PEOPLE v. DOMASIAN Vicente.
The detention was committed by Domasian, a private individual, and Enrico
 Enrico Paulo Agra, 8 yrs old and son of Dr. Enrique Agra, was walking w/a
classmate, Tirso Ferreras, along Roque street when he was approached by a man
who requested his help in getting his father’s signature on a medical certificate.
He agreed and rode in a tricycle with the man to Calantipayan. Enrico became
apprehensive & began to cry when instead of taking him to the hospital, the man
flagged a minibus & forced him inside, holding him firmly.
 They took another tricycle and later walked to the market where the man handed
a jeepney driver an envelope addressed to Dr. Agra. Then they boarded another
tricycle to San Vicente. The driver, Alexander Grate, became suspicious as Enrico
would not stop crying. He asked about their relationship & the man claimed they
were brothers. Grate became more suspicious as they did not resemble each
other. Grate immediately reported the matter to 2 baranggay tanods when the
passengers alighted.
 Grate & the tanods pursued the 2 and somehow the man was able to escape,
leaving Enrico behind.
 At about 1:45 pm of the same day, after Enrico’s return, Agra received the
envelope containing a ransom note demanding P1M for Enrico’s release. The
handwriting was familiar to Dr. Agra & the NBI test showed it belonged Dr.
Samson Tan, a resident physician in the hospital owned by Enrico’s parents. On
the other hand, Enrico was able to identify Pablito Domasian as his abductor from
mug shots.
 Domasian and Tan were subsequently charges with the crime of kidnapping
with serious illegal detention
 The defense of both was denial and alibi, Domasian claiming her was watching a
mahjong game in a friends’s house and later went to an optical clinic w/ his wife
and Tan claiming he was in Manila.
 TC found them guilty as charged to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
all accessory penalty with P200K as actual and moral damages plus attorney’s
fees
WON the defense and not the prosecution witnesses are more credible
 NO. Enrico, Ferreras (the classmate) and Grate (the driver) positively identified
Domasian as the abductor. They did not know him til that same morning & could
have no ill motive whereas Eugenio Agtay, defense witness, can hardly be
considered disinterested having known Domasian for 3 yrs.
 Domasian and Tan’s alibi cannot stand against the positive identification by Enrico,
Grate and Ferreras.
WON PC/INP’s findings that he was not the writer of the ransom note & not
NBI findings should be believed
 NO. The TC chose to believe the NBI expert because his examination & analysis
“was more comprehensive than the one conducted by the PC/INP handwriting
expert who disregarded the basic principle in handwriting identification that it is not
the form alone nor anyone feature but rather a combination of all the qualities that
identify.
 Significantly, the NBI opinion was bolstered by the testimony of Agra who believed
the ransom note was written by Tan, w/ whose handwriting he was familiar w/ since
they were working together in the hospital for 4 yrs.
WON crime alleged is only grave coercion & not kidnapping w/ serious illegal
detention as no detention in an enclosure was involved.
 NO. Contrary to Tan’s submission, this crime may consist not only in placing a
person in an enclosure but also in detaining him or depriving him in any manner of
his liberty. Enrico was deprived of his liberty when Domasian restrained him from
going home & dragged him first into the minibus that took them to the municipal
building in Gumaca, thence to the Market and then to the tricycle bound for San
was a minor at the time. Clearly it comes under Art. 267, par. 4, RPC.
WON sending of the ransom note was an impossible crime w/c is not punishable.
 NO. Tan claims that since the crime alleged is not against person or property but
against liberty, it is not covered by Art. 4, par. 2. But, pursuant to Art. 4, par. 1,
even before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping w/ serious
illegal detention had already been committed.
 It cannot be considered an impossible crime since there was no inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffective
means
 The delivery of the ransom note after the rescue of the victim did not extinguish the
offense, w/c had already been consummated when Domasian deprived Enrico of his
liberty. Sending the ransom note only had the effect only of increasing penalty to
death as per the last par. of Art. 267
WON there was no basis for finding of a conspiracy bet. them to make them
