Author: Earvin James M.
Atienza
Citation: 733 SCRA 608, G.R. No. 208170
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. YAU, ET AL. (2014)
Appellants: Petrus Yau, a.k.a. “John” and “Ricky”; Susana Yau y
Sumogba, a.k.a. “Susan” (Sps. Yau);
Appellees: People of the Philippines (PP);
Action: Appeal under Rule 45;
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
DOCTRINE: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals;
It has been an established rule in appellate review that the trial court’s factual
findings, such as its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the
probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions drawn from the
factual findings, are accorded great respect and have even conclusive effect.
Same; same; Prosecution of Offenses;
In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that is,
(1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged;
and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person
or persons responsible therefor.
Same; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence;
The settled rule is that a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial
evidence can be upheld only if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more
than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Law; Kidnapping for Ransom, Elements of;
The elements of Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659, are as follows: (a) intent on the part of the accused
to deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his
liberty; and (c) motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom for the release
of the victim.
Same; Accomplices;
Jurisprudence is instructive of the elements required, in accordance with
Article 18 of the RPC, in order that a person may be considered an accomplice,
namely, (1) that there be a community of design; that is, knowing the criminal
design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his
purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous
act, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the
crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation between the acts
done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as
accomplice.
x x x It has been held that being present and giving moral support when a
crime is being committed make a person responsible as an accomplice in the
crime committed.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence;
The discrepancies between a sworn statement and a testimony in court do not
outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused, as testimonial evidence carries
more weight than an affidavit.
Criminal Law; Alibi;
Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to
prove.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prosecution of Offenses;
Any objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a
court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely raised
before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
Same; same; Constitutional Law; Warrantless Arrests;
Warrantless Arrests; In People v. Manlulu, 231 SCRA 701 (1994), the
Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot
deprive the State of its right to prosecute the guilty when all other facts on
record point to their culpability.
Criminal Law; Kidnapping for Ransom; Penalties;
With respect to the penalty, the Court finds that the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of
parole against Petrus as principal in the charge of kidnapping for ransom in
view of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, prohibiting the death penalty.
Same; Civil liabilities;
The entire amount of the civil liabilities should be apportioned among all those
who cooperated in the commission of the crime according to the degrees of
their liability, respective responsibilities and actual participation
FACTS:
1. At around 1:30 in the afternoon of 20 January 2004, a practicing
lawyer by the name of Alastair Onglingswan hailed a Toyota taxi cab
with plate number PVD 115 to take him from Shangri-La Hotel, Makati
to Virra Mall, Greenhills Shopping Center, San Juan;
2. When the vehicle got to the vicinity of SM Megamall, Alastair received
a phone call from his associate during which he noticed that the driver,
Author: Earvin James M. Atienza
Citation: 733 SCRA 608, G.R. No. 208170
Petrus Yau who had “short black hair, a moustache and gold framed
eyeglasses”, would from time to time talk as if he was also being
spoken to;
3. Thereafter, he felt groggy and hung up, and he later on woke up lying
down with his head covered with a plastic bag and his hands were
cuffed and chained;
4. Asking his captors to loosen the cuffs, a man introduced himself as
“John” and told him that he was kidnapped for ransom and was
allowed to make phone calls to his family and friends, including his
girlfriend, which he did;
5. He would later on be served with almost five (5) meals a day by John
or the other accused, Susan Yau despite the constant beating and
maltreatment by the captors;
6. After 22 days in captivity, he was rescued by the Police Anti-crime and
Emergency Response Task Force (PACER) when the accused Petrus
led the police to his house after having been arrested and the police
found Alastair therein;
