FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 117216.
August 9, 2000]
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOCELYN ACBANGIN y RADAM, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case is an appeal from the decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite,[1] finding
accused-appellant, Jocelyn Daria Radam Acbangin (hereinafter referred to as
"Jocelyn") guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention, and sentencing her to reclusion perpetua.
In
the same decision, the court acquitted accused Juanita Niu (hereinafter
referred to as "Niu").[2]
We state the facts.
On April 23, 1991, at around seven
o'clock in the evening, Danilo Acbangin was worried when his daughter,
four-year old Sweet Grace Acbangin (hereinafter referred to as
"Sweet") did not come home.[3]
Sweet's father, Danilo, testified that he
last saw Sweet on the same day, at six o'clock in the evening, playing in
Jocelyn's house.[4] Jocelyn was the common‑law
wife of his second cousin, Remy Acbangin.[5]
Danilo went to Jocelyn's house and looked
for Sweet. There was no one there.
[6]
At around seven fifteen in the evening,
Danilo reported to the Barangay and the Bacoor Police Station that Sweet was
missing.[7]
On the same day at eleven o'clock in the
evening, Jocelyn arrived at Danilo's house without Sweet. When asked where the child was, Jocelyn
denied knowing of the child's whereabouts.
On April 24, 1991, Danilo made a second
report to the Bacoor Police Station, stating that Jocelyn returned without the
child.[8]
On April 24, 1991, Jocelyn informed
Danilo's mother-in-law that Sweet was in Niu's house in Tondo, Manila.[9]9
On April 25, 1991, the case was reported
to the Manila police.[10]
Jocelyn accompanied Danilo, Sweet's
grandfather and police officers to Niu's house.[11] Jocelyn personally
knew Niu and was first to enter the house.[12] Jocelyn went up to the
second floor of the house. She went
down with Niu and Sweet.[13] Sweet was well-dressed
and smiling.[14]14 She ran to her
father and embraced him. Niu then
voluntarily turned Sweet over to her father and the policemen.[15]
Pat. Manuel Lao testified that when he
asked Niu how she came to have possession of the child, she answered that a
certain "Helen" brought the child to her. This "Helen" could not be found.[16]
However, on the witness stand, Niu told a
different story. Niu narrated that it was Jocelyn who brought Sweet to her
house on April 23, 1991. Jocelyn told
Niu that she was going to leave the child and was going to return to get her.[17]
On April 26, 1991, a complaint for
kidnapping a minor[18] was filed against
accused‑appellant Jocelyn Acbangin, accused Niu, Helen Doe and Juana Doe
with the Municipal Trial Court, Bacoor, Cavite, to wit:[19]
“That on the 23rd day of April 1991 (Tuesday) at about 7:00
P. M. at Brgy. San Nicolas, in the municipality of Bacoor, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx being a private person (sic), kidnapped and deprived one
SWEET JOCELYN ACBANGIN, a xxxx four years old child (sic) without any
justifiable cause which is prohibited by law to the damages (sic) and prejudice
of said SWEET JOCELYN ACBANGIN and her relatives.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."
On September 2, 1991, an information for
kidnapping a minor was filed with the Regional Trial Court, Bacoor, Cavite[20] against Niu, Jocelyn
and two Mary Does, to wit:[21]
"That on or about the 23rd day of April 1991 at around
7:00 o'clock in the evening, at Barangay San Nicolas, Municipality of Bacoor,
Province of Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping
and aiding one another, the above-named accused Jocelyn Acbangin, being then the
auntie of Sweet Grace Acbangin, and being then private individuals, did, then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take, kidnap and deprive said
Sweet Grace Acbangin of her liberty and failed to return her to the custody of
her parents, thereby causing her damage and prejudice.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."
On May 26, 1992, accused Niu and
accused-appellant Jocelyn were arraigned.
Both pleaded "not guilty."[22]
At the trial, Jocelyn testified that: For
six years, she was employed as Niu's housemaid. While working for Niu, she took care of several children of
different ages. The number of children
in Niu's household would vary from seven to fourteen. According to Jocelyn, Niu was in the business of selling
children. On April 23, 1993, Sweet was
brought to Niu's house by a certain Celia and Helen. Jocelyn recognized Sweet as her niece. Upon seeing Sweet, she decided to go to Sweet's parents in
Bacoor, Cavite. She then accompanied
Sweet's father, along with some policemen to Niu's house.[23]
On June 22, 1994, the trial court
rendered the appealed decision. We
quote its fallo:[24]
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, only accused Jocelyn
Acbangin is hereby found Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt of the crime of
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention punishable under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code with the imposable penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to
Death. Thus, she should suffer the
prison term of Reclusion Perpetua.
"This Court finds the above penalty to be too harsh to
be imposed against 23-year old and third year high school student-accused
Jocelyn Acbangin. The evidence on
record had not clearly indicated that Danilo Acbangin and minor-victim Sweet
Grace Acbangin during the latter's two‑day stay in the house of Juanita
Niu has been emotionally or physically injured. The degree of malicious intent of accused Jocelyn does not
warrant the excessive penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
"In connection with Article 5 of the Revised Penal
Code, this Court recommends to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines,
thru the Secretary of Justice, that executive clemency be extended to accused
Jocelyn Acbangin as a means of mitigating the undue harshness of the penalty
herein imposed.
