44. People vs Domasian the market.
Here the man talked to a jeepney driver and handed him
an envelope addressed to Dr. Enrique Agra, the boy's father. The two
then boarded a tricycle headed for San Vicente, with the man still
G.R. No. 95322 March 1, 1993 firmly holding Enrico, who continued crying. This aroused the
suspicion of the driver, Alexander Grate, who asked the man about
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, his relationship with the boy. The man said he and the boy were
vs. brothers, making Grate doubly suspicious because of the physical
PABLITO DOMASIAN AND DR. SAMSON TAN, accused-appellant. differences between the two and the wide gap between their ages.
Grate immediately reported the matter to two barangay tanods when
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. his passengers alighted from the tricycle. Grate and the tanods went
after the two and saw the man dragging the boy. Noticing that they
Silvestre L. Tagarao for appellant Pablito Domasian. were being pursued, the man told Enrico to run fast as their pursuers
might behead them. Somehow, the man managed to escape, leaving
Enrico behind. Enrico was on his way home in a passenger jeep when
Lino M. Patajo for appellant Dr. Samson Tan.
he met his parents, who were riding in the hospital ambulance and
already looking for him.2
CRUZ, J.:
At about 1:45 in the afternoon of the same day, after Enrico's return,
The boy was detained for only about three hours and was released Agra received an envelope containing a ransom note. The note
even before his parents received the ransom note. But it spawned a demanded P1 million for the release of Enrico and warned that
protracted trial spanning all of 8 years and led to the conviction of the otherwise the boy would be killed. Agra thought the handwriting in the
two accused.1 note was familiar. After comparing it with some records in the hospital,
he gave the note to the police, which referred it to the NBI for
The victim was Enrico Paulo Agra, who was 8 years old at the time of examination.3
the incident in question. The accused were Pablito Domasian and
Samson Tan, the latter then a resident physician in the hospital The test showed that it bad been written by Dr. Samson Tan.4 On the
owned by Enrico's parents. They were represented by separate other hand, Enrico was shown a folder of pictures in the police station
lawyers at the trial and filed separate briefs in this appeal. so be could identify the man who had detained him, and he pointed to
the picture of Pablito Domasian.5 Domasian and Tan were
The evidence of the prosecution showed that in the morning of March subsequently charged with the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal
11, 1982, while Enrico was walking with a classmate along Roque detention in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon.6
street in the poblacion of Lopez, Quezon, he was approached by a
man who requested his assistance in getting his father's signature on The defense of both accused was denial and alibi. Domasian claimed
a medical certificate. Enrico agreed to help and rode with the man in a that at the time of the incident he was watching a mahjong game in a
tricycle to Calantipayan, where he waited outside while the man went friend's house and later went to an optical clinic with his wife for the
into a building to get the certificate. Enrico became apprehensive and refraction of his eyeglasses.7 Dr. Tan for his part said he was in
started to cry when, instead of taking him to the hospital, the man Manila.8
flagged a minibus and forced him inside, holding him firmly all the
while. The man told him to stop crying or he would not be returned to
After trial Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas found both accused guilty as
his father. When they alighted at Gumaca, they took another tricycle,
charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
this time bound for the municipal building from where they walked to
perpetua and all accessory penalties. They were also required to pay
Page 1 of 4
P200,000.00 to Dr. and Mrs. Enrique Agra as actual and moral we see it, is why Domasian detained Enrico in the first place after
damages and attorney's fees. pretending he needed the boy's help. That is also for Domasian to
explain. As for Enrico's alleged willingness to go with Domasian, this
In the present appeal, the accused-appellants reiterate their denial of was manifested only at the beginning, when he believed the man
any participation in the incident in question. They belittle the credibility sincerely needed his assistance. But he was soon disabused. His
of the prosecution witnesses and submit that their own witnesses are initial confidence gave way to fear when Domasian, after taking him
more believable. Tan specifically challenges the findings of the NBI so far away from the hospital where he was going, restrained and
and offers anew the opposite findings of the PC/INP showing that he threatened him if he did not stop crying.
was not the writer of the ransom note. He maintains that in any case,
the crime alleged is not kidnapping with serious illegal detention as no Domasian's alibi cannot stand against his positive identification by
detention in an enclosure was involved. If at all, it should be Enrico, Grate and Ferreras, let alone the contradictions made by his
denominated and punished only as grave coercion. Finally, both corroborating witness, Dr. Irene Argosino, regarding the time he was
Domasian and Tan insist that there is no basis for the finding of a in the optical clinic and the manner of his payment for the
conspiracy between them to make them criminally liable in equal refraction.9 Tan's alibi is not convincing either. The circumstance that
degree. he may have been in Manila at the time of the incident does not prove
that he could not have written the ransom note except at that time.
First, on the credibility of the witnesses. This is assessed in the first
instance by the trial judge, whose finding in this regard is received Concerning the note, Rule 132, Section 22, of the Rules of Court
with much respect by the appellate court because of his opportunity to provides as follows:
directly observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand.
