Manila: The Supreme Court (SC) turned down the appeal filed by a former police officer and six other individuals accused of kidnapping for ransom in 2004. The high tribunal said the loss or non-presentation of ransom money in court does not prevent a conviction for kidnapping for ransom, so long as the prosecution is able to prove that ransom was demanded for the victim's release.

According to Philippines News Agency, in a 16-page decision made public Tuesday, the SC denied the appeal of Jose Olibato, Jaime Tolevas, Romeo Aruta, Rodrigo Aruta, Alberto Culanag, Edwin Castillo, and PO3 Clayton Patingan. The SC sentenced them to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered them to pay the female victim PHP300,000 as civil indemnity and moral and exemplary damages.

'The prosecution's evidence -- clear, direct and corroborated by independent witnesses -- convincingly established that the (victim) Genevieve's abduction was committed for ransom,' the SC said. It also said Patingan's claim that he and the victim had a romantic relationship "deserves no weight."

The accused "did not produce any evidence to prove his claim of a romantic relationship (with the victim) or to show that the charge of kidnapping was fabricated out of fear of her parents," according to the SC ruling. The case against another accused, SPO4 Romeo Ayson, was dismissed following his death during the pendency of the case.

Patingan and Ayson flagged the victim's car and, together with the other accused, forcibly took her and detained her in a house. They demanded PHP50 million from the victim's father in exchange for her release. After negotiations, the amount was reduced to PHP500,000.

Under police surveillance, the victim's family driver delivered the marked ransom money to the accused. The police then rescued her, arrested the suspects, and recovered the marked money. The Regional Trial Court found that the accused worked together to kidnap and detain the victim for ransom. It rejected their defenses of denial and alibi. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

The SC said the evidence showed that the ransom money was delivered and received during the police operation. The SC also clarified that although Patingan was a police officer at the time of the crime, he was considered a private individual because he was not performing his official duties when he participated in the kidnapping.