G.R. No. 172707 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HALIL GAMBAO Y ESMAIL, EDDIE KARIM Y USO, EDWIN DUKILMAN Y SUBOH, TONY ABAO Y SULA, RAUL UDAL Y KAGUI, THENG DILANGALEN Y NANDING, JAMAN MACALINBOL Y KATOL, MONETTE RONAS Y AMPIL, NORA EVAD Y MULOK, THIAN PERPENIAN Y RAFON A.K.A LARINA PERPENIAN AND J

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellants HALIL GAMBAO y ESMAIL, EDDIE KARIM y USO, EDWIN DUKILMAN y SUBOH, TONY ABAO y SULA, RAUL UDAL y KAGUI, TENG MANDAO y HARON, THENG DILANGALEN y NANDING, JAMAN MACALINBOL y KATOL, MONETTE RONAS y AMPIL and NORA EVAD y MULOK guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659 and imposing upon each of them the supreme penalty of death is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that each of them is ordered to pay jointly and severally the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages. It appearing that accused-appellant THIAN PERPENIAN y RAFON was only 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . [29] Pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 as amended by Administrative Matter No. 00-5-03-SC, the appellate court certified the case to this Court and accordingly ordered the elevation of the records. In a Resolution [30] dated 20 June 2006, we required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. The issues raised by the accused-appellants in their respective briefs, supplemental briefs and manifestations will be discussed collectively. Insufficiency of Evidence Accused-appellants Dukilman, Ronas, Evad would have this Court believe that the witness, Chan, was not able to positively identify them because of her failing eyesight due to old age. This argument is bereft of merit. We note that both the trial court and the CA found Chans testimony credible and straightforward. During her testimony, she positively identified the accused-appellants. If she had not met them before, she could not have positively identified them in open court. In fact, the participation of these accused-appellants was further established through the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses. Time and again, this Court has maintained that the question of credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trial court to determine. For this reason, its observations and conclusions are accorded great respect on appeal. They are conclusive and binding unless shown to be tainted with arbitrariness or unless, through oversight, some fact or circumstance of weight and influence has not been considered. [31] In People v. Tañedo , [32] this Court had occasion to reiterate the ruling that findings of fact of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses command great respect since it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor while they testified in court. [33] It can be observed that the briefs submitted by the accused-appellants are replete with generalities and wanting in relevant particulars. It is for this reason that we are giving full credence to the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witness Chan. Perpenian likewise argued that the evidence for her conviction is insufficient. We also find her argumen