7. Both the accused offered their alibis claiming that they were both
framed;
8. The RTC found Petrus guilty of kidnapping for ransom and serious
illegal detention in relation to RA 9346 as principal, while accused
Susan was found guilty as accomplice thereto for having fed Alastair
and accompanied Petrus while the former was in captivity. CA affirmed
the decision, hence the instant Appeal under Rule 45.
ISSUES:
1. WON Petrus and Susan are both guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
PROVISION: Arts. 17 & 267, Revised Penal Code, in relation to R.A.
7659 and 9346.
RULING + RATIO:
1. Yes, Petrus is guilty of kidnapping for ransom, while Susan is guilty as an
accomplice thereto.
 The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings that the
testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses are more credible and are
sufficient to hold both the accused as guilty. The Court ruled that:
x x x Victim Alastair positively identified Petrus as
the driver of the white Toyota Corolla taxicab with
Plate No. PVD 115 which he boarded before he lost
consciousness on the afternoon of January 20, 2004.
He claimed that while he was conversing with his
business associate Kelly Wei over his phone inside
the taxicab, Petrus would turn his face towards
him, from time to time, and would talk as if he was
being spoken to. Alastair claimed that he had a
good look and an ample opportunity to remember
the facial features of the driver as to be able to
recognize and identify him in court. It is the most
natural reaction for victims of crimes to strive to
remember the faces of their accosters and the
manner in which the craven acts are committed.
Alastair also recognized the voice behind the red
mask used by his kidnapper as belonging to
Petrus. It was established that from the first to the
twentieth day of Alastair’s captivity, his kidnapper
would meet him five times a day and would talk to him
for an hour, thus, enabling him to remember the
culprit’s voice which had a unique tone and noticeable
Chinese accent. Alastair declared with certainty
that it was the voice of Petrus. Witness Aaron
John insisted that the person who introduced
himself as Ong Kwai Ping and with whom he had
talked over the phone for three weeks, demanding
necessity money and ransom for the release of his
brother Alastair, was Petrus because of the distinct
tone of his voice with Chinese accent. There was
no showing that Alastair and Aaron John had any ill
motive to falsely testify against Petrus. As a rule,
absent any evidence showing any reason or
motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the
logical conclusion is that no such improper
motive exists, and their testimonies are, thus,
worthy of full faith and credit. x x x
(emphasis supplied)
 The Court also found that the prosecution was able to satisfactorily
discharged its burden of proving the crime. Thus, it held that:
Author: Earvin James M. Atienza
Citation: 733 SCRA 608, G.R. No. 208170
observed by the RTC, the act of giving food by
x x x All of the x x x elements were duly Susana to the victim was not essential and
established by the testimonial and documentary indispensable for the perpetration of the crime of
evidences for the prosecution in the case at bench. kidnapping for ransom but merely an expression of
First, Petrus is a private individual. Second, Petrus sympathy or feeling of support to her husband. x
kidnapped Alastair by using sleeping substance xx
which rendered the latter unconscious while
inside a taxicab driven by the said accused- (emphasis supplied)
appellant. Third, Petrus took and detained Alastair
inside the house owned by him and Susana Yau DISPOSITION: Appeal DENIED. CA Decision is UPHELD with
in Bacoor, Cavite, where said victim was handcuffed MODIFICATIONS on the penalties imposed and the damages awarded.
and chained, and hence, deprived of his liberty.
Fourth, Alastair was taken against his will. And
fifth, Petrus made demands for the delivery of a
ransom in the amount of US$600,000.00 for the
release of the victim. x x x

Anent the criminal liability of each accused-appellant,

there is no doubt that Petrus is liable as principal
of the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Susana, on
the other hand, is liable only as an accomplice to
the crime as correctly found by the lower courts. It
must be emphasized that there was no evidence
indubitably proving that Susana participated in
the decision to commit the criminal act. The only
evidence the prosecution had against her was the
testimony of Alastair to the effect that he
remembered her as the woman who gave food to him
or who accompanied his kidnapper whenever he
would bring food to him every breakfast, lunch and
dinner. x x x

x x x In the case at bench, Susana knew of the

criminal design of her husband, Petrus, but she
kept quiet and never reported the incident to the
police authorities. Instead, she stayed with Petrus
inside the house and gave food to the victim or
accompanied her husband when he brought food to
the victim. Susana not only countenanced Petrus’
illegal act, but also supplied him with material and
moral aid. It has been held that being present and
giving moral support when a crime is being
committed make a person responsible as an
accomplice in the crime committed. As keenly