PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCO DARMO DE GUZMAN Y YANZON, A.K.A. DARMO YAZON Y CORTEZ, A.K.A. FRANCO DE GUZMAN Y CORTEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus De Guzman

The Case

This is People versus De Guzman, a criminal appeal in which the State seeks to hold Franco Darmo de Guzman criminally liable for kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The victim was a seventeen-year-old minor who was taken from Makati to a house in Antipolo and kept there for more than a week. The case matters because it teaches the exact elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, and because it settles a question that examiners love: whether the victim's initial consent to go with the accused defeats the charge. The Court says it does not, so long as the deprivation of liberty came afterward.

Procedural History

An Information was filed against the accused in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, charging him with kidnapping and serious illegal detention committed by means of machination against a minor who was detained for eight days. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed after pre-trial. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 140, Makati City, in a decision dated September 4, 2012, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered him to pay moral and exemplary damages. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its decision dated January 21, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision in full. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal. The parties opted not to file supplemental briefs and simply adopted the briefs they had filed before the Court of Appeals.

Facts

On October 1, 2010, the accused approached the victim, a seventeen-year-old minor, inside a mall in Recto, Manila, claiming that his belongings had been stolen. He asked the minor to accompany him to a bank, and when he could not withdraw money for lack of identification, he asked to stay at the minor's house. With the mother's permission, he stayed there until October 6, 2010.

On October 6, the accused, the victim, the victim's brother, and a friend went to a bank in Makati, where the accused said he would withdraw five hundred thousand pesos and promised the brothers a reward. He took the victim with him to fill out forms, but the two never returned to the restaurant where the others waited. The accused instead brought the victim to an old house in Antipolo, telling him he had to open a vault. There the victim was kept from October 6 to October 14, 2010. The accused threatened him not to go out, claiming to be a sultan with bodyguards watching, and imposed "missions" on him, including providing food and submitting to sexual acts. Out of fear, the victim sold his cell phone to buy food and allowed the accused sexual liberties on his person.

On the evening of October 14, a neighbor who had seen the victim featured on the news as a missing person knocked and demanded that the accused surrender him. The victim hid in the bathroom, but a policeman called him out. Both were brought to the police station. The victim's father testified that he had reported the disappearance and that he found his son thin and dirty at the station. The barangay chief tanod and the arresting officers corroborated the recovery. The accused denied everything, claiming the victim freely stayed with him and could leave because the locks were broken.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses may be disturbed on appeal.
• Whether or not the victim's voluntary act of going with the accused to Antipolo negates the crime.

Applicable Provisions

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 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: If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. 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. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer. 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. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.

This is the very provision under which the accused was charged and convicted, and its fourth circumstance, that the victim is a minor, is present in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the same. Serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also of detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty. The Court laid down the elements: the offender is a private individual; he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and any of the enumerated circumstances is present, such as detention lasting more than three days or the victim being a minor. The Court found that the victim yielded to the accused's dictates and did not leave the house out of fear, believing the accused was a sultan with bodyguards watching his every move. The victim himself testified that he was "nakakulong," meaning locked up or detained.

On the second issue, the Court held that appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses absent proof that some fact or circumstance of substance was overlooked or its significance misinterpreted. The trial judge, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment on the stand, is in a better position to resolve the question. The victim's testimony was corroborated by his brother, his father, and the arresting officers, while the accused offered only a bare, uncorroborated denial.

On the third issue, the Court held that the fact the victim voluntarily went with the accused to Antipolo, on the pretense that the accused had to open the vault of his house, is immaterial. What controls is the act of the accused in detaining the victim against his will after the offender is able to take the victim into his custody. The Court put it thus:

In short, the carrying away of the victim in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention can either be made forcibly or, as in the instant case, fraudulently.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect that deprivation. Second, serious illegal detention includes not only placing a person in an enclosure but also detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty. Third, the elements of the crime are: the offender is a private individual; he kidnaps or detains another or deprives him of liberty; the act is illegal; and any circumstance under Article 267 is present, such as detention lasting more than three days or the victim being a minor. Fourth, if the victim is a minor, the duration of detention is immaterial. Fifth, the carrying away of the victim may be done forcibly or fraudulently, so the victim's initial consent to accompany the accused does not negate the crime once liberty is later deprived against his will. Sixth, findings of the trial court on witness credibility are accorded great weight and will not be disturbed absent a showing of overlooked facts of substance.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the conviction, sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordering him to pay two hundred thousand pesos in moral damages and one hundred thousand pesos in exemplary damages, with costs against him.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of liberty coupled with indubitable proof of intent to deprive, and the taking may be forcible or fraudulent. Examiners use this case to test whether initial consent by the victim defeats a kidnapping charge, and to test the elements of Article 267 where the victim is a minor.