People vs. Tazo

G.R. No. 118099-100 (August 22, 1996)

Ricardo Tazo and Pompeyo Vargas received life sentences for kidnapping Marilyn Bobo and her daughter.

Facts:

On January 5, 1994, at approximately 6:30 a.m., Marilyn Bobo y Angeles, a 30-year-old housewife, was walking with her seven-year-old daughter, Reynalyn Boco, to school in Sampaloc, Manila. As they walked along Aragon Street, a heavily tinted black car stopped near them. Two masked men emerged from the vehicle, brandished firearms, and forcibly compelled them to enter the car. Inside, they encountered two additional men, later identified as accused Ricardo Tazo and Pompeyo Vargas.

The victims were blindfolded and driven for about thirty minutes. During the journey, one of the kidnappers asked Marilyn if she recognized their location. Upon her admission of ignorance due to the blindfold, they informed her they were in Lagro and instructed her to call her husband, demanding a ransom of P10,000 for their release. After the call, they were taken to a location in Caloocan City, where Marilyn observed three other children, also bound and gagged.

Marilyn was separated from her daughter and subjected to further threats and intimidation. The kidnappers attempted to extort more money from her, and after enduring maltreatment, she revealed that she had P5,000 in her possession, which she handed over to one of the accused. Eventually, the kidnappers transported them to Sta. Cruz, Manila, where they were released around 3 p.m. that day. Following their release, they reported the incident to the police, leading to a raid on the kidnappers' hideout, where some of the stolen items were recovered.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
  2. Whether the defenses of alibi and the mere plea of not guilty were adequate to exonerate the accused.

Arguments:

For the Prosecution:

  • The prosecution presented the testimony of Marilyn Bobo, who positively identified the accused as her kidnappers. Her account was corroborated by her daughter, Reynalyn, and the details of the kidnapping were consistent and compelling.
  • The prosecution argued that the positive identification of the accused by the victims, who had been in close proximity to them during the ordeal, was credible and reliable.
  • The prosecution contended that the defense of alibi was weak and unconvincing, as it did not provide a physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime.

For the Defense:

  • The accused-appellants argued that their plea of not guilty and their appeal should suffice for their acquittal, claiming that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • They presented an alibi, asserting that they were elsewhere at the time of the kidnapping. Ricardo Tazo claimed he was having breakfast with a neighbor, while Pompeyo Vargas stated he was at work.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, which had convicted the accused of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The court found the testimonies of the victims to be credible and compelling, noting that their identification of the accused was unequivocal and corroborated by the circumstances of the crime.

The court rejected the defense of alibi, emphasizing that it is one of the weakest defenses, particularly when it does not establish a physical impossibility for the accused to be at the crime scene. The court highlighted that the accused were indeed in Caloocan City, where the kidnapping occurred, thus failing to meet the stringent requirements for a successful alibi.

The court also clarified that the actual and moral damages awarded to the victims would be solidary in nature, meaning that both accused would be jointly liable for the damages.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The case reinforces the principle that positive identification by a credible witness can outweigh defenses such as alibi, especially when the witness has a clear and direct experience of the crime.
  • It underscores the notion that a mere plea of not guilty, without substantial evidence to support it, is insufficient for acquittal.
  • The ruling affirms the legal standard that for an alibi to be valid, it must be proven that it was physically impossible for the accused to be present at the crime scene during the commission of the offense.