SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 199710, August 02, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PO3 JULIETO BORJA, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

Extortion done by police themselves amounting to kidnapping with ransom undermines the government efforts to establish the rule of law in general
and the proper prosecution against drug traffickers in particular. Even the subsequent prosecution of the victim of extortion does not negate the
criminal liability of the accused for the crime the latter committed against the former.

This resolves the appeal to the March 14, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03998, finding PO3 Julieto Borja (PO3 Borja)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom.

In the Information dated May 28, 2004, Borja was charged of kidnapping punished under Article 267 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The accusatory portion
of the information read:

That on or about May 26, 2004, at or about 10:10 in the morning, at the vicinity of Brgy. Central, Diliman, Quezon City and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with an unknown companion, conspiring and confederating with one another, mutually aiding and
assisting one another, by the use of force, violence and intimidation and without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
kidnap and illegally detain victim/hostage RONALYN G. MANATAD, and thereafter demanded and received the ransom money in the amount of
P100,000.00 from Edwin G. Silvio, the victim's brother, for the release of said RONALYN G. MANATAD on same date. 3
PO3 Borja entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued. 4

Based on the collective testimonies of its witnesses, the prosecution alleged that at about 10:00 a.m. on May 26, 2004, Ronalyn Manatad (Ronalyn) and
her friend, Vicky Lusterio (Lusterio), were walking along Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 5 Suddenly, a man who was later identified as PO3 Borja,
grabbed Ronalyn by her right forearm and forcibly took her inside a gray van where three (3) other men were waiting. 6 Both Ronalyn and Lusterio
shouted for help but no one came to their rescue. Lusterio managed to escape. She immediately reported the incident to Ronalyn's mother, Adelina
Manatad (Adelina).7

Meanwhile, PO3 Borja and his companions drove the van around Quezon City. 8 One (1) of Ronalyn's abductors, a certain Major Clarito, 9 asked for her
relatives' contact numbers.10 Ronalyn gave the number of her brother, Edwin G. Silvio (Edwin).11

Adelina received a phone call from one (1) of the kidnappers, who demanded P200,000.00 in exchange for Ronalyn's liberty. Ade lina informed him that
their family could not afford to pay the ransom due to their financial condition. Suddenly, the caller hung up. Edwin thereafter arrived and negotiated for
a reduced ransom when one (1) of the kidnappers called again. The kidnappers acceded and lowered their demand to P100,000.00. 12

At this juncture, Ronalyn was transferred from the van to a car. 13

Edwin sought assistance from Sergeant Abet Cordova (Sgt. Cordova) of the National Anti-Kidnapping Task Force (NAKTAF). Sgt. Cordova instructed
Edwin to negotiate with his sister's abductors and to notify him of any developments. Sgt. Cordova then reported the incident to NAKTAF group
commander, Major Saiiti Cababasay, who immediately mobilized his team for an entrapment operation. 14

At around 12:00 noon, Edwin received a call from Ronalyn's abductors. They instructed him to place the money in an SM plastic bag and to proceed to
the Wildlife Park along Quezon Avenue at 3:00 p.m. Edwin informed Sgt. Cordova about the payoff. The police operatives proceeded to the Wildlife Park
and positioned themselves within the area.15

Edwin went to the Wildlife Park at 3:00 p.m. as planned. Shortly after, PO3 Borja approached Edwin and took the SM plastic bag containing the ransom
money. Upon seeing the exchange, the police operatives arrested PO3 Borja and recovered the following items from him: (1) a 0.9 mm pistol, (2) a
cellphone, (3) a wallet, and (4) the P100,000.00 ransom amount. PO3 Borja was then brought to the NAKTAF headquarters for inve stigation.16

Despite the successful entrapment operation, the authorities failed to rescue Ronalyn. While she was inside the van, Ronalyn heard one (1) of her
abductors say that PO3 Borja was entrapped.17 The others cursed her and said, "Putang ina, iyung kapatid mo. Tumawag ng taga-
NAKTAF."18 Afterwards, she was taken by her captors to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency where she was charged with illegal sale of shabu.19

