SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 127452. June 17, 1999]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISAGANI
LUARTES y PASTOR, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:
This is another wicked
offense - kidnapping of a minor three (3) years of age.
On 21 December 1994 the
City Prosecutor of Manila charged that on 19 December 1994 the accused Isagani
Luartes y Pastor, a private individual, without authority of law, willfully and
feloniously kidnapped, detained or deprived of her liberty one Junichi Monique
Macairan, a girl three (3) years of age, against her will and consent.
The evidence shows that
in the afternoon of 19 December 1994 Evelyn Macairan went to shop at the
Isetann Department Store along Claro M. Recto Avenue, Manila. With her was her three (3)-year old daughter
Junichi Macairan. While strolling on
the second floor of the store she noticed that Junichi was no longer by her
side, so she immediately informed a sales attendant about her missing
daughter. The sales attendant
instructed her to proceed to the paging section on the ground floor and have
her child paged.
Evelyn waited anxiously
for the return of Junichi after paging her.
Fifteen minutes later an MMA traffic enforcer by the name of Francisco
Lacanilao, together with two (2) policemen, entered the department store with
Junichi. Lacanilao asked Evelyn if she
was the mother of the child. When
Evelyn answered in the affirmative, Lacanilao immediately released Junichi to
her. He informed Evelyn that a person
had just been arrested for the kidnapping of her daughter, and so he requested
Evelyn to go with him to the police station to give her statement.
On the way out of Isetann
she saw the now accused Isagani Luartes outside the department store being
mauled by irate bystanders on the sidewalk.
He was handcuffed. On the way to
the police station on board their Ford Fiera Evelyn asked him why he abducted
her daughter Junichi. His reply was
that he was merely interested in the jewelry worn by the child.[1]
Traffic enforcer
Francisco Lacanilao testified that on 19 December 1994 he was stationed along
Recto Avenue in front of Isetann Department Store and that at around 2:50 in
the afternoon he noticed something unusual with a passenger jeep along Recto
Avenue. Passengers were alighting from
the jeep and he could hear a child crying inside the vehicle. He approached the driver and asked him if
there was anything wrong and the driver whispered, "Kidnap ito."
Then Lacanilao noticed a man seated at the back with a child crying. Lacanilao asked the man, "Pare,
anong nangyayari?" and he replied that the child was only afraid of
people. When the man alighted from the
jeep, Lacanilao placed his arm around his shoulder and said to him, "Halika,
pare." But the man scampered away carrying the child with him (karga-karga
niyang patalikod). Lacanilao gave
chase and with the assistance of a motorcycle cop he was able to apprehend the
suspect later identified as the accused Isagani Luartes y Pastor. The girl he was carrying turned out to be
Evelyn Macairan's daughter Junichi.[2]
The defense offered a
different version. According to
accused-appellant Isagani Luartes, in the afternoon of 19 December 1994 he was
doing his Christmas shopping at Isetann - Recto when he noticed a little girl
crying beside the escalator. He took
pity on her and asked her why she was crying.
The child answered that she was looking for her mother.[3] He decided to accompany the child to the
paging station but to reach there he had to go out of the building and use an
outside entrance.[4] However, on the way out he informed a
security guard about the lost child. In
fact, he said he requested the guard to watch the child while he went down to
the paging section but the security guard refused to take custody of the child;
thus, he was forced to carry the little girl outside the department store to
reach the paging section.[5] But once outside, the child continued crying
as he carried her to the ground floor.
It was at this time that Lacanilao approached him and asked him why the
child was crying, at the same time telling him in a loud voice, "Kinidnap
mo yata yan, ah!”[6]
Bystanders and onlookers
then started milling around him.
Fearing that they would harm him and the child he decided to board a
passenger jeep bound for Sta. Mesa. But
when the jeepney driver refused to move the vehicle and his passengers started
dispersing, Luartes took the child and went down the jeep.[7] By this time the crowd had already swelled
and gotten more hostile so he panicked and sought the assistance of a
motorcycle cop nearby. However, to his
surprise, instead of lending him succor, the police arrested him for
kidnapping.
Rebutting the testimony
of the accused, SPO2 Antonio Gabay, the motorcycle cop who assisted in the
arrest of Luartes, narrated that in the afternoon of 19 December 1994 he saw
Lacanilao chasing Luartes near Isetann - Recto. Luartes, with a child in tow, and Lacanilao were running in his
direction. He blocked the path of
Luartes and asked him why he was running.
The latter replied that there was nothing wrong and the child was his
niece.[8]
When Lacanilao informed
SPO2 Gabay that Luartes was a kidnapper, he held on to Luartes and did not let
him go. Gabay asked the child if she
knew Luartes but she merely shook her head and cried, "Mama, mama!”[9] The accused together with the child was then taken back to Isetann
where Evelyn Macairan was eagerly waiting for Junichi.
Giving credence to the
evidence of the prosecution, the trial court found Isagani Luartes y Pastor
guilty of kidnapping three (3)- year old Junichi Macairan, penalized under Art.
