THE Supreme Court has ruled that kidnappers cannot dodge conviction simply because the ransom money disappeared, stressing that the crime is completed once a victim is abducted for the purpose of extorting ransom.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the Supreme Court’s First Division affirmed the conviction of Jose Olbato, Police Officer III Clayton Patingan and their co-accused for kidnapping for ransom. The high court underscored that the prosecution need only prove that ransom was demanded for the victim’s release — not that the marked money was later recovered or presented in court. It further said that kidnapping for ransom is consummated the moment a victim is illegally deprived of liberty for the purpose of extorting money, regardless of whether the ransom cash is later recovered or presented as evidence. ”The actual payment or recovery of the ransom money is not an essential element of the offense,” the Court said. The case stemmed from the abduction of Genevieve Ong Sy, who was forcibly taken while driving one morning and detained in a house against her will.Acting under police surveillance, Sy’s family driver delivered marked ransom money to the kidnappers, triggering a rescue operation that led to Sy’s safe recovery and the arrest of the accused. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found that the accused conspired to abduct and detain Sy for ransom, rejecting their defenses of denial and alibi. The accused argued before the court that their guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt because the marked ransom money was never presented during trial after it was reportedly lost while in police custody. The justices dismissed the argument, ruling that the disappearance of the ransom money did not erase the overwhelming evidence that the accused repeatedly demanded payment from Sy’s father, negotiated the amount and ultimately received the ransom. ”The actual payment or receipt of the ransom money is not important to prove the crime,” the Court stressed. The Court said witness testimonies and other evidence sufficiently established that the ransom demand and payment took place, making the missing cash legally immaterial. The high court clarified that although Patingan was an active police officer when the crime was committed, he was treated as a private individual because he was not acting in the discharge of his official duties. The court upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua, or imprisonment of up to 40 years, for all the accused. They were also ordered to jointly pay the victim P300,000 in civil indemnity and damages.
