People vs Domasian
GR No 95322, 1 March 1993
FACTS:
In 11 March 1982, the victim Enrico Pailo Agra who was 8 yrs old at that time, was
kidnapped by the accused-appellants Pablito Domasian and Dr. Samson Tan. The
latter was a resident physician owned by the parents of the victim.
Domasian brought the child to San Vicente, Quezon boarding a tricycle. The driver of
the tricycle was suspicious of Domacian so as soon as they alighted, he reported him
to the barangay tanods.
Together with the tricycle driver (Grate), they went after Domasian where they got the
child while Domasian was able to escape.
Afternoon of that day, after the return of the child, a ransom note was received by the
victim's family demanding P1 million for the release of the child. The father of the
victim identified the handwriting belonging to Dr. Tan, which was confirmed in the
investigation.
Domacian and Dr. Tan was convicted of kidnapping with serious illegal detention.
The accused-appellants appealed in the present case but the SC affirmed the
appealed decision against the accused-appellants.
ISSUE: WON the act committed by Dr. Tan constitutes impossible crime. NO
RULING:
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any
person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from the which he
intended. Even before the ransom note was received, the crime was already committed. The
act cannot be considered an impossible crime because there was no inherent improbability of
its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffective means. The delivery of the
ransom note after the rescue of the victim did not extinguish the offense, which had already
been consummated when Domasian deprived Enrico of his liberty. The sending of the ransom
note would have had the effect only of increasing the penalty to death under the last
paragraph of Article 267 although this too would not have been possible under the new
Constitution.
**Tan's defense: Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal liability shall be
incurred "by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means." Tan claimed the lower court erred in not
finding that the sending of the ransom note was an impossible crime, thus not punishable.
On Kidnapping:
Contrary to Tan's submission, kidnapping and serious illegal detention may consist not only in
placing a person in an enclosure but also in detaining him or depriving him in any manner of
his liberty. Here, it is noted that although the victim was not confined in an enclosure, he was
deprived of his liberty when Domasian restrained him from going home and dragged him first
into the minibus that took them to the municipal building in Gumaca, thence to the market and
then into the tricycle bound for San Vicente. The detention was committed by Domasian, who
was a private individual, and Enrico was a minor at that time. The crime clearly comes under
Par. 4 of Art.267.
On Conspiracy:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it, whether they act through physical volition of
one or all, proceeding severally or collectively. It is settled that conspiracy can be inferred
from and proven by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests.
In this case, the trial court correctly held that conspiracy was proved by the act of Domasian
in detaining Enrico; the writing of the ransom note by Tan; and its delivery by Domasian to
Agra. These acts were complementary to each other and geared toward the attainment of the
common ultimate objective, viz. to extort the ransom of P1million in exchange for Enrico's life.
