PEOPLE VS ALIPION SANTINIAO

Doctrine: The crime of kidnapping cannot be here absorbed by the charge of murder since the detention of the
victim is not shown to have been for the purpose of liquidating him. Appellants themselves, in fact, all deny having
killed the victim. And while the evidence may have thus been found to be wanting by the trial court so as to equally
hold appellants responsible for the death of the victim, the Court is convinced that the court a quo did not err in
making them account for kidnapping. The circumstances heretofore recited indicate the attendance of conspiracy
among the appellants thereby making them each liable for the offense.
Facts: Accused-appellants Alipio Santiano, Jose Sandigan, Armenia Pillueta and Jose Vicente (Jovy) Chanco were
indicted for the kidnapping with murder of Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr., a detention prisoner at the Naga City Jail, in an
amended Information, docketed Criminal Case No. P-2319, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pili, Branch
32, Camarines Sur.
On May 13, 1993, the kidnap victim, Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr. and his live-in partner, Loida Navidad, were arrested
by appellants Jose Sandigan and Armenia Pillueta and several other NARCOM agents for alleged illegal possession
of marijuana . After the arrest, they were brought to the NARCOM Office situated at the compound of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Headquarters, Naga City.
Thereafter, a certain Alipio Santiano, also a detainee, was mauled inside the jail and pointed Dy Kow Jr. as the one
who mastermind his mauling.
On December 27, 1993, at about 6:00 oclock in the evening, the victim asked permission from a jail trustee to allow
him to buy viand outside the jail. When he left, the victim was wearing a fatigue jacket and short pants.
As the victim emerged from the PNP store, he was accosted by appellants Sandigan and Santiano. The two (2)
appellants held the victim between them and thereafter hurriedly proceeded towards the NARCOM Office Situated at
a distance of about twenty-five (25) meters away. Upon reaching the door of the NARCOM office, the victim was
pushed inside. Once the victim was already inside the NARCOM Office, appellant Sandigan proceeded to and took
his place at Plaza Barlin facing the PNP Police Station. The victim was made to sit and thereafter mauled by
appellant Santiano. Santiano got hold of a handkerchief, rolled it around his fists and continued to punch the victim
for almost fifteen (15) minutes. As the victim was being mauled, appellant Pillueta stood by the door of the Narcom
office, her both hands inside her pockets while looking to her right and left, acting as a lookout.
At this time, appellant Chanco who owned and drove his trimobile, parked it in front of the door of the NARCOM
Office. Thereafter, he proceeded inside the NARCOM Office.
After a few minutes, appellant Chanco went out of the NARCOM Office and started the trimobile. His co-appellant
Santiano and Pillueta followed him. Inside the trimobile, appellant Pillueta occupied the back seat. Santiano occupied
the reversed seat in front of the passenger seat which was occupied by the victim.
The trimobile proceeded towards the direction of San Francisco Church. When it passed the Panganiban Drive, Naga
City, on its way towards the direction of Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur, the victim was still aboard the trimobile at the
passenger seat nearest the driver.
When prosecution witness Raola heard over the radio that a person was found dead at the canal in Palestina, Pili,
Camarines Sur, he lost no time in informing a policeman Prila of the Pili Police Department that the descriptions of
the dead person he heard over the radio fit not only the person he saw being hauled to and thereafter mauled at the
NARCOM Office but likewise the same person who was on board the trimobile driven by the appellant Chanco.
Robert Dy Kow identified the man found dead in Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur, as his brother Ramon John Dy Kow,
Jr.

Appellant Jovy Chanco had this further statement in his supplemental appeal brief; thus:
On December 28, 1993, a cadaver of an unknown person was discovered somewhere in the vicinity of Barangay
Palestina, Municipality of Pili, Province of Camarines, by Danilo Camba, the Barangay Captain of said locality. The
corpse was later on identified by Robert Dy Kow as that one of his brother, Ramon John Dy Kow, Jr.
Dr. Thomas S. Gonzales performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the victim. His findings revealed that Dy Kow, Jr.,
CAUSE OF DEATH: INTERNAL HEMORRHAGE SECONDARY TO GUNSHOT WOUND.
RTC: found all four accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping, defined and penalized under Article 267
of the Revised Penal Code.
Accused-appellants filed the instant appeal.
Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime of Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
Held:Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.- Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or
in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death;
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill
him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female, or a public officer.
The elements of the offense, here adequately shown, are (a) that the offender is a private individual; (b) that he
kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) that the act of detention or
kidnapping is illegal; and (d) that, in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present, i.e.,
(i) that the kidnapping or detention lasts for more then 5 days, or (ii) that it is committed simulating public authority, or
(iii) that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are
made, or (iv) that the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
Prosecution witness William Raola testified that he had seen the victim being accosted, held and thereafter dragged
to the NARCOM office by appellants Santiago and Sandigan. Inside the NARCOM office, the victim was mauled by
Santiano. For several minutes, Santiano continued to batter him with punches while Pillueta stood by the door and so
acted as the "lookout. The appellants then took the victim away on a trimobile owned and driven by Chanco. Raola
positively identified the fatigue jacket worn by the victim on the evening of his abduction on 27 December 1993 and
when his lifeless body was found in the morning of 28 December 1993. Don Gumba corroborated Raolas testimony.
Gumba was positive that he had seen the victim at around eight oclock in the evening of 27 December 1993 with
appellants Santiano and Pillueta on Board the trimobile driven by appellant Chanco on its way towards the direction
of Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur, where, the following morning, the victim was found evidently after succumbing to
several gunshot wounds.
Appellants have not shown any nefarious motive on the part of the witnesses that might have influenced them to
declare falsely against appellants, the Court sees no justification to thereby deny faith and credit to their testimony.
The Court likewise shares the view of the Solicitor General in pointing out that
1. There is no question that the victim, who was on the date in question detained at the Naga City Jail, asked
permission from the jail trustee in order to buy viand outside. It was while he was emerging from the PNP store that
he was accosted by appellants Santiano and Sandigan
2. From the moment that the victim was accosted in Naga City, he was at first dragged to the NARCOM Office where
he was mauled. This circumstance indicated the intention to deprive him of his liberty for sometime, an essential
element of the crime of kidnapping.

3. The victim did not only sustain serious physical injuries but likewise died as indicated in the autopsy report, thus,
belying appellants claim that none of the circumstances in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code was present.
4. Witness Don Gumba was positive when he declared that he saw the victim at about 8:00 oclock in the evening of
December 27, 1993 with appellants Santiano and Pillueta on board the trimobile driven by appellant Chanco on its
way towards the direction of Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur where the victim was found dead.
The fact alone that appellant Pillueta is an organic member of the NARCOM and appellant Sandigan a regular
member of the PNP would not exempt them from the criminal liability for kidnapping.] It is quite clear that in abducting
and taking away the victim, appellants did so neither in furtherance of official function nor in the pursuit of authority
vested in them. It is not, in fine, in relation to their office, but in purely private capacity, that they have acted in concert
with their co-appellants Santiano and Chanco.
The crime of kidnapping cannot be here absorbed by the charge of murder since the detention of the victim is not
shown to have been for the purpose of liquidating him. Appellants themselves, in fact, all deny having killed the
victim. And while the evidence may have thus been found to be wanting by the trial court so as to equally hold
appellants responsible for the death of the victim, the Court is convinced that the court a quo did not err in making
them account for kidnapping. The circumstances heretofore recited indicate the attendance of conspiracy among the
appellants thereby making them each liable for the offense.
Dispositive: the appealed decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Costs against appellants.