"Also send a copy of this Decision to the Provincial
Warden of Trece Martires City for his information and guidance.
"SO ORDERED."[25]
On August 8, 1994, accused-appellant
filed a notice of appeal with the trial court.[26]
Accused-appellant contends that her guilt
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.[27]
We deny the appeal.
Jocelyn knew for two days where Sweet
was. In fact, it was she who brought
Sweet to Niu's house. The fact that she
later on felt remorse for taking Sweet to Tondo, Manila and showed Sweet's
father where the child was, cannot absolve her. At that point, the crime was consummated. Jocelyn's repentance and desistance came too
late.
The elements of serious illegal detention
are: [28]
"(1) that
the offender is a private individual;
"(2) that he
kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his
liberty;
"(3) that
the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
"(4) in the
commission of the offense any of the following circumstances are present:
"(a) that
the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 5 days;
"(b) that it
is committed simulating public authority;
"(c) that
any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained or threats to kill him are made; or
"(d) that
the person kidnapped is a minor, female or public officer. (underscoring ours)"
In the case at bar, all the
aforementioned requisites were present and were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In cases of kidnapping, if the person
detained is a child, the question is whether there was actual deprivation of
the child's liberty, and whether it was the intention of the accused to deprive
the parents of the custody of the child.[29]
Sweet was deprived of her liberty. True, she was treated well. However, there is still kidnapping. For there to be kidnapping, it is not
necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure. It is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Given Sweet's tender age, when Jocelyn left
her in Niu's house, at a distant place in Tondo, Manila, unknown to her, she
deprived Sweet of the freedom to leave the house at will. It is not necessary that the detention be
prolonged.[30]
The intention to deprive Sweet's parents
of her custody is indicated by Jocelyn's hesitation for two days to disclose
Sweet's whereabouts and more so by her actual taking of the child. Jocelyn's motive at this point is not
relevant. It is not an element of the
crime.
Sweet's testimony, stating that it was
Jocelyn who brought her to Niu's house, should not be disregarded. Section 20, Rule 134 of the Revised Rules of
Court provides that, "All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
make known their perception to others may be witnesses." A witness' young
age will not deter him or her from being a competent and credible witness. To be a competent child witness, the
following criteria must be met: (a)
capacity of observation; (b) capacity of recollection and (c) capacity of
communication.[31] All these were met by
Sweet. Besides, the trial court's
assessment of Sweet's credibility should be upheld and respected since its
assessment was not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of any material
fact.[32]
Burdensome and harsh as it may be, the
trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
True,
Sweet was not maltreated. True also,
that at the time of the crime, Jocelyn was only 21 years old. However, the crime as defined by law was
committed. Dura lex sed lex. The law may be harsh, but it is the law.
We agree with the trial court that a
strict application of Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code would be too harsh,
taking into consideration the minimal injury caused by the offense. We agree that the accused be recommended to
the Chief Executive for the possible exercise of his pardoning power.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite, dated June 22, 1994, finding accused‑appellant
JOCELYN RADAM ACBANGIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention defined and penalized under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code, and sentencing her to reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties of the
law and to pay the costs.
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised
Penal Code,[33] we recommend to His
Excellency, the President of the Philippines, through the Secretary of Justice,
the grant to accused-appellant JOCELYN RADAM ACBANGIN of either a
commutation of sentence to an indeterminate penalty of prision correctional to prision mayor or executive clemency,
considering that she has been in preventive detention since April 29, 1991.[34] Let a copy of this
decision be forwarded to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines,
through the Secretary of Justice.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
4 Accused-appellants
house is three houses away from Danilo Acbangins house. Danilo Acbangins residence was at 238 San
Nicolas, Bacoor, Cavite (TSN, August 24, 1992, p.3).
12 Jocelyn was employed
as Nius housemaid from April 1982 to June 1986, and from 1988 to November 12,
1990 (TSN, September 21, 1993, pp. 4-5).
20 The information
was filed by 1st Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Diego C. Agustin.
The information was
approved by Provincial Prosecutor Herminio P. Gervacio.
31 People v.
Galas, G.R. No. 114007, September 24, 1996; People v. Nang, G.R. No.
107799, April 15, 1998.
33 Article 5, Revised
of the Penal Code, xxx In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a
clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and
the injury caused by the offense.
34 Unable to post
bail, she was confined initially at the Bacoor, Cavite Police Station, per
Order of Commitment, RTC Record, p. 7; in June 1991, she was transferred to the
Provicial Jail, Trece Martires City, Cavite (RTC Record, p. 16), until January
17, 1995, when she was committed to the Correctional Institution for Women, per
letter of the Officer In Charge to the Clerk of Court, Third Division, Supreme
Court, Rollo, p. 28.