View full case

PEOPLE v. RICARDO SOLANGON

FACTS:

On February 7, 2000, appellant Ricardo Solangon, along with Apolonio Haniel and other unidentified individuals, was charged with the kidnapping for ransom and murder of Libertador F. Vidal. Appellant pleaded not guilty during the arraignment.

The incident occurred on March 26, 1992, during the local elections in Sta. Cruz, Occ. Mindoro. Vidal, a mayoralty candidate, was with his sister and other board member candidates when they were blocked by seven armed men, including appellant Solangon, who claimed to be members of the New People's Army (NPA). The armed men demanded a campaign fee and the release of Vidal. When negotiations failed, Vidal was abducted and taken to a mountain. Despite the delivery of the ransom money, Vidal was not released.

Appellant Solangon was arrested on July 9, 1999, inside a bus. He led the police to a mountainous area where Vidal's skeletal remains were discovered. Vidal's relatives positively identified the remains through specific physical features. However, the cause of death could not be determined.

During the trial, appellant denied being a member of the NPA and asserted alibi. Nevertheless, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty of the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's decision but modified it to exclude appellant from being considered a political offender. Dissatisfied, appellant now petitions the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the crime committed is the complex crime of kidnapping with murder

  2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the crimes of kidnapping for ransom and murder

  3. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery is present in this case.

  4. Whether the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present in this case.

  5. Whether evident premeditation is present in this case.

RULING:

  1. No. The crime committed is two separate crimes of kidnapping for ransom and murder. The Court held that when the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but was subsequently slain as an afterthought, two separate crimes of kidnapping and murder were committed. In this case, the evidence showed that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim, and the killing and burying of the victim were incidental and could have been used only to compel the payment of ransom and avoid the discovery of the crime.

  2. Yes. There is sufficient evidence to prove the crimes of kidnapping for ransom and murder. Even though there was no direct evidence of the actual killing of the victim, the Court held that conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence. In this case, there were multiple circumstances proven that pointed to the responsibility of the appellant and his co-accused, such as blocking the victim's convoy, demanding payment of a campaign fee, hogtying the victim, failure to release the victim despite payment of ransom, leading the authorities to the burial site, and the identification of the victim's remains by his relatives.

  3. The qualifying circumstance of treachery is not present in this case due to the absence of an eyewitness to the actual killing of the victim.

  4. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present in this case as demonstrated by the gross physical disparity between the assailants and the victim, as well as the excessive force used by the assailants.

  5. Evident premeditation is not present in this case as there is no evidence of notorious outward acts evincing determination to commit the killing.

PRINCIPLES:

  • When the victim is kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but is subsequently slain as an afterthought, two separate crimes of kidnapping and murder are committed.

  • Conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence, provided that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed and that the accused committed the crime.

  • The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present when there is gross physical disparity between the assailant and the victim, or when the force used by the assailant is out of proportion to the means available to the victim.

  • For the crime of kidnapping for the purpose of extorting ransom, the penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in lieu of the death penalty.

  • In cases where the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods and there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty in its medium period shall be imposed.

  • Actual damages, representing the amount of ransom paid, may be awarded in kidnapping for ransom cases.

  • Civil indemnity and moral damages may be awarded to the heirs of the victim in kidnapping for ransom cases based on prevailing jurisprudence.