For his defense, PO3 Borja testified that on the day of the alleged incident, he was with PO2 Ding Tan at Branch 79, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City to
testify as a witness in a criminal20 case.21 However, the hearing was postponed.22 After securing a certificate of appearance, PO3 Borja decided to go
home at 12:00 noon.23

At around 2:00 p.m., PO3 Borja received a phone call from an unknown person. The caller sought assistance to recover his sister who had been
arrested. He instructed the caller to call back. On the second call, the caller told him to go to the Wildlife Park and meet a certain Edwin, who would be
wearing a white T-shirt and a bull cap.24

PO3 Borja proceeded to the Wildlife Park and met Edwin, who told him that Ronalyn and Lusterio had been arrested earlier in a buy-bust operation. PO3
Borja advised Edwin to go with him to the police station and report the incident. However, Edwin said that he had to wait for his cousin to arrive.25

Half an hour later, Captain Frederick Obar (Capt. Obar), SPO3 Eric Orellaneda (SPO3 Orellaneda), and three (3) unidentified persons approached PO3
Borja. SPO3 Orellaneda shouted, "Meron lang ditong nag-eextortion"C to which PO3 Borja replied, "Wala naman akong alam" SPO3 Orellaneda
confiscated PO3 Borja's wallet, cellphone, and firearm. Afterwards, Sgt. Cordova shouted, "O, meron ditong P100,000.00 galing kay Borja."26 PO3 Borja
was then arrested and was charged of kidnapping for ransom. 27

In the Decision28 dated October 20, 2008, the Regional Trial Court found PO3 Borja guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for
ransom.29 Accordingly, he was sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua:30
WHEREFORE, finding the accused PO3 Julieto Borja GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom, defined and penalized
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act [No.] 7659, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. With costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.31
PO3 Borja appealed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. 32 He argued that Ronalyn was not deprived of her liberty because she was lawfully arrested
and charged with violation of Republic Act No. 9165.33

In the Decision34 dated March 14, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Decision dated October 20, 2008 of the Regional Trial
Court. PO3 Borja was ordered to pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. 35

On August 18, 2011, PO3 Borja filed his Notice of Appeal,36 which was given due course by the Court of Appeals in the Resolution 37 dated September
14, 2011.

On February 6, 2012, this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and required the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to confirm
accused-appellant PO3 Borja's confinement.38 In the Resolution39 dated March 6, 2013, the parties were then required to file their respective
supplemental briefs, should they so desired.

Accused-appellant filed his Supplemental Brief40 on July 18, 2013. On the other hand, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief. 41
Accused-appellant anchors his arguments on the arrest and subsequent conviction of Ronalyn for the sale of shabu. He argues that it is absurd to
convict him of kidnapping considering that the alleged victim was caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation on the day of the alleged
incident.42 Furthermore, Ronalyn was found guilty of violation of Republic Act No. 9165 by both the Court of Appeals 43 and this Court.44 She is now
serving her sentence in the Women's Correctional in Mandaluyong. 45

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General asserts that the categorical and spontaneous testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses are
sufficient to convict accused-appellant of kidnapping.46The Office of the Solicitor General argues that accused-appellant's defense of alibi does not
deserve weight. It was not physically impossible for him to be at the place where the crime was committed since Quezon City Hall of Justice was just a
few blocks away from where the victim was taken. 47

The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether accused-appellant PO3 Julieto Borja is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping punished under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

This Court affirms the conviction of accused-appellant. His arguments are unmeritorious.

Ronalyn's apprehension for violation of Republic Act No. 9165 does not automatically negate the criminal liability of accused-appellant. It also does not
exclude the possibility of the commission of the crime with which accused-appellant is charged. The buy-bust operation carried out against Ronalyn and
her kidnapping are events that can reasonably coexist.

