THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. KAMAD AKIRAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, KAMAD AKIRAN, JARANG ASKALI, ALAMMARA DUMPAS AND KASTIRI SAPPARI, DEFENDANTS AND APP…

An amended information for kidnapping with ransom was filed on
December 22, 1960 by the Provincial Fiscal in the Court of First
Instance of Sulu against Kamad Akiran, Jarang Askali, Jamiri Hawadji,
Alammara Dumpas and Kastiri Sappari. It alleged that on July 26, 1960,
in the municipality of Maimbung, Province of Sulu, the abovementioned
five accused, together with five other persons still at large, namely,
Ahaddin Panning, Isirani Askali, Abdusali Jadji, Jammang Dahim and
Ammang Akiran, armed with firearms, in pursuance of a conspiracy,
kidnapped Isirani Sakili and brought him to a house in Bud Katinganan,
of the same municipality, where he was detained for nine hours and
released only when the said accused persons succeeded in extorting a
ransom of P1,000, in violation of Article 267, last paragraph, of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.

At the instance of the Provincial Fiscal, for lack of evidence, the
charge was dismissed as to Jamiri Hawadji. The remaining four accused
pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution presented the alleged kidnap victim himself, Isirani
Sakili, 45 years old, married, a merchant, who testified that on July
26, 1960 his brother Hadji Hassan, his driver, Bairulla, and he were on
the way to Jolo after having loaded his truck with copra in Tambaking,
Maimbung District. At Kilometer 16 of the Indanan-Lapa road, they were
stopped by a group of men armed with carbines and garands, who, led by
the accused Jarang Askali, ran to the middle of the road and pointed
their weapons at them. As they stopped, Jarang Askali shouted for him
to come down from the truck. When Isirani Sakili and his brother
stepped off the truck, Jarang ordered Hadji Hassan to go home and
produce P1,600 that very day or else Isirani Sakili would be killed (I
Tsn., 39-30). Hadji Hassan boarded the truck and left. Isirani Sakili
was then brought to an abaca plantation in Bud Katinganan where he
stayed from 9 A.M. to 1 P.M. of the same day, guarded by Jarang and
Ahaddin, as the rest had gone home (I Tsn., 46). When Jamiri Hawadji
came, Isirani Sakili was brought to the former’s house upon Jamiri’s
own suggestion. At about 6 P.M. that day was released, after his
brother Hadji Hassan and father-in-law, Saddawani Sadda, came and gave
to Jarang Askali P1,000, promising that the remaining P600 will be
given the next day (I Tsn., 38). Isirani Sakili identified among his
kidnappers the four accused; Jarang Askali, Ahaddin Panning, Kastiri Sappari, Isirani Askali, Abdusali Jadji, Alammara Dumpas, Jammang Dahim, Kamad Akiran and Ammang Akiran (I Tsn., 32), claiming that he knew them because they were neighbors and grew up together (I Tsn., 44).

Hadji Hassan, corroborating his brother’s testimony, also identified
the four accused as among Isirani Sakili’s kidnappers (II Tsn., 1-3).
He added that after he left, he told Isirani’s wife, Nunung, what
happened. She was able to give him only P1,000. The remaining P600 he
tried to raise from neighbors and friends, but failed. He then
proceeded to the private, market of Imam Juaini where he met Isirani
Sakili’s father-in-law, Saddawani Sadda, who told him he already found
Isirani through Jamiri Hawadji, through whom also Jarang Askali sent
word about the P1,600 ransom (II Tsn., 1-5). Because they could not get
P600 more, they proceeded to the house of Jamiri Hawadji and found
there Isirani Sakili, Jarang Askali, Ahaddin Panning and Jamiri
Hawadji. After he personally handed the money to Jarang Askali, Isirani
Sakili was released at about 6 P.M., with the promise of Hadji Hassan
to bring the P600 the next morning. Hadji Hassan went home while
Isirani Sakili went to Jolo (II Tsn., 5-7).

Saddawani Sadda – another prosecution witness – testified that he
had requested Jamiri Hawadji, a close relative of Jarang Askali,
through Unsul and Beilaji, to intercede for Isirani Sakili (II Tsn.,
24). After they gave the money to Jarang Askali, Hadji Hassan went home
while Isirani Sakili went to report the matter to the Philippine
Constabulary. Then, together, they proceeded to Jolo (II Tsn., 29).

