Title
People vs. Domasian
Case
G.R. No. 95322
Decision Date
Mar 1, 1993
An 8-year-old boy was kidnapped in 1982; ransom note linked to a physician. Court upheld kidnapping conviction, citing conspiracy, credible witnesses, and handwriting analysis.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 159469)

Factual Background

On the morning of March 11, 1982, eight-year-old Enrico walked with classmate Ferreras in Lopez, Quezon. A man (later identified as Domasian) offered to secure his father’s signature on a medical certificate and led him into a tricycle. Instead of the hospital, the man forced Enrico into a minibus, threatened him, and transported him through Gumaca market toward San Vicente. Suspicious tricycle driver Alexander Grate alerted barangay tanods, who pursued and caused the man to flee, leaving Enrico behind. Enrico reunited with his parents en route in a passenger jeep.

Ransom Demand and Forensic Examination

At 1:45 p.m. the same day, Dr. Enrique Agra received an envelope containing a ransom note demanding ₱1 million under threat to kill the child. Agra recognized the handwriting as similar to that of Dr. Samson Tan and submitted the note to police, which referred it to the NBI. The NBI handwriting expert concluded Tan authored the note; a PC/INP expert testified to the contrary.

Charges and Trial Court Findings

Both Domasian and Tan were charged with kidnapping with serious illegal detention (RPC Art. 267). Relying on eyewitness identifications and expert testimony, Judge Lanzanas convicted them and imposed reclusion perpetua, accessory penalties, ₱200,000 in actual and moral damages, and attorney’s fees.

Identification Evidence and Credibility

• Enrico positively identified Domasian from a photo lineup.
• Ferreras and Grate independently confirmed Domasian as the captor.
• Defense witness Eugenia Agtay had a personal acquaintance with Domasian, diminishing her impartiality.
The trial court found these three independent identifications credible and consistent, outweighing the accused’s alibi testimonies.

Handwriting Analysis

Under Rule 132, § 22, handwriting may be proved by expert comparison and by those familiar with the writer’s hand. The court credited the NBI expert’s comprehensive analysis over the PC/INP expert’s limited comparison and accepted Agra’s familiarity with Tan’s handwriting from daily hospital reports.

Nature of the Offense

Article 267 defines kidnapping with serious illegal detention and prescribes reclusion perpetua to death for extortion by ransom note. While no physical enclosure was used, deprivation of liberty through forceful transport and threats against a minor satisfies the statute’s elements (Par. 4). The crime was consummated upon detention; the ransom note’s delivery would only aggravate the penalty.

Impossibility Defense Rejected

Dr. Tan’s claim that sending the ransom note constituted an impossible crime fails under RPC Art. 4, ¶ 1, which holds a person liable for any felony intended, even if the wrongful act differs. The detention was already consummated; the note did not render the offense inherently incapable of completion.

Conspiracy

Conspiracy arises from agreement to commit a felony. The complementary acts—Domasian’s detention of Enrico, Tan’s drafting of the ransom note, an

...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.