People v. Muit

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MILLANO MUIT, MUIT, et al. G.R. No. 181043, 8 October 2008, SECON I!ISION "T#$%&, J .' .'  Joseph Ferraer Ferraer (Ferraer) (Ferraer) was introduced introduced by his relative, relative, Orestes Orestes Julaton (Julaton), to Sergio Pancho, Sr. (Pancho, Sr.), Sergio Pancho, Jr. (Pancho, Jr.), Rolando Deuillo (Deuillo), and !our other "en. #ll the "en arrived at Ferraer$s house in %atangas e&pressing their intent to use his house as a sa!ehouse !or their 'visitor. Ferraer was hesitant at rst but he was told not to worry because they are not *illers and their line o! wor* is *idnap !or ranso". Ferraer Ferraer was also assured that the "oney they would get would be divided eually a"ong the". Ferraer and Pancho, Sr. would guard their  victi". +ater, +ater, ve other "en ca"e. One o! the" the" was uit. Ro"eo Pancho (Ro"eo) served as the group$s in!or"ant. One day, Ro"eo in!or"ed the" o! the presence o! the victi" in the construction site. Roger Seraspe (Seraspe), the victi"$s driver, drove the latter in a Pa-ero to the construction site together with one engineer. engineer. he victi" and the engineers alighted the Pa-ero. /n the construction site, the engineers and Seraspe were threated with a gun to lie prostate on e ground. Seraspe witnessed witnessed as the  victi" was ta*en away in the Pa-ero. Pa-ero. Seraspe Seraspe i""ediately i""ediately reported the incident to the police. he police then barricaded several roads leading to +ipa whereupon they caught the Pa-ero. #n e&change o! gunshots too* place, the  victi" was one o! the the casualties, while while uit escaped escaped but was subseuently subseuently apprehended. %ased on the !oregoing, two separate in!or"ations charged uit et al. with *idnapping !or ranso" with ho"icide and carnapping. he Regional rial 0ourt (R0) rendered -udge"ent declaring uit, Pancho, Jr., Deuillo, and Ro"eo uilty. he 0ourt o! #ppeals (0#) a1ir"ed the decision o! the R0 on appeal. ISSUE( 2hether or not the R0 erred in nding the" guilty beyond reasonable doubt o! the charges against the" HEL( Petition ENIE. ENIE. he cri"es o! *idnapping and serious illegal detention are the !ollowing3 (a) the accused is a private individual4 (b) the accused *idnaps or detains another, or in any "anner deprives the latter o! his liberty4 (c) the act o! detention or *idnapping is illegal4 and (d) in the co""ission o! the o1ense, any o! the !our circu"stances circu"stances "entioned in #rticle 567 is present. he essence o! the cri"e o! *idnapping is the actual deprivation o! the victi"$s liberty, coupled with indubitable proo! o! intent o! the accused to e1ect the

sa"e. he totality o! the prosecution$s evidence in this case established the co""ission o! *idnapping !or ranso" with ho"icide. On the other hand, Republic #ct 8o. 69:;, or the #nti