In defense, it was testified to by Panglima Tagayan, that earlier,
on June 5, 1960, his son-in-law Hayani Askali, Jarang Askali’s brother,
was shot by Tingkahan and Sakkan, brothers or cousins-in-law of Isirani
Sakili. Hayani Askali, although wounded, lived (II Tsn., 45). Five days
after he was shot, Hayani went with a brother of his and Panglima
Tagayan to the Provincial Fiscal to lodge a complaint. Subsequently,
Isirani Sakili offered to pay Hayani P1,600, provided the latter would
not proceed with the complaint.

Salama Sahawi, sister-in-law of Jamiri Hawadji and mother-in-law of
Alammara Dumpas, stated that while drinking soft drink in the store of
Imam Juaini, she saw a cargo truck pass by, on which were Isirani
Sakili, his wife, Hadji Hassan and others she could not remember (I
Tsn., 71-72). The truck stopped and she saw and heard Jarang ask in a
loud voice “Why did you not comply with your promise, you did not
comply with it?” (I Tsn., 72) Then she saw Isirani Sakili and Jarang
Askali with his companions head for Bud Katinganan with Isirani leading
the way. Meanwhile Isirani Sakili’s companions went towards Jolo.

Layha Bismark claimed that in the afternoon of July 26, 1960, he
overheard a group, among them Kamad Akiran, Jammang Dahim, Hadji Hassan
and Saddawani Sadda talking (II Tsn., 49-51). He found out that Hadji
Hassan and Saddawani Sadda were going to Jamiri Hawadji’s house, where
Isirani was kept, to give P1,000 to Jarang Askali to defray the
hospital expenses of Hayani.

Accused Jarang Askali, 37, married, and a resident of Kabbun, Jali,
Indanan, Sulu, testified that Isirani Sakili had arranged with his
uncle Panglima Tagayan to pay the expenses of Hayani (II Tsn., 56). On
the day of the alleged kidnapping he and some companions were on the
way to a certain celebration when they saw Isirani Sakili on his truck
with Hadji Hassan and their wives. They waved for him to stop and when
he did, they conferred regarding the payment of his brother’s expenses.
Then he and his companions, Jammang Dahim, Abdusali Jadji, Ahaddin
Panning, with Isirani Sakili leading, went to Jamiri Hawadji’s place
where Isirani Sakili proposed to make payment (II Tsn., 57-63). Before
they reached Jamiri’s house, they were joined by Hadji Hassan and
Saddawani Sadda. Since Jamiri, before whom payment was to be made – as
he was a sort of a leader in the place – was not there, Jarang Askali
was made to swear before a grave that he would not file a complaint.
After he swore, was given P1,000 and some jewelries to guarantee
payment of the remaining P600, which guaranty he did not accept as he
already considered Isirani Sakili a blood brother whose word could be
trusted.

As to Alammara Dumpas, Jarang testified he was also with Isirani
Sakili in the hauling truck. Jammang Dahim, he further testified, is
already dead (II Tsn., 61). Jarang added that he was surprised when the
complaint was filed against him and so went into hiding and came home
only after nine days (II Tsn., 72), and surrendered himself and also
the gun he bought with part of the money he got.

Taking to the witness box, Kamad Akiran, 22, single, herder and
resident of Indanan, Sulu, denied all of Isirani Sakili’s charges,
denied having known him at all and claimed that at the time of the
alleged kidnapping, he was husking coconuts (I Tsn., 17-18), and knew
of the incident only from rumors that went around. And he added that it
was Isirani Sakili’s wife who caused his arrest while he was selling
copra in town (I Tsn., 21).

After trial, judgment was rendered on June 29, 1961, finding the
four accused guilty as charged beyond reasonable doubt and in view of
Republic Act 1084 raising the penalty of kidnapping for ransom to a
single penalty of death, sentenced them to death and ordered them to
jointly and severally pay Isirani Sakili P1,000 and to pay the costs.

Automatically, therefore, the case is before Us for review.

The resolution of the issues herein hinges on the credibility of the
witnesses for the prosecution and the defense. In such a case the rule
followed is that appellate Courts will not disturb the findings of the
trial court, as the latter is in a better position to decide the
question of credibility, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves
and observed their behavior and the manner of their testimony during
the trial. The exception to this rule is when it is shown that the
trial court has overlooked certain facts of substance and value that,
if considered, might affect the case.^[1]

Jarang Askali claimed that they were on their way to a celebration
when he saw Isirani’s truck, waved for it to stop, conferred with
Isirani and then, with Isirani, proceeded to Jamiri’s place where the
payment was to be made. This meeting was unarranged. It is not likely
for the alleged transaction to have been carried out without
preparations on both sides. Furthermore, the money which was supposed
to be for the hospital expenses of Hayani was never given to Hayani.
And instead Jarang admitted having bought a gun with part of the money
he received.

