Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - MARITES VALERIO y TRAJE, Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 186123
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: February
27, 2012 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the appeal, filed by
accused Marites Valerio y Traje (appellant), from the
The RTC Ruling
In
its May 11, 2001 decision,[2]
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review,[4] the CA
affirmed the judgment of the RTC, giving full respect to the RTC's appreciation
of the testimony of the witnesses.
In rejecting the appellants
insistence that she merely talked to Regelyn at Pier 14 to protect and prevent
her from crossing the street, without any intention to kidnap her, the CA noted
the appellants actuations during the incident, particularly, that: (1) the
appellant and Regelyn were already at the squatters area of Pier 16 when SPO1 Dela
Cruz spotted them several hours later; (2) the appellant was seen by SPO1 Dela
Cruz not only talking to the victim, but was actually holding her; (3) the
appellant did not take Regelyn to the barangay
outpost in Pier 14, which was merely 11 steps away, to report that the child
was probably missing, but took her to as far as Pier 16; and (4) the appellant
misrepresented to SPO1 Dela Cruz that she took Regelyn to take care of her,
despite the protestations of Regelyns mother that she never entrusted Regelyn
to the appellants care.[5]
We now rule on the final review of
the case.
Our Ruling
We affirm the appellants conviction.
We find no
reason to reverse the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The
prosecution has established the elements of kidnapping under Article 267,
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: (1) the offender is a private
individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives
the latter of his or her liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is
illegal; and (4) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a
public officer.
The
prosecution has adequately and satisfactorily proved that the appellant is a
private individual; that the appellant took Regelyn from Pier 14 to Pier 16, without
the knowledge or consent of Regelyns parents; and that the appellant admitted
Regelyns minority and even referred to her as a child.[6]
The prescribed
penalty for kidnapping a minor under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is reclusion
perpetua to death. Since
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the
felony, the lower courts properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
While we affirm the CAs factual
findings and the imprisonment imposed, we find it necessary to award the victim P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, in line with
prevailing jurisprudence.[7] We also
award the victim P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for
the public good.[8]
WHEREFORE, the P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00
as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA Associate
Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, and concurred in by Associate Justices Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok and Monina Arevalo Zenarosa; rollo, pp. 3-11.
[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 98-165477; CA rollo, pp. 12-14.
[3] See REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 267, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise known as The Death Penalty Law.
[4] The RTC forwarded the records of the case to the Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to People v. Mateo (G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640), we referred the case to the CA for intermediate appellate review; CA rollo, p. 76.
[5] Supra note 1.
[6] TSN,
[7] People of the
[8] People of the