People vs.

Tomio
G.R. No. 74630 September 30, 1991 Abad Santos, J.
G.R. No. 75576 (consolidated)

SUBJECT MATTER:
Kidnapping &Illegal Detention

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPTS:

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT: Automatic review and petition for habeas corpus

Petitioner(s): The People of the Philippines

Respondent(s): MAIDA TOMIO alias SATO TOSHIO and NAKAJIMA TAGAHIRO alias YAMADA
TAKAO
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF TADAHIRO
NAKAJIMA and TOMIO MAEDA, petitioners

SUMMARY:

FACTS:

 April 29, 1986: Tatsumi Nagao, a Japanese National and Buddhist priest who couldn’t speak
English or Tagalog, came to Manila alone for a 5 day tour and stayed at the Holiday Inn.
o May 2 1986: while he was having lunch at the hotel’s coffee shop 2 Japanese men
named Tomio (alias Sato Toshio) and Mitamura approached his table asking if he was
Japanese then joined him at his table and informed him that they have been in the
Philippines for quite a time and offered themselves as his guides in Manila.
o Thereafter, Mitamura brought him to the sauna bath of the hotel and a department store
in Manila. Eventually, they ended up at the Leo's Restaurant located along Roxas
Boulevard at around 7:30 o'clock in the evening where they had dinner.
o Before leaving the restaurant, one of the two placed a pack of cigarettes on Nagao’s shirt
pocket and instructed him to wait so they could get a taxi. Suddenly, 5 policemen
searched him, found the pack of cigarettes, claimed it contained marijuana, and brought
him to the Southern police District Station.
o Nagao was approached by five (5) plainclothesmen who identified themselves as
policemen. They bodily searched him and found the pack of cigarettes earlier given him
which the policemen claimed contained marijuana. Thereafter, the policemen brought him
to the Southern Police District Station.
o While he was at the police station, Nakajima (alias Yamada) and Tomio arrived. They
interpreted for him. One of them told him that the penalty for illegal possession of
marijuana is 6-12 years imprisonment. They suggested that Nagao give money to the
policemen who, they claim, demanded U.S. $100,000.00 for his release. Nagao agreed.
o Thereafter, Toshio and Nakajima informed him that they had advanced the payment of
the bribe money to the policemen who, accordingly, agreed to release him.
o Nagao then returned to his hotel escorted by Tomio and Nakajima and a policeman, who
didn’t allow him to leave the hotel and demanded that he call his parents in Japan for the
money allegedly advanced. Instead of calling up his parents, he called up a friend and
told him of his predicament.
o The three escorts stayed with him in the hotel up to 10:00 o'clock the following morning.
They transferred hotels several times, then to Nakajima’s Makati condo.
o When Nagao called his dad, he learned that his father had already remitted the money to
the RCBC main branch in Makati. On May 12, the accused brought him there where he
withdrew the $1,850 and gave it to them. When they exited the bank, the police from the
Western Police District who was called by the Japanese embassy arrested the accused.

LAW 110 | PROF. LITONG

  The accused claim that they were merely guarding Nagao, the money they demanded was not
ransom but payment of a loan, and that he could’ve left them any time since they did not
physically restrain him.
o accused NAKAJIMA TAGAHIRO alias YAMADA TAKAO met for the first time Tatsumi
Nagao at the Southern Police District headquarters in Manila. They were contacted to act
as Nagao's interpreter. Nagao intimated to him that he (Nagao) wanted to settle the case
and offered money to the police. They requested the police to release Nagao because
according to him the marijuana was not his but belonged to somebody who gave it to
him. Nagao told the accused that he offered to pay the amount of US$100,000 to the
police which he said he would borrow then from a friend. Yamada told Nagao that the
amount was too much and suggested that he (Nagao) should call his father in Japan to
send the money here. Nagao was ultimately released by the police for some reason not
known to Yamada and he went back to his hotel at Holiday Inn together with the accused
YAMADA and SATO.
o At the hotel Nagao called up his friend in Japan with the help of YAMADA who placed the
call since Nagao cannot speak English. YAMADA did not have occasion to talk to
Nagao's friend over the hone. After 30 minutes, another call was made by Nagao to
Japan. That night of May 2 both accused slept with Nagao in the latter's room at Holiday
Inn due to Nagao's request not to leave him inside the hotel.
o The following day, May 3, Nagao did not know where to go so the accused suggested
they look for the cheapest hotel or one where they could stay on credit. The accused
MAIDA then made arrangements with a travel agency and, after checking in at the
Intercontinental Hotel, they checked out at Holiday Inn and transferred to the
Intercontinental Hotel where they stayed up to May 7. At this hotel, Nagao made many
phone calls to Japan the accused YAMADA always placing the calls for Nagao. During
their stay at the hotel the accused and Nagao went on foot to see a movie at the Quad
Theater and to eat at a Japanese restaurant.
o They also went to Maalicaya Sauna Bath in Quezon City about four times around 10:00
to 11:00 in the evening where Nagao was left alone in one of the rooms with his massage
girl attendant. On some of those occasions Nagao would finish first and would wait for the
accused at the lobby. Twice Yamada brought Nagao to his house because Nagao
requested him not to leave him. On one occasion, the three of them brought down a
Filipina girl from their hotel room but only Nagao accompanied her outside the hotel for
five to fifteen minutes to see her off and then he came back to the hotel.
 Accused were charged with the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The trial court
ruled that the accused-appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and
sentencing each of them to suffer the death penalty and to pay the costs.
 Before they could file their Brief, appellants filed in the SC a petition for habeas corpus alleging
that that the decision of the court below in is "void and illegal" because, among other things,
before being investigated, they were tortured, threatened and deprived of their constitutional
rights to due process and equal protection of the laws.

