Scribd
Upload
207 views3 pages

People Vs Petrus and Susana Yau

1) Petrus Yau kidnapped Alastair Joseph Onglingswam for ransom and kept him for 22 days in Petrus and Susana Yau's home. Susana gave Alastair food during his captivity. 2) The trial court convicted Petrus as the principal and Susana as an accomplice. The appellate court affirmed this conviction. 3) The Supreme Court upheld Susana's conviction as an accomplice. There was no evidence she directly participated in the kidnapping. By giving food and moral support to Petrus, she cooperated in executing the crime, making her liable as an accomplice.

Uploaded by

Cleofe Sobiaco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
207 views3 pages

People Vs Petrus and Susana Yau

1) Petrus Yau kidnapped Alastair Joseph Onglingswam for ransom and kept him for 22 days in Petrus and Susana Yau's home. Susana gave Alastair food during his captivity. 2) The trial court convicted Petrus as the principal and Susana as an accomplice. The appellate court affirmed this conviction. 3) The Supreme Court upheld Susana's conviction as an accomplice. There was no evidence she directly participated in the kidnapping. By giving food and moral support to Petrus, she cooperated in executing the crime, making her liable as an accomplice.

Uploaded by

Cleofe Sobiaco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Barril, Meiko D. Criminal Law 1- Atty.

Dimpna Bermejo-Dulay October 25, 2020

People vs. Petrus Yau and Susana Yau


G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014

Issue:
Whether or not Susana Yau is also considered as principal of the crime of
kidnapping for ransom.

Facts:
 On Jan 20, 2004, Alastair Joseph Onglingswam, a practicing lawyer and
businessman in the US went out of Makati Shangrila and got on a taxicab with
plate number PVD-115 owned by Petrus Yau.
 While travelling along EDSA, and conversing over the phone with his associate in
HK, Kelly Wei, he felt groggy and suddenly fell unconscious. Then, he woke up in
the house of Susana and Petrus in Cavite where his head was covered with
plastic bag, and he was handcuffed and chained.
 Petrus introduced himself as John and removed the plastic bag from Alastair’s
head and loosened his handcuff. Petrus informed him that he is being kidnapped
for ransom of US$600,000 and Php 20,000 for boarding fee. He was allowed to
call his family and friends to ask for the PIN of his ATM cards and for money.
 When his girlfriend and family received a text message informing them that he
was kidnapped for ransom, they informed the US Embassy and met with the
PNP. Upon instruction, some amounts were then wired to a certain Ong Kwai
Ping’s account in Metrobank to ensure Alastair’s safety.
 During Alastair’s 22 days of captivity, he was allowed to communicate with his
family. He ate 5 times a day. However, he was also maltreated.
 On Feb 10, 2004, the Police Anti-Crime Emergency Response (PACER) Task
Force, upon instruction of P/Supt. Nerez looked for the taxi with plate number
PVD-115. When they chance upon the taxi, the driver introduced himself as
Petrus Yau (British National), but was not able to present his driver’s license and
car registration.
 When the PACER showed Petrus the photo of Alastair, he admitted that the latter
is being kept in his house. Petrus was then informed of his rights, his phones
were confiscated, and he was placed under arrest for kidnapping Alastair. Petrus
led the team to his house, and Alastair was rescued.
 During the trial, Alastair positively identified Petrus Yau as his captor and the taxi
driver; and test conducted by the US FBI revealed that the DNA found in the
mask used by private complainant’s captor matched that of appellant Petrus Yau
Barril, Meiko D. Criminal Law 1- Atty. Dimpna Bermejo-Dulay October 25, 2020

 RTC convicted Petrus Yau as principal of the crime of kidnapping for ransom and
serious illegal detention, and Susana Yau as an accomplice to the commission
thereof.
 CA affirmed the conviction of Petrus and Susana Yau.

Held:

No. Susana Yau is liable only as an accomplice to the crime as correctly found
by the lower courts. It must be emphasized that there was no evidence indubitably
proving that Susana participated in the decision to commit the criminal act. The only
evidence the prosecution had against her was the testimony of Alastair to the effect that
he remembered her as the woman who gave food to him or who accompanied his
kidnapper whenever he would bring food to him every breakfast, lunch and dinner.

An accomplice cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or


simultaneous acts, provided he has no direct participation in its execution or does not
force or induce others to commit it, or his cooperation is not indispensable to its
accomplishment.

In accordance with Article 18 of the RPC, in order that a person may be


considered an accomplice, namely:

a. That there be a community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design
of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his
purpose;
b. That he cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous act, with
the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the
crime in an efficacious way;
c. And that there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and
those attributed to the person charged as accomplice.

In the case at bench, Susana knew of the criminal design of her husband, Petrus
but she kept quiet and never reported the incident to the police authorities. Instead, she
stayed with Petrus inside the house and gave food to the victim or accompanied her
husband when he brought food to the victim.

Susana not only countenanced Petrus’ illegal act, but also supplied him with material
and moral aid. It has been held that being present and giving moral support when a
crime is being committed make a person responsible as an accomplice in the crime
Barril, Meiko D. Criminal Law 1- Atty. Dimpna Bermejo-Dulay October 25, 2020

committed. As keenly observed by the RTC, the act of giving food by Susana to the
victim was not essential and indispensable for the perpetration of the crime of
kidnapping for ransom but merely an expression of sympathy or feeling of support to her
husband.

Moreover, this Court is guided by the ruling in People vs De Vera, where it was
stressed that in case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered as that
of an accomplice rather than that of a principal.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy