Case Summary (G.R. No. 95322)
Identification and Credibility Assessment
The trial court credited the direct testimony of the child victim, describing it as straightforward, natural and consistent. Two independent eyewitnesses—Enrico’s classmate Tirso Ferreras and tricycle driver Alexander Grate—also positively identified Domasian and had no prior connection to him. The court distinguished the neutral, contemporaneous identifications from defense witnesses with evident biases or inconsistencies (for example, a defense witness who admitted a multi-year acquaintance with Domasian, and contradictions in the testimony of a corroborating alibi witness regarding time and payment). The appellate court deferred to the trial judge’s assessment of witness demeanor and credibility as it was based on the judge’s direct observation.
Handwriting Evidence and Expert Conflict
The handwriting issue was governed by Rule 132, Section 22, which permits proof of handwriting by witnesses familiar with a person’s handwriting or by comparison with known genuine writings. The trial court preferred the NBI expert’s conclusion that the ransom note and exemplar writings were by the same hand over the contrary PC/INP opinion, reasoning that the NBI analysis was more comprehensive and considered the composite characteristics of handwriting rather than isolated formal similarities or differences. The court also gave weight to the victim’s father’s recognition of the handwriting based on frequent exposure to Dr. Tan’s prescriptions and reports. Jurisprudential authorities cited emphasize that the probative value of handwriting expert opinion depends on the quality of the analysis and its exposition of distinguishing marks and characteristics.
Nature of the Offense: Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention
Article 267, Revised Penal Code, was applied: the provision penalizes kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sets aggravating circumstances, including when the victim is a minor. The court rejected the contention that the offense required confinement in an enclosure, holding that deprivation of liberty may be effected by restraint or other means that prevent a person from going where he pleases. Here, the restraint, forced transportation and threats against an eight‑year‑old satisfied the deprivation of liberty element and brought the case squarely within paragraph 4 of Article 267 (victim a minor). The court observed that the subsequent delivery of the ransom note, had it succeeded in extortion, would have increased the penalty under the statute, although the court noted that such an increased penalty would not have been possible under the “new Constitution” (the decision applies constitutional principles in effect under the 1987 Constitution).
Impossibility and Criminal Liability
Respondent Tan argued the delivery of the ransom note was an impossible crime or otherwise not punishable because the extortion did not succeed. The court invoked Article 4, Revised Penal Code: criminal liability attaches where a person commits a felony even if the wrongful act done differs from what was intended. The court held the kidnapping/serious illegal detention was consummated at the time Enrico’s liberty was deprived; the later sending of the ransom note could only have increased the penal consequences but did not negate the consummated offense nor convert it into an impossible crime.
Conspiracy and Joint Liability
The court applied the standard that conspiracy exists where two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it; conspiracy may be inferred from the acts and circumstances when they point to concerted action and a common design. The record showed complementary acts: Domasian physically detained Enrico; Tan authored the ransom note; the note was delivered by Domasian to the victim’s father. These coordinated acts, together with the inferred motive (Tan’s earlier request for money from Agra and a subsequent angry remark about a million pesos), supported an inference of conspiracy to extort ransom. The court therefore held both accused criminally liable in equal degree.
Constitutional and Evidence-Related Objections Addressed
Domasian alleged warr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 95322)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 292 Phil. 255, First Division, G.R. No. 95322, decided March 01, 1993; decision authored by Justice Cruz, with Justices Grino-Aquino, Bellosillo, and Quiason concurring.
- Appeal from the Regional Trial Court of Quezon where Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas convicted both accused of kidnaping with serious illegal detention.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s conviction and sentence and ordered costs against the accused-appellants.
- A copy of the decision was directed to be sent to the Commission on Human Rights to investigate alleged violations of Pablito Domasian’s constitutional rights.
Parties and Actors
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Accused-Appellants: Pablito Domasian and Dr. Samson Tan.
- Victim: Enrico Paulo Agra, aged eight (8) at the time of the incident.
- Other persons of note: Dr. and Mrs. Enrique Agra (victim’s parents), tricycle driver Alexander Grate, classmate Tirso Ferreras, witness Eugenia Agtay, defense witness Dr. Irene Argosino.
- Investigative/expert bodies: National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) handwriting expert; Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police (PC/INP) handwriting expert; police and NBI investigators who handled the ransom note examination.
Facts Established at Trial — Factual Narrative of the Incident
- Date and general facts:
- Incident occurred on the morning of March 11, 1982.
- The victim, Enrico Paulo Agra (age 8), was walking with a classmate, Tirso Ferreras, along Roque Street in the poblacion of Lopez, Quezon.
- The approach and initial ruse:
- A man approached Enrico, asked for assistance obtaining his father’s signature on a medical certificate.
- Enrico agreed and rode with the man in a tricycle to Calantipayan; the man entered a building purportedly to get the certificate while Enrico waited outside.
- Subsequent restraint and movement:
- Enrico became apprehensive; instead of taking him to the hospital, the man flagged a minibus and forced Enrico inside, physically holding him and warning him not to cry or he would not be returned to his father.
- The minibus took them to Gumaca, then a tricycle to the municipal building, then a walk to the market, then a tricycle to San Vicente; during these movements the man continued to restrain Enrico.
- Flight and rescue:
- Tricycle driver Alexander Grate became suspicious when the man claimed to be the boy’s brother despite evident physical age differences and reported the matter to two barangay tanods.
- Grate and the tanods chased and saw the man dragging the boy; the man managed to escape, leaving Enrico behind.
- Enrico encountered his parents while on a passenger jeep going home; his parents had been searching for him in the hospital ambulance.
- Ransom note and timing:
- About 1:45 p.m. on the same day, after Enrico’s return, Dr. Enrique Agra received an envelope containing a ransom note demanding P1,000,000 for Enrico’s release and warning that the boy would be killed otherwise.
- Agra believed the handwriting to be familiar and submitted the note to the police; it was referred to the NBI for examination.
Charges, Indictment, and Trial Outcome
- Both Domasian and Tan were charged with kidnaping with serious illegal detention in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon.
- Trial court (Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas) found both accused guilty as charged.
- Sentence imposed by trial court:
- Reclusion perpetua for each accused and all accessory penalties provided by law.
- An award of P200,000.00 to Dr. and Mrs. Enrique Agra as actual and moral damages and attorney’s fees.
- Appeal to the Supreme Court followed; appellants raised factual and legal challenges to conviction.
Prosecution Evidence and Identifications
- Victim identification:
- Enrico positively identified Pablito Domasian from a police photo folder as the man who detained him for approximately three hours.
- Enrico’s classmate, Tirso Ferreras (also age 8), identified Domasian as the man who approached them that morning.
- Tricycle driver Alexander Grate positively identified Domasian as the suspicious companion and pursued him.
- Ransom note handwriting:
- NBI handwriting expert opined that the ransom note and standard documents were written by the same person and identified Dr. Samson Tan as the writer.
- Dr. Enrique Agra testified that he believed the ransom note was written by Dr. Samson Tan because Agra had seen Tan’s handwriting daily in hospital prescriptions and reports during four years of working together.
- Acts tying accused to a common plan:
- Acts attributed to the accused which the trial court found complementary: Domasian’s detention of Enrico, Tan’s writing of the ransom note, and Domasian’s delivery of the envelope to Agra.
Defense Case and Alibis
- Both accused pleaded denial and alibi.
- Pablito Domasian’s defense:
- Claimed he was watching a mahjong game at a friend’s house at the time and later accompanied his wife to an optical clinic for refraction of eyeglasses.
- Defense witness Eugenia Agtay acknowledged she had known Domasian for three years (thus not a disinterested witness).
- Defense witness Dr. Irene Argosino’s testimony contained contradictions regarding time spent in the optical clinic and manner of payment for refraction.
- Dr. Samson Tan’s defense:
- Claimed he was in Manila at the time of the incident.
- Challenged the NBI handwriting findings by relying on PC/INP findings that he was not the writer of the ransom note.
- Argued that the offense should not be kidnaping with serious illegal detention because no enclosure detention occurred and, at most, the act constituted grave coercion.
- Appellants also argued lack of conspiracy and raised constitutional claims (warrantless arrest, torture, incommunicado detention, and unlawful seizure of documents).
Credibility Findings and Appellate Court’s Assessment
- Trial judge’s credibility determinations:
- The trial court found the victim’s testimony straight-forward, natural, co