View full case

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO PAVILLARE Y VARONA

FACTS:

In the criminal case People vs. Eduardo Pavillare y Varona, the accused-appellant and his co-accused were charged with kidnapping for ransom of an Indian national, Sukhjinder Singh, on February 12, 1996, in Quezon City. The incident occurred at noon when Singh was on his way back to his motorcycle. He was blocked by three men, with Eduardo Pavillare being identified as the chief protagonist. Pavillare accused Singh of raping a woman inside a nearby taxi cab and, despite Singh’s denial, forced him into the cab along with his companions. They brought Singh to a deserted area near St. Joseph's College, beat him up, and demanded PHP100,000 for his release. Singh only had PHP5,000 on him and provided his cousin's phone number for further ransom negotiations. After agreeing on PHP25,000, the kidnappers relocated to Aurora Boulevard, where Singh’s cousins, led by Lakhvir Singh, delivered the ransom. Singh testified that Pavillare made the ransom call, received the money, and counted it before leaving with his accomplices. Police testimony indicated Pavillare was identified by Singh in a police line-up following his arrest for a related kidnapping of another Indian national. Pavillare, however, claimed an alibi, stating he was at a job site in Novaliches at the time of the incident, supported by his employee's testimony. Despite his defense, the trial court convicted Pavillare of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced him to death, a decision subsequently brought to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the identification of the accused-appellant, Eduardo Pavillare, by the private complainant in the police line-up and in court is valid and credible.

  2. Whether Pavillare should have been convicted of kidnapping for ransom or of simple robbery instead.

  3. Whether the deprivation of the liberty of the private complainant for only a few hours qualifies as kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that the identification of Eduardo Pavillare by the private complainant, both in the police line-up and in court, was valid and credible. The in-court identification of the accused-appellant by the private complainant and his cousin was corroborated by their testimonies and found to be trustworthy. Hence, the identification made during the police line-up without the assistance of counsel was admissible since this stage is not considered custodial investigation.

  2. The Court ruled that the essential elements of kidnapping for ransom were present and established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, Pavillare was correctly convicted of kidnapping for ransom and not of simple robbery, as argued by the accused-appellant.

  3. The Court reaffirmed that the duration of detention, even if only for a few hours, does not alter the nature of the offense as kidnapping for ransom. The provision of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code was applied, emphasizing that the purpose of the abduction—the extortion of ransom—constituted kidnapping for ransom regardless of the period of detention.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Identification in Police Line-Up: The requirement for counsel during a police line-up is not mandatory since this stage is not part of the custodial investigation.

  2. Credibility of Witness Testimonies: The findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses are given great respect and are generally not disturbed on appeal.

  3. Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code: Kidnapping and serious illegal detention for the purpose of extorting ransom is punishable by death regardless of the duration of the detention.

  4. Positive Identification Over Alibi: Positive and credible identification of the accused by witnesses outweighs the defense of alibi.

  5. Consistency of Victim’s Identification: Minor inconsistencies between affidavits and court testimonies do not affect the credibility of witness identification if the substance of the crime remains the same.