People v Padica However, upon discovery of the omission Leon Jr.
’s name in the original
April 7, 1993 | Crimes Against Persons | Joses Tan
Recit-ready Summary: Leon Marajas, Jr., Romeo Padica, Leslie Gans,
Florentino Fabrigas, Romeo Pradez, Leonardo Marajas and Leopoldo
Marajas were charged with the crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder
and illegal possession of firearms before Military Commission No. 27
Brothers Leon Jr. and Leopoldo visited Padica in his home in
Muntinlupa and gave Padica P100 as they requested the latter to drive for
Eddie Boy Marajas. They went to Samson Tech in Pasay then went to Sucat
and stopped at a restaurant. They then went to Superville Subdivision in
Sucat where Leopoldo alighted and talked to Eddie Boy Marajas and
Francis Banaga (both 14 years old) The three boarded the car and all of
them went to Calamba. Upon reaching Calamba, Leopoldo told Padica to
drive the car into the sugarcane plantation and as they arrived, Leopoldo
told Banaga to alight to which the latter refused. Leopoldo, Eddie Boy, and
Leon Jr. pulled Banaga out of the vehicle and brought the latter inside the
plantation 10 meters away from the car. Leopoldo delivered blows at
Banaga then Leon Jr. shot the latter with his handgun. Banaga fell on the
ground. Leopoldo, Eddie Boy, and Leon Jr. went back to the car where
Leopoldo took the wheel from Padica. They drove back to Muntinlupa
where Padica alighted and was warned by Leopoldo.
On that same day, Tomas Banaga, the father of Francis Banaga
received a call, demanding P500,000 for the release of Francis. This was
reported to the Constabulary. The day after, Tomas received another phone
call to which the caller reduced the amount to P200,000 then lowered to
P23,000 on the following day with the instruction that the money will be
wrapped in a news paper and will be given to a girl in Luneta. On that same
day, the girl received the ransom money and was met by Leon Jr. who
alighted the taxicab but was arrested right after receiving the ransom
money. The appellant gave the information to the Constabulary to which the
latter initiated a search for the body of Francis the following day. They
found Francis’ cadaver which sustained two fatal gunshots: on the head and
on the chest. After three years of hiding out of fear for his life, Padica
finally revealed to the Regional Security Unit Intelligence Division in
Lucena that he witnessed the killing of Banaga.
The counsel of Leon Jr. prayed for the transfer of the case to the
civil courts. The Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed an information
for kidnapping for ransom with murder before the Pasay CFI against the
accused, but with the exception of Leon Jr., whose name was not included.
information, the prosecution filed a motion for the admission of an amended
information including his as one of the accused. The court admitted the
amended information. Thereafter, Leon Jr., duly assisted by counsel,
entered a plea of guilty upon being arraigned on the amended information.
On the other hand, accused Padica was discharged from the information to
be utilized as a state witness. Pasig RTC found the Leon Jr. guilty for the
crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Francis Banaga’s father
P30,000 as death indemnity.
The issue is whether or not Leon Jr. was guilty of the complex
crime of kidnapping with murder. The SC said no, Leon Jr. is only guilty of
murder because the essential element of kidnapping, which is the
deprivation of the victim’s liberty or the victim was transported away
against his will, was absent in this case. The taking of the victim was
incidental to the basic purpose to kill so, the crime is only murder.
Relevant Issue/s: W/N Pasig RTC was correct in finding Leon Jr. of the
complex crime of kidnapping with murder? NO.
Holding: No. The court is convinced that the crime committed was murder,
attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and/or abuse of
strength, and not the complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder.
The essential element in the crime of kidnapping is that the victim must
have been restrained or deprived of his liberty or that he was transported
away against his will with the primary intent to that effect of restraint. This
is absent in this case. The taking of the victim was incidental to the basic
purpose to kill so, the crime is only murder. The judgment of the trial court
was set aside and another one was rendered convicting Marajas of the crime
of murder and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
ordered to pay the ears of the victim the sum of 50,000 pesos as death
indemnity.
Doctrine: Where the taking of the victim was incidental to the basic
purpose of killing, the crime is only murder and this is true even if before
the killing, the victim was taken from one place to another. From the acts of
the accused, it cannot be inferred that the latter's purpose was actually to
detain or deprive the victims of their liberty and the fact alone that
ransom money was demanded did not per se qualify the crime to
kidnapping in the absence of other elements.