Isirani Sakili, who denied the assertions of the defense, and Hadji
Hassan, positively identified the four accused as the authors of the
crime. As against the allegations of the defense which were not
sufficiently and convincingly presented, the trial court’s finding in
favor of the prosecution should be upheld. As afore-stated, said court
is better situated to determine the credibility of the witnesses.

It is however argued in defense, that granting there was kidnapping,
the lower court erred in ruling that there was conspiracy to extort
ransom. It is urged that only Jarang Askali was active while the rest
remained passive and silent. Furthermore, at the time the money was
given to Jarang, of the other alleged kidnappers, only Jammang Dahim
was present. We cannot agree. The trial court found that, heavily
armed, they all waited for Isirani’s truck and stopped it when it came.
The others fully concurred in Jarang’s criminal resolution when he
demanded P1,600 for Isirani’s release and affirmed their assent when
they escorted Isirani to the abaca plantation where he was confined.
Even if they went home afterwards or did not get any part of the money,
the fact is that they fully and directly cooperated and did their part
so that Jarang’s resolution would be carried out.

It is further maintained that the accused should not be convicted of
kidnapping with ransom because the intention was at most merely to
compel Isirani to fulfill his promise of defraying Hayani’s hospital
expenses. If this were the purpose, the accused did not have to kidnap
Isirani. The latter wanted, if the allegations of the defense are true,
to prevent the filing of the complaint, to the extent of paying P1,600.
All there was to do to compel payment was to threaten to continue the
complaint and that would have alarmed Isirani into submission. No
kidnapping would have been necessary.

We state in passing that even if the purpose alleged by the defense
be accepted – that is, to compel the alleged payment – under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 1084 effective June
15, 1954, the offense is still kidnapping for ransom. Said amended last
paragraph, which increased the penalty for kidnapping and serious
illegal detention, provides:

“The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or
detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the
victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above
mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.”

This provision was derived from statutes of the United States,
particularly the Lindbergh Law. Thus, American jurisprudence thereon
has persuasive application. “Ransom” under American rulings, as used in
statutes making kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom a capital
offense, has been held to mean in its ordinary sense as “money, price
or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person
or persons, a payment that releases from captivity.”^[2]
Since the accused in this case demanded and received money as a
requisite for releasing a person from captivity, whatever other motive
may have impelled them to do so, the money is still ransom under the
law.

With regard to Alammara Dumpas, We cannot believe that Isirani
Sakili would accuse him of a capital offense if he was really Isirani’s
companion in the truck. The truth must be that he was among the
kidnappers who stopped the truck, as pointed out by those admittedly
aboard said truck, namely, Isirani and Hadji.

Neither do We find credible the alibi of Kamad Akiran that he was
husking coconuts – it is not stated where – at the time of the alleged
kidnapping. No other witness was presented in his behalf. Alibi is so
easily and conveniently manufactured. And to be sustained it must be
shown – which has not been done herein – to preclude the physical
presence of the accused at the place of the crime at the time of
commission. As ruled by this Court, alibi dwindles into nothingness in
the face of positive identification, as in this case, of the accused as
participants of the crime.^[3]

Appellants’ brief states that Kastiri Sappari was not present in the
scene of the crime, citing Jarang Askali’s testimony (II Tsn., 61) that
Kastiri was not with him when he stopped the truck, and the testimony
of another defense witness, Salama Sahawi, (I Tsn., 76), who merely
said she could not identify who were the other companions of Jarang,
but did not state that Sappari was not there. Such evidence – so
dependent upon credibility – cannot prevail over Sappari’s positive
identification by Isirani and Hadji.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of conviction is hereby
affirmed, with the sole modification, for lack of the necessary votes
to impose the penalty of death, that the four accused are hereby
sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead of death. No costs in this instance.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] People v. Alban, L-13203, March 29, 1961; People v. Curiano, L-15256-57, Oct. 31, 1963.

^[2] See Corpus Juris Secundum, 458; 36 Words & Phrases, 102; Keith, et al. v. State, 163 So. 136, 120, Fla. 847.

^[3] People v. Tansianco, L-19448, Feb. 28, 1964.