Furthermore, a violation of Republic Act No. 9165 bears no direct or indirect relation to the crime of kidnapping. Ronalyn's arrest and conviction are
immaterial to the determination of accused-appellant's criminal liability. In other words, Ronalyn's innocence or guilt would neither affirm nor negate
the commission of the crime of kidnapping against her. Therefore, the resolution of this case will depend solely on whether the prosecution has
established all the elements of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

The quantum of evidence required in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt. 48 This does not entail absolute certainty on the accused's guilt. It
only requires moral certainty or "that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind." 49 The mind and consciousness of a
magistrate must be able to rest at ease upon a guilty verdict. 50

A conviction for the crime of kidnapping or serious illegal detention requires the concurrence of the following elements:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

1. The offender is a private individual[;]

2. That individual kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of liberty[;]

3. The act of detention or kidnapping is illegal[;]

4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:

b. It is committed by one who simulates public authority.

c. Any serious physical injury is inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or any threat to kill that person is made.

d. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, a female or a public officer. 51(Citation omitted)

Although the crime of kidnapping can only be committed by a private individual, 52 the fact that the accused is a public official does not automatically
preclude the filing of an information for kidnapping against him.

A public officer who detains a person for the purpose of extorting ransom cannot be said to be acting in an official capacity. In People v. Santiano,53 this
Court explained that public officials may be prosecuted under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code if they act in their private
capacity:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The fact alone that appellant Pillueta is "an organic member of the NARCOM" and appellant Sandigan [is] "a regular member of the PNP" would not
exempt them from the criminal liability for kidnapping. It is quite clear that in abducting and taking away the victim, appellants did so neither in
furtherance of official function nor in the pursuit of authority vested in them. It is not, in fine, in relation to their office, but in purely private capacity,
that they have acted in concert with their co-appellants Santiano and Chanco.54 (Citation omitted)
The burden is on the accused to prove that he or she acted in furtherance of his or her official functions. In People v. Trestiza,55 this Court
noted:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Before the present case was tried by the trial court, there was a significant amount of time spent in determining whether kidnapping for ransom was the
proper crime charged against the accused, especially since Trestiza and Manrique were both police officers. Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code
specifically stated that the crime should be committed by a private individual. The trial court settled the matter by citing our ruling in People v.
Santiano[.]

....

In the same order, the trial court asked for further evidence which support the defense's claim of holding a legitimate police operation. However, the
trial court found as unreliable the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet presented by the defense. The sheet was not authenticated, and the signatories
were not presented to attest to its existence and authenticity. 56 (Citations omitted)
Accused-appellant's membership in the Philippine National Police does not automatically preclude the filing of an information for kidnapping or serious
illegal detention against him. He may be prosecuted under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code if it is shown that he committed acts unrelated to the
functions of his office.

The essence of the crime of kidnapping is "the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it."57 The
deprivation of a person's liberty can be committed in different ways.58 It is not always necessary that the victim be imprisoned, 59 The second element of
the crime of kidnapping60 is met as long as there is a showing that the victim's liberty of movement is restricted. 61

In this case, Ronalyn was clearly deprived of her liberty. She was forcibly taken inside a vehicle by accused-appellant and his cohorts and was driven
around Quezon City for at least five (5) hours.62 The victim categorically testified on the manner and details of her detention, 63 thus:

While you were, as you said, about to go out of your house on that morning of May 26, 2004, do you remember any untoward incident that transpired?

Q: While you were, as you said, about to go out of your house on that morning of May 26, 2004, do you remember any untoward incident that
transpired?

A: I was surprised when a male person suddenly grabbed me.

....

Q: You said that a male person suddenly grabbed you, do you know that person?

A: No, ma'am.
Q: After that male person suddenly grabbed you, by the way, on what part of your body were you grabbed?

A: The right forearm, ma'am.