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
In the case at bar, Judge Lanzanas relied heavily on the testimony of witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
the victim himself, who positively identified Domasian as the person person and has seen the person write, or has seen
who detained him for three hours. The trial court observed that the writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has
boy was "straight-forward, natural and consistent" in the narration of acted or been charged and has thus acquired
his detention. The boy's naivete made him even more believable. knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
Tirso Ferreras, Enrico's classmate and also his age, pointed to respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
Domasian with equal certainty, as the man who approached Enrico comparison, made by the witness or the court with
when they were walking together that morning of March 11, 1982. writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
Grate, the tricycle driver who suspected Enrico's companion and later against whom the evidence is offered or proved to be
chased him, was also positive in identifying Domasian. All these three genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
witnesses did not know Domasian until that same morning and could
have no ill motive in testifying against him. By contrast, Eugenia Two expert witnesses were presented in the case at bar, one from the
Agtay, who testified for the defense, can hardly be considered a NBI, 10 who opined that the ransom note and the standard documents
disinterested witness because she admitted she had known were written by one and the same person, and another from the
Domasian for 3 years. PC/INP 11 who expressed a contrary conclusion. The trial court chose
to believe the NBI expert because his examination and analysis "was
The defense asks why Domasian openly took Enrico to several public more comprehensive than the one conducted by the PC/INP
places if the intention was to kidnap and detain him. That is for handwriting expert, who virtually limited his reliance on the perceived
Domasian himself to answer. We do no have to probe the reasons for similarities and dissimilarities in the pattern and style of the writing,
the irrational conduct of an accused. The more important question, as thereby disregarding the basic principle in handwriting identification
Page 2 of 4
that it is not the form alone nor anyone feature but rather a 2. If it shall have been committed simulating public
combination of all the qualities that identify." authority.
We have held that the value of the opinion of a handwriting expert 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been
depends not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; of if
or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out threats to kill him shall have been made.
distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and
between genuine and false specimens of writing which would 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,
ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed female or a public officer.
observer. 12 The test of genuineness ought to be the resemblance, not
the formation of letters in some other specimens but to the general The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or
character of writing, which is impressed on it as the involuntary and detention was committed for the purpose of extorting
unconscious result ransom from the victim or any other person; even if
of constitution, habit or other permanent course, and is, therefore itself none of the circumstances above-mentioned were
permanent. 13 present in the commission of the offense.
Presented with the conflicting opinions of the witnesses in the case at Contrary to Tan's submission, this crime may consist not only in
bar, the Court feels that the scales should tilt in favor of the placing a person in an enclosure but also in detaining him or depriving
prosecution. Significantly, the NBI opinion was bolstered by the him in any manner of his liberty. 16 In the case at bar, it is noted that
testimony of Agra, who believed that the ransom note was written by although the victim was not confined in an enclosure, he was deprived
Tan, with whose handwriting he was familiar because they had been of his liberty when Domasian restrained him from going home and
working in the hospital for four years and he had seen that dragged him first into the minibus that took them to the municipal
handwriting every day in Tan's prescriptions and daily reports. 14 building in Gumaca, thence to the market and then into the tricycle
bound for San Vicente. The detention was committed by Domasian,
Cesar v. Sandiganbayan 15 is not applicable because that case who was a private individual, and Enrico was a minor at that time. The
involved a forgery or the deliberate imitation of another person's crime clearly comes under Par. 4 of the above-quoted article.
signature. In the case before us, there was in fact an effort
to disguise the ransom note writer's penmanship to prevent his Tan claims that the lower court erred in not finding that the sending of
discovery. the ransom note was an impossible crime which he says is not
punishable. His reason is that the second paragraph of Article 4 of the
As for the nature of the crime committed, Article 267 of the Revised Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability shall be incurred
Penal Code provides as follows: "by any person performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or
Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain ineffectual means." As the crime alleged is not against persons or
another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, property but against liberty, he argues that it is not covered by the
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: said provision.
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more Tan conveniently forgets the first paragraphs of the same article,
than five days. which clearly applies to him, thus:
Page 3 of 4
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be refusal obviously triggered the plan to kidnap Enrico and demand P1
incurred: million for his release.
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although The constitutional issues raised by Domasian do not affect the
the wrongful act done be different from that which he decision in this case. His claim that he was arrested without warrant
intended. and then tortured and held incommunicado to extort a confession
from him does not vitiate his conviction. He never gave any
x x x x x x x x x confession. As for the allegation that the seizure of the documents
used for comparison with the ransom note was made without a search
Even before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping warrant, it suffices to say that such documents were taken by Agra
with serious illegal detention had already been committed. The act himself and not by the NBI agents or other police authorities. We held
cannot be considered an impossible crime because there was no in the case of People vs. Andre Marti, 20 that the Bill of Rights cannot
inherent improbability of its accomplishment or the employment of be invoked against acts of private individuals, being directed only
inadequate or ineffective means. The delivery of the ransom note after against the government and its law-enforcement agencies and
the rescue of the victim did not extinguish the offense, which had limitation on official action.
already been consummated when Domasian deprived Enrico of his
liberty. The sending of the ransom note would have had the effect We are satisfied that Tan and Domasian, in conspiracy with each
only of increasing the penalty to death under the last paragraph of other, committed the crime of kidnapping as defined and penalized
Article 267 although this too would not have been possible under the under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and so deserve the
new Constitution. penalty imposed upon them by the trial court.
On the issue of conspiracy, we note first that it exists when two or WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED, with costs
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a against the accused-appellants.
felony and decide to commit it, whether they act through physical
volition of one or all, proceeding severally or collectively. 17 Let a copy of this decision be sent to the Commission on Human
Rights for investigation of the alleged violation of the constitutional
It is settled that conspiracy can be inferred from and proven by the rights of Pablito Domasian.
acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action and community of SO ORDERED.
interests. 18 In the instant case, the trial court correctly held that
conspiracy was proved by the act of Domasian in detaining Enrico; Griño-Aquino, Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ., concur.
the writing of the ransom note by Tan; and its delivery by Domasian to
Agra. These acts were complementary to each other and geared
toward the attainment of the common ultimate objective, viz., to extort
the ransom of P1 million in exchange for Enrico's life.
The motive for the offense is not difficult to discover. According to
Agra, Tan approached him six days before the incident happened and
requested a loan of at least P15,000.00. Agra said he had no funds at
that moment and Tan did not believe him, angrily saying that Agra
could even raise a million pesos if he really wanted to help. 19 The
Page 4 of 4
