Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
178300,
March 17, 2009
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
RULING: After carefully reviewing the evidence on record and applying the foregoing guidelines to this
case, we found no cogent reason to overturn the RTCs ruling finding the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses credible. Prosecution witnesses Abagatnan, Robert, and Yao San positively identified
appellants and their cohorts as their kidnappers during a police line-up and also during trial.
Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San testified in a clear and candid manner during the trial. Their
respective testimonies were consistent with one another. They were steadfast in recounting their ordeal
despite the grueling cross examination of the defense. Moreover, their testimonies were in harmony
with the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The RTC and the Court of Appeals found
their testimonies credible and trustworthy. Both courts also found no ill motive for Abagatnan, Robert
and Yao San to testify against appellants.
Although the Yao family was blindfolded during the incident, it was, nevertheless, shown that it took
appellants and their cohorts about 10 minutes before all members of the Yao family were blindfolded.
During this considerable length of time, Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San were able to take a good look at
the faces of appellants and their cohorts. In addition, Abagatnan and Robert narrated that their
respective blindfolds loosened several times, giving them the opportunity to have a glimpse at the faces
of appellants and their cohorts.
It is significant to note that Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were brutally killed as a result of the
kidnapping. It is difficult to believe that Robert and Yao San would point to appellants and their cohorts
as their kidnappers if such were not true. A witness relationship to the victim of a crime makes his
testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative interested in vindicating a crime done to
their family to accuse somebody other than the real culprit. Relationship with a victim of a crime would
deter a witness from indiscriminately implicating anybody in the crime. His natural and usual interest
would be to identify the real malefactor and secure his conviction to obtain true justice for the death of
a relative. Finally, we observed that the RTC and the Court of Appeals denominated the crime
committed by appellants in the present case as the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with
double homicide since two of the kidnap victims were killed or died during the kidnapping.