267, par 4, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and sentenced him to reclusion
perpetua with all the accessory penalties under the law.[10]
Accused-appellant is now
before us on appeal claiming that the evidence against him was too insufficient
for his conviction.[11] He stresses that he does not question the
motives of the prosecution witnesses who implicated him;[12] however, he maintains that this does not
mean that their accusations are gospel truth as they only misconstrued his
actuations in the afternoon of 19 December 1994. He insists that he did not kidnap Junichi but was merely helping
her find her lost mother.[13]
The essence of kidnapping
under Art. 267 is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with
the intent of the accused to effect it.[14] Accused-appellant banks on the question of
“intent” to neutralize the seemingly overwhelming evidence against him. He depicts himself simply as a good
Samaritan who, despite the crowded department store, was the only one who
showed pity on Junichi and who took pains to bring her back to her mother's
arms.[15] According to him, it is appalling that a
court, which in a criminal case is duty-bound to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt by clear and convincing evidence, based its
conviction on mere suspicion and presumption.[16]
We disagree. The insistence of accused-appellant that he
was only helping Junichi find her mother without any intention to kidnap the
child is belied by the evidence. His
supposed lack of intent to take custody of the child away from her mother was
completely discredited by the prosecution in the rebuttal testimony of SPO2
Gabay. Thus -
FISCAL CO
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, Isagani Luartes claimed that x x x he was merely helping Junichi L. Macairan to locate her parent when you arrested him. What can you say about that?
A: What I can say, is that, I arrested him x x x because of the suspicious actuation, sir x x x x You see, sir. x x x x I saw him running and he was carrying a child and also I saw a traffic enforcer chasing after him, sir. x x x x when the accused was running, he was running towards me, so what I did (was) I stopped him and asked him why he was running, and he informed me that there was nothing wrong as the child was his niece, sir.
Q: After that, what else transpired, if any?
A: Lacanilao, the traffic enforcer who was chasing x x x him informed me that he was a kidnapper x x x x And at that time I held on to him, sir. x x x x He told me that he was going to make a phone call. I did not let him go and I asked the child whether she knows this person, and the child (shook) her head and then x x x started to cry x x x “mama, mama,” sir.
Q: After that, what else transpired, if any?
A: So I brought them to the
Security Guard of the Isetann, I requested the security guard x x x to page for
any parent who lost a child, and after fifteen (15) minutes the mother came
over and then mother and child saw each other they embraced each other, sir
(Underscoring supplied).[17]
If indeed
accused-appellant was trying to help the lost child, why then did he
misrepresent himself as her uncle? He
avers that when the crowd outside Isetann turned hostile, he alighted from the
passenger jeepney and sought assistance from SPO2 Gabay. However when the police officer questioned
him why he was running, he did not mention anything about a lost child. Instead he claimed that the girl he was
carrying was his niece. And, if his
intention was only to help the child look for her mother, why did he have to
board a passenger jeepney taking the child with him? The attempt on his part to mislead SPO2 Gabay destroyed whatever
exculpating evidence he might have had in his favor. Thus the trial court correctly concluded -
Here credibility appears to be pivotal in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused.
In any event, this court is more inclined to give credence to the
versions of the prosecution witnesses than to the accused’s plain denial and
alibi, that in taking away the girl, he was merely after her welfare. Except on purely sense of duty to tell the
truth, the evidence on record is bereft of any showing to prove that Police
Officers Francisco Lacanilao and SPO2 Gabay were prompted by any ulterior
motive to falsify against the accused.[18]
As for the nature of the
crime committed, Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides -
Art. 267. Kidnapping
and serious illegal detention. – Any private individual who shall
kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: 4. If the person
kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.
The established fact is
that on 19 December 1994 accused-appellant Luartes was caught in flagrante kidnapping
Junichi Macairan, then three (3)-years old, outside Isetann Recto. The mother of the victim, Evelyn Macairan,
testified in court that Junichi was missing and presumably under the control of
accused-appellant for about thirty (30) minutes. Were it not for the alertness and swift action of traffic
enforcer Lacanilao and SPO2 Gabay accused-appellant would not have been
apprehended and Junichi returned to her distraught mother. Thus, the crime clearly comes under par. 4
of Art. 267 of the Penal Code. The
detention was committed by Luartes who was a private individual and the person
kidnapped was a three (3)-year old minor.
That his guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
gainsaid. His positive identification
by the prosecution witnesses who had no reason to prevaricate must prevail over
his bare denials and totally unacceptable alibi.[19]
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from finding
accused-appellant ISAGANI LUARTES Y PASTOR guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of kidnapping a minor as defined and penalized under Art. 267, par.
4, of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with
all the accessory penalties under the law, is AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Mendoza, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
Buena, J., on leave.
[1] TSN, 17 April 1995, p. 10.
[2] TSN, 5 June 1995, pp. 3-5.
[3] TSN,
21 June 1995, p. 6.
[4] TSN, id., p. 7.
[5] Ibid.
[6] TSN, 21 June 1995, p. 8.
[7] TSN, id., pp. 8-9.
[8] TSN, 15 September 1995, p. 10.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Decision
dated 15 August 1996, penned by Assisting Judge Recaredo P. Barte (S.C. Adm.
Order No. 23-95), Rollo, p. 13.
[11] Appellant’s
brief dated 14 January 1997 [should be 1998], id., p. 48.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Id.,
pp. 48-49.
[14] People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 116311, 1 February
1996, 253 SCRA 155, 159.
[15] Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 53.
[16] Ibid.
[17] TSN,
15 September 1995, pp. 4-5.
[18] See
Note 13.
[19] People
v. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 95939, 17 June 1996, 257 SCRA 380.