998 and was held for five days. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who were known to the victim, lured or seized Angela outside the school, transported her by tricycle and taxi, and detained her in a boarding-house or small office referred to in the record as a "dirty house" and later at No. 1258 Paz Street, Paco, Manila. The child was alleged to have been tied, gagged with scotch tape, clothed in different garments, fed, and prevented from leaving. Telephone calls demanding ransom were made to the victim's father, and the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) conducted surveillance that led to the rescue of the child and the arrest of Alma Bisda at the house where Angela was found.

Trial Court Proceedings

An Amended Information charged the appellants with kidnapping for ransom under Article 267, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Each appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented PAOCTF operatives, a civilian agent, the victim Angela, and her father William Soriano. The trial court convicted both appellants beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom, sentenced each to death by lethal injection, and ordered indemnity to the parents in the amount of P100,000.

Evidence Presented for the Prosecution

The prosecution introduced testimony that the victim was taken from school after two women presented a visitor's pass, that one of them brandished a knife and gripped the child's hand, that the child was transported to eateries and thereafter to the house where she was confined, and that the father received telephone calls demanding ransom ranging from P5,000,000 down to P25,000–P50,000. PAOCTF operatives testified to surveillance activity, to hearing a car horn while one operative monitored a telephone conversation implicating a caller nearby, and to finding the child in the house together with garments and items identified as the victim's. Photographs, clothing and other items seized were offered in evidence. Jenny Rose later surrendered to PAOCTF personnel and was identified by the victim in a line-up.

Appellants' Defense and Contentions

Alma Bisda denied criminal responsibility and maintained that she merely accompanied the child and Jenny Rose, that the child was cared for in her office, and that she was unaware of any kidnapping. She claimed that Jenny Rose had custody of the child and later sought forgiveness and assumed responsibility. Jenny Rose did not testify but offered the testimony of Atty. Aurelio Trampe, Jr., who stated that Jenny Rose voluntarily surrendered and purportedly volunteered that she had been involved and wanted to assume blame. The appellants asserted insufficiency of proof on kidnapping, lack of proof of conspiracy, that any offense amounted at most to slight illegal detention, and that the child’s testimony was unreliable because the trial judge did not conduct a voir dire to determine the child’s capacity to understand an oath.

Issues Presented on Appeal

The principal issues the Court addressed were whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants kidnapped and illegally detained Angela, whether ransom was demanded so as to warrant the penalty provided in Article 267 as amended by R.A. No. 7659, whether conspiracy and co-principal liability were established, whether the child witness was competent and her testimony credible, and whether the penalties and civil damages awarded required modification.

The Court’s Findings on Guilt

The Court found that the prosecution proved every essential element of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267, and also proved the qualifying circumstance of purpose to extort ransom. The Court accepted that Angela, being five years old at the time of the incident, was incapable of giving legal consent and that lack of consent is therefore presumed. The Court credited the child’s positive identification of both appellants as her kidnappers and relied on the PAOCTF operatives’ testimony and the recovered physical evidence to sustain the conviction.

Conspiracy and Principal Liability

Applying Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code and relevant jurisprudence, the Court held that the appellants acted in concert. It found that their collective acts before, during and after the abduction demonstrated a common design to kidnap and detain the victim for ransom. The Court observed that conspiratorial agreement may be inferred from conduct and that a conspirator need only have performed an overt act in furtherance of the common design. Consequently, each appellant was liable as a principal in the commission of the offense.

Competency and Credibility of the Child Witness

The Court examined the appellants' contention that the child witness was not properly examined for competency under voir dire. It noted that when the victim testified the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness had not taken effect. The Court reiterated the governing principles: competency is a question for the trial court; a child of tender years is not per se incompetent; and failure to object at trial waives the issue on appeal. The Court held that Angela was sworn, that no timely objection to her competency was raised, and that the trial court correctly found her competent. The Court further affirmed the credibility of her testimony, observing that minor inconsistencies were immaterial and that the demeanor and circumstances supported belief in her account.

Ransom Element and Circumstantial Proof

The Court addressed the absence of direct proof that the appellants themselves made the ransom calls. It reiterated that ransom motive may be proven circumstantially and that actual demand or payment is not necessary. The Court required that circumstantial evidence form an unbroken chain pointing to the accused to the exclusion of others. It concluded that the sequence of events — the anonymous telephone calls to the father, the PAOCTF surveillance locating Alma Bisda near the site from which calls were traced, William Soriano's telephone conversations with a caller who used language consistent with later calls, the appellant’s telephone use observed by operatives while the father heard a horn in the background, and admissions or statements by the appellants — constituted a sufficient chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the ransom purpose beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the qualifying circumstance for imposition of the death penalty under R.A. No. 7659 was established.

Penalties and Modification

The Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence of death by lethal injection for each appellant under the penal provisions applicable to kidnapping for ransom. The Court noted that aggravating circumstances such as use of a motor vehicle were present but that, under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, single indivisible penalties are applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms