View full case

PEOPLE v. FRANCO DARMO DE GUZMAN Y YANZON

FACTS:

The appellant, Franco Darmo de Guzman, was charged with the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The prosecution presented the victim AAA, his father BBB, and his brother CCC as witnesses, along with various documentary evidence and arresting officers. Based on the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, it was alleged that the appellant sought help from AAA after his personal belongings were stolen. Appellant requested AAA to accompany him to the bank, but they were unable to withdraw money due to lack of suitable identification. With AAA's mother's permission, appellant stayed at AAA's house. On October 6, 2010, appellant, accompanied by AAA, CCC, and their friend Vincent, went to a bank in Makati to withdraw a large amount of money. The appellant went inside the bank, while the others waited at a restaurant across the street. However, appellant and AAA did not return to the restaurant, and CCC and Vincent eventually went home without them. AAA testified that appellant enticed him to go to Antipolo, detaining him from October 6 to October 14, 2010. During this time, appellant threatened AAA, claiming to be a sultan and forcing him to perform sexual acts. On October 14, 2010, the neighbor recognized AAA as a missing person and demanded that appellant surrender him. AAA and appellant were brought to the police station, where AAA's statement was taken. BBB, AAA's father, corroborated his son's testimony. Appellant denied the charges, claiming that he and AAA were friends and that AAA invited him to stay with his family. He denied detaining AAA and maintained that AAA could freely leave the house.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

  2. Whether or not the testimony of the minor victim is credible.

  3. Whether AAA was deprived of his liberty and detained by the appellant.

  4. Whether the elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention were present in this case.

RULING:

  1. The appeal is dismissed and the CA's decision affirming the appellant's conviction for the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is affirmed.

  2. AAA was deprived of his liberty and detained by the appellant. AAA's testimony established that he stayed inside the house and was instructed not to go out, fearing that harm might come to him if he did so. He further testified that he was held against his will for nine days, and that the appellant threatened him and prevented him from leaving. The fear instilled by the appellant made AAA believe that he was already being detained and under the control of the appellant.

  3. The elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention were present in this case. The prosecution was able to establish that the appellant was a private individual who kidnapped or detained AAA, depriving him of his liberty. The act of detention was illegal and the additional circumstance of the victim being a minor was present. The duration of detention is immaterial when the victim is a minor or when the purpose is to extort ransom. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with proof of the intention of the accused to effect such deprivation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses unless there is proof that some fact or circumstance of substance has been overlooked or misinterpreted that would affect the disposition of the case.

  • The trial judge, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment on the stand, is in a better position to resolve questions of credibility.

  • The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the same.

  • The crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also of detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty.

  • When deprivation of liberty occurs under any of the circumstances listed under Article 267, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is consummated.

  • To obtain a conviction for kidnapping, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days, it is committed by simulating public authority, any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or threats to kill him are made, or the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, a female, or a public officer.

  • The carrying away of the victim can either be made forcibly or fraudulently.

  • The duration of detention becomes immaterial when the victim is a minor or when the purpose is to extort ransom. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.