Crimlawdigest

People Vs Marajas
G.R. No. 102645

April 7, 1993
Facts:
On February 8, 1978, Leon and his brother Leopoldo Marajas visited Romeo Padica in his house in
Muntinlupa. Leopoldo requested Padica to drive for Eddie Boy Marajas, a brother of Leopoldo and
Leon, and his classmates, giving Padica P100.00 for the purpose. They went to Superville
Subdivision in Sukat, Eddie Boy Marajas and Francis Banaga, were in said subdivision. Leopoldo
alighted from the car and talked to them. Subsequently, Leopoldo together with Francis and Eddie
Boy, boarded the car. All of them proceeded to Calamba, Laguna, with Padica still driving the
vehicle.
Upon reaching Calamba, Leopoldo Marajas told Padica to drive the car into the sugarcane
plantation at the side of the road. The three brought Francis Banaga to a place inside the
sugarcane plantation, Leopoldo Marajas then delivered several stabbing blows at Banaga after
which the appellant shot Banaga with a handgun. Banaga fell on the ground. Leopoldo, Eddie Boy
and appellant returned to the car. Leopoldo took the wheel from Padica and drove the car to
Muntinlupa, where Padica alighted and was left behind with Leopoldo warning Padica, ‘Pare, steady
ka lang, isang bala ka lang.’
On the same day, Tomas Banaga, father of Francis, became alarmed when his son failed to come
home. A few minutes after 6:00 P.M. someone called up by phone, telling Tomas not to look for his
son as he was in good condition, and demanding P500,000.00 for his release. Tomas reported the
incident to the Philippine Constabulary authorities. On February 9, 1978, Tomas received a second
phone call in the course of which the caller reduced the amount demanded to P200,000.00. On
February 10, 1978, there was another phone call lowering the amount to P23,000.00 and giving
instructions that the money be wrapped in a newspaper, placed in a paper bag, and delivered by a
girl wearing a T-shirt to Luneta at 8:30 P.M. of February 10, 1978.
When Leon got the ransom money he was then apprehended and arrested by Sgt. Simplicio Dulay.
A Philippine Constabulary team led by Lt. Napoleon Cachuela, accompanied by Leon, went to
Calamba, Laguna and searched for the body of Francis Banaga. Leon led the team to the place
where the cadaver was dumped, which was inside a sugarcane plantation about 75 meters away
from the road. Francis Banaga sustained two (2) entry gunshot wounds, one on the head and the
other on the chest, with two (2) exit gunshot wounds and several lacerated wounds.
Romeo Padica surrendered and said to the authorities that he witnessed the killing of Francis
Banaga.
Issue:
Whether the crime of kidnapping for ransom was committed.
Held:
No, SC ruled that the crime committed was murder, attended by the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and/or abuse of superior strength, and not the complex crime of kidnapping for ransom
with murder as found by the trial court.
The essential element in the crime of kidnapping is that the victim must have been restrained or
deprived of his liberty, or that he was transported away against his will with the primary or original
intent to effect that restraint. Such element is absent in this case, the malefactors evidently had
only murder in their hearts when they invited the trusting Francis Banaga to go with them to
Laguna, and not to confine or detain him for any length of time or for any other purpose.
Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the circumstance that the kidnapping is perpetrated
for the purpose of ransom raises the imposable penalty to death. It is essential, however, that the
element of deprivation or restraint of liberty of the victim be present. The fact alone that ransom
money is demanded would not per se qualify the act of preventing the liberty of movement of the
victim into the crime of kidnapping, unless the victim is actually restrained or deprived of his
liberty for some appreciable period of time or that such restraint was the basic intent of the
accused. Absent such determinant intent and duration of restraint, the mere curtailment of
freedom of movement would at most constitute coercion.
If the taking of the victim was incidental to the basic purpose to kill, the crime is only murder, and
this is true even if, before the killing but for purposes thereof, the victim was taken from one place
to another. Thus, where the evident purpose of taking the victims was to kill them, and from the
acts of the accused it cannot be inferred that the latter’s purpose was actually to detain or deprive
the victims of their liberty, the subsequent killing of the victims constitute the crime of murder,
hence the crime of kidnapping does not exist and cannot be considered as a component felony to
produce a complex crime of kidnapping with murder.
There was treachery since, under the aforestated circumstances, the victim was lured by his killers
into going with them to Laguna without the slightest inkling of their nefarious design, coupled with
the sudden and unexpected assault by the malefactors on the hapless victim in the isolated
sugarcane plantation in Calamba, which thereby divested him of an opportunity either to
effectively resist or to escape. Abuse of superior strength was likewise present, for the accused
deliberately resorted to their collective strength for the purpose of overpowering whatever feeble
defense the poor Francis Banaga could offer. They thus insured the commission of the crime with
practically no risk at all to themselves.
Therefore, the crime committed by the accused was murder and the penalty imposed upon was
reclusion perpetua.

Crimlawdigest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crimlawdigest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crimlawdigest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Marajas

G.R. No. 102645

You might also like