People of the Philippines vs.

Trestiza

Facts:This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of theRTC of
Makati for the case of Kidnapping for Ransom and Robbery.The trial court found Trestiza guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom under
Article !" of the Re#ised$enal Code and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion $erpetua and
to paydamages to the #ictims.The #ictims alleged that on %o#. && ' the accused Trestiza' Manri(ue
and $ineda' armed)ith firearms' kidnapped *a)rence +u and Maria ,rma %a#arro' or other)ise
depri#edthem of their liberty )ithout legal grounds for the purpose of e-torting money. n February
&&/' public prosecutor filed a motion to )ithdra) information of Kidnapping )ith Ransom and to Admit
information for Robbery. 0e pointed out thatafter he conducted preliminary in#estigation' he found no
probable cause e-ists to)arrant the indictment of the accused for the crime of kidnapping )ith ransom. 0e
addedthat they should be charged instead for the crimes of Robbery and gra#e threats. TheCourt set a
hearing for this motion. 1efore the issue could be resol#ed' another 2udge took o#er the Court as
Assisting$residing 3udge after 3udge 4al#ador Abad 4antos re(uested to be relie#ed. 3udge1ernabe
issued an order directing the City $rosecution ffice to conduct re5assessmentand re5e#aluation of
the e#idence presented and to submit its report )ithint /& days. The $rosecution maintains that the
correct and appropriate charges to be filed againstaccused should be for robbery and gra#e threats but
for t)o counts each and not for kidnapping as initially filed. Thus' it prayed for this Court to be allo)ed to
)ithdra) the present information. To 2ustify' the prosecution said that the case of kidnapping )ould not
prosper against all the accused because the essential elements for the crime of Kidnapping for ransom
defined and penalized under Article !" of the R$C is that theoffender must be a pri#ate indi#idual )hich
does not obtain in the case at bar asrespondents are public officers.,ssue:6hether or not the charges
should be kidnapping for ransom or Robbery and gra#ethreats.0eld:The Court denied the Motion to
6ithdra) information for kidnapping.The prosecutor argues that the essence of the crime of kidnapping
could not be possiblycommitted by the accused as they are police officers )ho at the time the
complainants)ere di#ested of cash and personal belongings )ere conducting a police operation to