criminally liable in equal degree.
 NO. SC held that the TC correctly held that conspiracy was proved by the act of
Domasian in detaining Enrico; the writing of the ransom note by Tan; and its
delivery by Domasian to Agra. These were acts complementary to each other and
geared toward the attainment of a common objective—to extort the ransom of P1M
in exchange for Enrico’s life.
Held: Decision of TC affirmed. Domasian & Tan, in conspiracy with each other, committed
the crime of kidnapping as defined and penalized under Art. 267 of the RPC.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff & appellee vs. Kamad AKIRAN, Jarang
Askali, Alammara Dumpas & Kastiri Sappari, defendants. [1966]
 July 26, 1960: Isirani Sakili, 45 yr old merchant, was w/his bro Hadji Hassan & driver
Bairulla. They were on their way to Jolo. At Km 16 of the Indanan-Lapa Road, they
were stopped by a group of armed men led by accused Askali. Sakili’s truck stopped
as the weapons of the armed men were pointed at them. Askali shouted for Sakili to
alight from the truck he then ordered Hassan to go home & produce P1,600 that very
day or Sakili would be killed.
 Sakili was brought to Bud Katinganan where he stayed from 9am-1pm guarded by
Askali & Ahaddin.
 Jamiri Hawadji came & suggested that Sakili be brought to his (Hawadji) house
 6 p.m.: Sakili was released after Hassan & Saddawani Sadda, Sakili’s father-in-law
came & gave P1k to Askali w/promise to give the remaining P600 the following day.
 Sakili recognized his kidnappers as they were neighbors & they grew up together.
 Defendants plus other persons still at large were charged w/kidnapping w/ransom.
 Hassan corroborated his brother’s testimony.
 Sadda: prosecution witness testified that he requested Hawadji, a close relative of
Askali, to intercede for Sakili.
 Defense testimonies:
1. Panglima Tagayan: He testified that his son-in-law Hayani, Askali’s brother, was
shot by brothers/cousins-in-law of Sakili. Hayani lived & he lodged a complaint
w/the Provincial Fiscal. Sakili offered to pay him P1,600.00 provided that he
withdraw the complaint.
2. Salama Sahawi, sister-in-law of Hawadji & mother-in-law of Dumpas: She
testified that she witnessed the incident & she heard Askali ask Sakili in a loud
voice: “Why did you not comply w/your promise, you did not comply w/it?”
Then she saw Sakili & Askali & co. head for Bud Katinganan w/Sakali leading the
way.
 3. Layha Bismark: testified that he heard a group, among them Akiran, Hassan &
Sadda. He learned that Hassan & Sadda were going to Hawadji’s house where
a. provision derived from US Lindbergh Law, thus, US rulings have persuasive
Isirani was kept to give P1k to Askali to pay Hayani’s hospital expenses. application. US jurisprudence define ransom as money, price or
4. Askali testified that his uncle Tagayan was approached by Sakili to arrange to consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person/s,
pay Hayani’s expenses. He claims that on the day of the supposed abduction, he a payment that releases from captivity.
was on his way to a certain celebration w/some friends. When they saw Sakili’s b. Since Sakili demanded & received money as a requisite for releasing a person
truck, they waved for him to stop & conferred w/him re payment of his brother’s from captivity, the money is still ransom, whatever his motive may be.
expenses. They went to Hawadji’s house w/Sakili where the latter proposed to Holding: Conviction affirmed but reduced to reclusion perpetua due to lack of necessary
pay. Before reaching Hawadji’s house, Hassan & Sadda joined them. Since votes to impose death penalty.
Hawadji, the group’s leader, was not there, Askali took his place & he was made
to swear before a grave that he won’t file a complaint. After doing so, he was US v ARCEO
given P1k and some jewelries to guarantee payment of remaining P600.00. He
didn’t accept the guaranty since according to him, he considered Sakili a blood
brother whose word could be trusted. He further testified that Dumpas was
w/Sakili in the hauling truck, while Dahim is already dead. He claims that he
was surprised when a complaint was filed against him so he went into hiding &
came home only after 9 days. He surrendered himself & the gun he bought
w/the part of the money he got.
5. Akiran: denied Sakili’s charges & he claims that he doesn’t even know him.
Alibi: he was husking coconuts at the time of the incident.
 Lower Court: four accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to
death as per RA 1084. Pay Sakili: P1k + costs.