ISSUE/S, HOLDING, AND RATIO:

Are they guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

RULING RATIO:
Yes, the evidence for With the obvious connivance of the police, they put the pressure on the
the prosecution has complainant by demanding, allegedly for and in consideration of his release,
established beyond the amount aforestated. Under the circumstances, with the threat of adverse
reasonable doubt that publicity and imprisonment, it was easy to work on him. To show that they
appellants, together commiserated with him, they made it appear that they advanced the money
with their co- to the police. We are, however, convinced that the accused-appellants never
conspirators, had an advanced the money. That is why they stuck to the complainant like "a
elaborate and carefully leech," as vividly described by the trial court, after he was eventually

LAW 110 | PROF. LITONG

designed plan to "released" by the police.
kidnap Mr. Nagao in There is no doubt in Our mind that during the period from 3 May 1986 until
order to obtain ransom the accused-appellants were arrested on 12 May 1986, complainant was
from him. moved from one hotel to another by the appellants, effectively depriving him
of his liberty. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, while it may be
conceded that complainant had the freedom of locomotion, he "did not
have the freedom to leave the hotel premises at will and go wherever he
pleased." To keep him within their control, appellant Tagahiro Nakajima, who
is a businessman and a resident of 101 Peter's Street, BF Homes,
Parañaque, Metro Manila, had to abandon his business and his family to be
with Mr. Nagao. Thus, as he admitted upon question by the court, he was,
from 3 to 12 May 1986, with the complainant at Holiday Inn Hotel,
Intercontinental Hotel, Philippine Village Hotel and Virra Condominium. He
slept there, not in his residence. The suite (73) which they occupied at Virra
Condominium is owned by his co-accused Tomio Maeda.

It was true that between May 2-12. the accused never lost sight of Nagao
except for 1 time where he accompanied a girl out of the hotel to send her off
for 5-10 minutes. But Nagao was in a foreign country, with no relatives nor
close friends. He couldn’t speak English or Tagalog, all his money was
confiscated by the police, and his passport was held by the accused.
Besides, he sincerely believed that he was merely on a temporary leash from
the police who were poised to arrest him anytime if he didn’t pay the bribe
money. Besides the 6-12 years imprisonment, he’d suffer adverse publicity as
a Buddhist priest. Nagao knew that the only way he could prevent any further
restraint on his person was to pay the accused from the remittance of his
father in Japan. Even if the accused were not armed and did not physically
restrain his movements, all these circumstances taken together created such
fear which actually restrained him from doing what he freely wanted to do and
resulted in a deprivation of liberty.

The accused’s claim that the money involved wasn’t ransom money but
merely payment of hotel bills (accdg to Nakajima) or reimbursement of the
sum they advanced to pay the policemen and hotel accommodations (Tomio)
has no merit. And even if there really was just a simple loan contract between
the accused and Mr. Nagao, the fact that Nagao was deprived of his liberty
until the amount would’ve been fully paid to them is still kidnapping or illegal
detention for ransom. Ransom is defined as money, price, or consideration
paid or demanded from redemption of a captured person, a payment that
released from captivity. Hence as long as the accused demanded and
received money as a requisite for releasing a person from captivity, money is
still ransom under the law.

Re: lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process defenses

The court has jurisdiction. The essential ingredients of the crime charged
were committed in various places in Manila. Besides, the accused’s active
participation in the proceedings necessarily carried an unqualified invocation
of the court’s jurisdiction and authority.

while it may be true that the trial lasted only for a few days and the decision
was promulgated on the twelfth day after the filing of the information, there is
nothing on record that may cast any doubt on the impartiality and neutrality of
the judge or on the fairness of his decision which, as We observe, manifests
a careful and thorough analysis of the evidence. Appellants made no protest
in the court below as to the manner the trial was conducted. all the requisites
of due process are present in this case, to wit: (a) a court or tribunal clothed

LAW 110 | PROF. LITONG

 with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (b) jurisdiction
lawfully acquired by it over the person of the appellants and over the offense;
(c) the appellants were given an opportunity to be heard; and (d) judgment
was rendered upon lawful hearing.

Re: other conspirators

Our examination of the records fails to show that Mr. Mitamura and the
policemen were investigated or prosecuted in connection with this case. This
Court would be remiss in its duty if it were to close its eyes on this matter,
more specifically on the alleged involvement of the policemen. Policemen are
supposed to enforce the law, protect the people, and maintain peace and
order. At the people's expense, they don the uniform of authority and are
allowed to carry the instruments of legal violence. As such, they are bound to
faithfully adhere to the Constitutional directive to be at all times accountable
to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency. Accordingly, We direct the Philippine National Police to conduct a
thorough investigation, if none has been done so far, into the involvement of
the five policemen of the Southern Police District and, should the evidence
warrant, file the appropriate criminal and administrative cases against them.
As regards Mr. Mitamura, if he is still in the Philippines, efforts must be
exerted by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, in coordination with
the National Bureau of Investigation, to have him investigated and
prosecuted, should the evidence warrant. No alien should be allowed to
abuse Philippine hospitality and make our country a happy hunting ground for
his criminal activities

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1.In G.R. No. 74630, AFFIRMING, subject to the above provision of Section 19(1) of Article III of the 1987
Constitution, the decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 86-45055, and
2.In G.R. No. 75576, DENYING, for lack of merit, the motion to reconsider the resolution of 20 January
1987. Costs against appellants. SO ORDERED.

LAW 110 | PROF. LITONG