View full case

PEOPLE v. JOSEPHINE 'JOSIE' SANTOS

FACTS:

On December 10, 1996, Leonida de la Peña was at home when a group of men claiming to be agents of the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) entered her house to demand payment for her unpaid debt to Josephine Santos. Another group of people, including Josephine, the barangay captain, and unidentified individuals, arrived at Leonida's house. Leonida accused Josephine of sending the CIS agents and confronted the barangay captain. It was revealed that Leonida owed Josephine a debt from a 1992 loan. Efforts to collect the debt were unsuccessful and their relationship soured, leading to Leonida filing a case for estafa against Josephine.

On that day, a conference between Leonida and Josephine was scheduled, but Leonida claimed she had already settled the debt. In the midst of the argument, Josephine became enraged and started throwing objects inside the house, hitting Felizarda Saturnino with a woodcarving. Josephine and her companions handcuffed Leonida, forced her onto a passenger jeepney, and threatened to kill her. The convoy traveled to various locations before reaching a cemetery where the threats continued. However, Leonida managed to escape with the assistance of one of her captors and sought help at a bus station.

A complaint was filed and an examination revealed that Leonida had sustained multiple abrasions and hematoma. Josephine Santos, Manny Baltazar, and the other accused denied the allegations and provided their own version of events.

Josephine, along with her driver Manny Baltazar and three other individuals, stopped at Resurreccion, Umingan to collect a debt owed by Leonida dela Peña. While Josie and the others went inside a precinct, Leonida stayed inside a parked passenger jeepney. When they were about to leave, Rocky Alberto approached Josie and they agreed to go home, leaving behind Leonida and the alleged CIS agent. Rocky Alberto denied all the allegations made by Leonida.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused are guilty of the crime of kidnapping.

  2. Whether the penalty of death is appropriate in this case.

  3. Whether the encounters between the CIS agents and Josephine Santos and company were purely accidental or not.

  4. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charge of kidnapping.

  5. Whether the accused can be convicted of a lesser offense when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved.

  6. Whether the accused can be convicted of grave coercion based on the evidence presented.

RULING:

  1. The accused are guilty of the crime of kidnapping. The court found that although the deprivation of liberty lasted for less than twenty-four hours, it was still sufficient to support the charge of kidnapping.

  2. The court imposed the penalty of death on the accused. The court found that the crime was attended with aggravating circumstances and there were no mitigating circumstances present.

  3. The trial court ruled that the so-called "encounters" between the CIS agents and Josephine Santos and company were not purely accidental. The timing of their arrival at Leonida de la Peña's residence, the inquiries about her existing account, and the subsequent meetings on the way to Baguio City indicated that the encounters were not coincidental.

  4. The trial court ruled that there was not enough evidence to support the charge of kidnapping. The complainant was not bound or gagged, the incident did not attract the attention of neighbors, and the group even stopped at police stations along the way. The testimony of the defendants, supported by the circumstances, was deemed more plausible than the complainant's claims.

  5. Yes, the accused can be convicted of a lesser offense when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved. In this case, although the accused were charged with kidnapping, the evidence presented warrants a conviction for grave coercion, which is a lesser offense. The accused can be convicted of the offense proved.

  6. Yes, the accused can be convicted of grave coercion based on the evidence presented. Grave coercion is committed when a person prevents another from doing something not prohibited by law or compelling him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong, and without any authority of law, by means of violence, threats, or intimidation. In this case, the accused prevented the complainant from leaving their company and compelled her to accompany them to the police station. The accused used intimidation and control over the will of the complainant, thereby committing the offense of grave coercion.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Kidnapping is a crime that involves the deprivation of a person's liberty, regardless of the duration of such deprivation.

  • The penalty for kidnapping can be death if the crime is attended with aggravating circumstances and there are no mitigating circumstances present.

  • In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The court can assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies based on the evidence presented and the circumstances surrounding the case.

  • Variance between the offense charged and the offense proved - When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, the accused can be convicted of the offense proved if the offense charged necessarily includes the lesser offense established in evidence.

  • Grave coercion - Grave coercion is committed when a person prevents another from doing something not prohibited by law or compels him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong, and without any authority of law, by means of violence, threats, or intimidation. Its elements are: (1) prevention or compulsion; (2) use of violence or intimidation; and (3) absence of right or authority of law. The penalty for grave coercion is prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P6,000.00.