Q: After you were grabbed by your arm, what happened next?

A: I shouted.

....

Q: Where were you b[r]ought?

A: I was loaded in a van.

Q: Do you remember what the van looked like?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: Could you describe it to the court?

A: It was big.

Q: What color was it?

A: Gray.

Q: Did you happen to see the plate number of the van?

A: No, ma'am.

Q: You said that you were suddenly grabbed by your arm and you were loaded inside a gray van, what happened thereafter?

A: They drove me to the Circle.

Q: You said they, so, there must be more than one person?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: How many were they in that van, including the male person who suddenly grabbed you?

A: About three, ma'am.

Q: Including the person who took you to the van?

A: He was the fourth.

....

Q: After that conversation, what happened, if any?

A: I was transferred to another vehicle.

Q: And could you describe that car that you transferred to from that van?
A: It was a car.

Q: Do you know the color?

A: Gray.

....

Q: What happened after you were transferred to that gray car?

A: We went to McDonald's at Quezon Avenue.

....

Q: Where exactly were you taken after you were transferred to the gray car?

A: At the back of Sulo Hotel and then McDonald's and then the back of SSS and then in front of East Avenue Medical Center.

Q: Until what time were you in that car?

A: 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, ma'am.64

The first two (2) and the last elements of the crime of kidnapping are present in this case, Ronalyn, a woman, was forcibly taken by accused-appellant
and loaded in a van where she was detained for several hours. These acts are completely unrelated to accused-appellant's functions as a police officer,
and as such, he may be prosecuted under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

The third element of the crime of kidnapping is also present. Accused-appellant and his companions deprived the victim of her liberty to extort ransom
from her family:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Q: You said you heard them calling your brother, what did you hear from them in their conversation?

A: They were asking for money.

Q: By the way, who was that person who called your brother?

....

A: Major Clarito, ma'am.

....

Q: You said that you heard Major Clarito telling your brother to prepare money, is that correct?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: What else did you hear from him?

A: They asked my brother to give P200,000.00 and then I would be released.

....

Q: What else did you hear in that phone conversation?

....

A: To prepare the P200,000.00 and to meet at Wildlife.65

All the elements of kidnapping were sufficiently proven by the prosecution, which cannot be overturned by accused-appellant's bare denial and alibi.
These two (2) defenses are inherently weak considering that they can be easily contrived. 66

For the defense of alibi to prosper, there must be a showing that it was physically impossible for the accused "to have been at the scene of the crime at
the time of its commission."67 In the present case, accused-appellant failed to overcome this standard. Even if he attended the hearing in Quezon City
Hall of Justice, there is no showing that it was physically impossible for him to be at Agham Road when the victim was forcibly taken. This Court takes
judicial notice that Agham Road and the Quezon City Hall of Justice are just a few blocks away from each other. Accused-appellant could have easily
slipped out of the city hall at any time.

Moreover, if this Court were to believe accused-appellant's version of the incident, it was highly irregular for a police officer to meet the victim's relative
in a place other than the police station to discuss the incident reported to him. That he had to wait for 30 minutes for another person to arrive is also
suspect. Moreover, as pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, 68 it is unusual for accused-appellant to interfere with an ongoing operation to
which he was not assigned. All these irregularities point to the reasonable conclusion that accused-appellant's purpose in proceeding to the Wildlife Park
was to extort money from the victim's family.

Although the penalty for kidnapping for ransom is death under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. 9346 69 proscribed its imposition.
In this regard, both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

However, in line with current jurisprudence, the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 imposed by the Court of Appeals
should be increased to P100,000.00 each. Exemplary damages of P100,000.00 should also be imposed.70

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 14, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03998 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Accused-appellant PO3 Julieto Borja is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom and is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetuawithout eligibility for parole.

Moreover, he is ordered to pay P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary
awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid. 71

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Bersamin,*Mendoza, and Martires, JJ., concur.