Issues & Ratio:

1. WON defense testimonies should be given credence – NO
 Appellate Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court.
 Their testimonies are not credible & were not sufficiently & convincingly presented.
a. It’s quite unlikely that the meeting was unarranged.
b. Money supposed to be for hospital expenses was never given to Hayani.
c. Jarang admitted that he bought a gun with “part of the money he received.”
d. Dumpas can’t be Sakili’s companion otherwise why would Sakili accuse him of
kidnapping. He was among the kidnappers who stopped the truck.
e. Akiran’s alibi not credible. He failed to state where he was exactly. He failed to
show that it was physically impossible for him at the crime scene during that
time. Besides, he was positively identified by Sakili.
f. Sappari: testimonies saying he was not part of the group are dependent on
credibility & can’t prevail over Hassan’s & Sakili’s positive identification.
PEOPLE V. CRISOSTOMO (digest: crimes vs chastity)
 Sakili & Hassan positively identified accused.
2. WON there was conspiracy to extort ransom. – YES
 Other accused claim it was only Askali who took part actively while others were
US v. ALEXANDER
passive & silent.
 They all waited for Sakili’s truck.
 They concurred in Askali’s criminal resolution when he demanded P1,600.00 for
Sakili’s release.
 They escorted Sakili to the abaca plantation.
 Even if they didn’t get any part of the money, they fully & directly cooperated & they
did their part so that Askali’s resolution would be carried out. Thus, they are also
liable.
3. WON Askali only intended to compel Sakili to fulfill his promise. - NO
 If this were the intention, there would have been no need to kidnap him. Instead,
they could have threatened him to continue the complaint.
 Besides, even if this were the real purpose, offense would still be kidnapping with
ransom as per RPC Art. 267 as amended by RA 1084 last paragraph of w/c provides:
“The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping/detention was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim/any other person…”
 SARABIA v. PEOPLE
Facts:
♦ June 23, 1991 – Josephine Picos-Mapalad and her then boyfriend, Anastacio
Mapalad (now her husband) were dating at one of the grandstands inside the
Garcia Sports Complex in Tagbilaran. Sarabia (member of the police force) saw
the two lovers and with intimidation, pointed his gun at the two lovers and
forced them to perform sexual acts against their will. Sarabia made Anastacio
buy a cigarette outside the complex, and, while he was hone, Sarabia force
Josephine to maturbate his penis. The couple reported the matter to the police
and 3 informations for grave coercion were filed against the Sarabia.
♦ Sarabia denied the allegations he claimed that he merely confronted the two
and instructed them to go home. When the couple refused to go he left and
went home.
♦ Trial Court convicted him and this was affirmed by the CA.
♦ Sarabia contends that there were contradictions between the affidavits and
testimonies of the complainants. Sarabia also pointed out that the
complainants did not report the incident to the authorities when they had every
opportunity to do so.

Issue: WON the court erred in convicting Sarabia of grave coercion.

Credibility of the Witness

♦ When a conviction hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the assessment of the
trial court is accorded the highest degree of respect.
♦ The lower court had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the demeanor of
the witnesses while on the witness stand.
♦ Inconsistencies on minor or collateral matters in the testimony of prosecution
witnesses regarding the same event do not affect their credibility; but rather
are strong indicia that their testimonies are unrehearsed and indeed true.
♦ It is to be expected that complainants would give a more detailed narration in
their testimony before the trial court of how Sarabia forced them at gunpoint to
have sexual intercourse. This fact does not necessarily signify that their open
testimonies conflict with their affidavits.
♦ Non-disclosure of the identity of Sarabia after the occurrence of the crime is
not necessarily against human experience. Sarabia is a police officer and he
threatened them at gunpoint that he would harm them if they reported the
matter to anyone.

Double Jeopardy
♦ Sarabia contends that the incident which gave rise to this case is also the
subject of a criminal case for robbery with violence against or intimidation of
person wherein he was convicted, and is now on appeal with the CA.
♦ Elements of double jeopardy:
o A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second
o The first jeopardy must have terminated
o Second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
Crime for which Sarabia is now charged is not the same as the crime of robbery with
violence or intimidation of person for which he was convicted.

GANAAN v. IAC