Kidnapping; proper penalty; damages awarded.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JERRY PEPINO y RUERAS and PRECIOSA GOMEZ y CAMPOS, Accused-Appellants. EN BANC, G.R. No. 174471, January 12, 2016.

Kidnapping; proper penalty; damages awarded.

“x x x.

The Proper Penalty:

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, mandates the imposition of the death penalty when the kidnapping or detention is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person. Ransom, as employed in the Jaw, is so used in its common or ordinary sense; meaning, a sum of money or other thing of value, price, or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases one from captivity.53

In the present case, the malefactors not only demanded but received ransom for Edward's release. The CA thus correctly affirmed the RTC's imposition of the death penalty on Pepino and Gomez.

With the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled ''An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines" (signed into law on June 24, 2006), the death penalty may no longer be imposed. We thus sentence Gomez to the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.54

The reduced penalty shall likewise apply to the non-appealing party, Pepino, since it is more favorable to him.

The Awarded Indemnities:

In the case of People v. Gambao55 (also for kidnapping for ransom), the Court set the minimum indemnity and damages where facts warranted the imposition of the death penalty if not for prohibition thereof by R.A. No. 9346, as follows: (1) Pl00,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) Pl00,000.00 as moral damages which the victim is assumed to have suffered and thus needs no proof; and (3) Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good. These amounts shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of the Court's Resolution until fully paid.

We thus reduce the moral damages imposed by the CA from P300,000.00 to Pl00,000.00 to conform to prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping cases. This reduced penalty shall apply to Pepino for being more favorable to him. However, the additional monetary award (i.e., P100,000.00 civil indemnity) imposed on Gomez shall not be applied to Pepino.56

We affirm the P700,000.00 imposed by the courts below as restitution of the amount of ransom demanded and received by the kidnappers. We also affirm the CA's award of Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages based on Gambao.

X x x.”