MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the loss or non-presentation of ransom money in court does not bar the conviction of persons charged with kidnapping for ransom, provided the prosecution is able to prove that ransom was demanded in exchange for the victim’s release.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of Jose Olbato, Police Officer III Clayton Patingan, and their co-accused for kidnapping for ransom.

According to the decision, the accused forcibly abducted Genevieve Ong Sy while she was driving one morning and detained her in a house. They initially demanded PHP 50 million from her father in exchange for her release before later reducing the amount to PHP 500,000 following negotiations.

The Court said Sy’s family driver, acting under police surveillance, delivered marked ransom money to the accused, after which police officers rescued Sy, arrested the suspects, and recovered the marked bills.

The Regional Trial Court found that the accused conspired to kidnap and detain Sy for ransom and rejected their defenses of denial and alibi. The Court of Appeals later upheld the conviction.

Before the Supreme Court, the accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the ransom money was not presented during trial after it was allegedly lost while in police custody.

The SC rejected the argument.

The Court explained that kidnapping for ransom is committed when a private individual illegally kidnaps, detains, or deprives another person of liberty for the purpose of demanding ransom.

It stressed that the actual payment or receipt of ransom money is not an essential element that must be established to prove the offense.

The SC found that the prosecution sufficiently established that ransom had been demanded, negotiated, and delivered.

According to the Court, Sy’s father testified that the kidnappers repeatedly called him demanding PHP 50 million for his daughter’s release before eventually agreeing to accept PHP 500,000. The evidence also showed that the ransom money was delivered and received during the police operation.

The Court emphasized that the failure to present the ransom money in court did not negate the prosecution’s evidence showing that ransom had been demanded and paid.

The SC also clarified that although Patingan was a police officer when the crime was committed, he was considered a private individual because he was not performing official duties when he participated in the kidnapping.

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence of reclusion perpetua, or up to 40 years of imprisonment, imposed on the accused. They were likewise ordered to pay the victim PHP 300,000 in civil indemnity and damages.