G.R. No. 199710 - People vs. Borja

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199710)

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution
Revised Penal Code, Article 267 (kidnapping and serious illegal detention, as amended by RA 7659)
Republic Act No. 9346 (abolition of death penalty)
Relevant jurisprudence: People v. Santiano; People v. Trestiza; Rules of Court, Rule 133 §2

Facts of Abduction and Extortion

On May 26, 2004 at about 10:00 a.m., PO3 Borja, accompanied by three companions, forcibly grabbed Ronalyn Manatad on Agham Road, Diliman, and placed her in a gray van. They drove her around Quezon City while one kidnapper, identified as “Major Clarito,” contacted her family and demanded an initial ransom of ₱200,000, later reduced to ₱100,000. An entrapment operation by the National Anti-Kidnapping Task Force was set up at the Wildlife Park on Quezon Avenue, where Borja was arrested in possession of the ransom money, his service firearm, cellphone, and wallet. The victim, however, was not rescued and was subsequently detained and charged under RA 9165.

Defense and Alibi Claim

Borja testified that he had appeared at Branch 79 of the Quezon City RTC to testify in a criminal case until noon. He claimed to have received a call around 2:00 p.m. requesting assistance to recover an arrested sister, prompting him to meet “Edwin” at the Wildlife Park. He denied any participation in a kidnapping, portrayed his meeting as an offer to help the family report to the police station, and described his arrest as a mistaken extortion allegation by other operatives.

Trial Court Decisions

The RTC found Borja guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, imposed civil indemnity and moral damages of ₱50,000 each, and rejected the alibi defense.

Issue before the Supreme Court

Whether PO3 Julieto Borja is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom, notwithstanding the victim’s unrelated drug prosecution, and whether his status as a police officer precludes liability under Article 267.

Supreme Court Analysis

Victim’s subsequent arrest and conviction under RA 9165 bear no relevance to Borja’s criminal liability for kidnapping. The buy-bust operation and the extortion-for-ransom are distinct events capable of coexisting.
A public officer may be prosecuted for kidnapping under Article 267 when acting in a private capacity; the accused bears the burden to prove any official function. Borja’s acts—seizing the victim, detaining her in unmarked vehicles, extorting ransom—were unrelated to legitimate police duties.
The elements of kidnapping were fully established:
• Deprivation of liberty by force and confinement in vehicles for several hours;
• Illegality of detention;
• Extortion motive demonstrated by r