ManilaSECOND
DIVISIONS
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 116595
September 23, 1997
-versus-
JESUS
PALOMA y GUBATON,
WILLIAM DOE AND CRISTINA
AMORSOLO PALOMA,
Accused-Appellants.
D
E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
On January 29,
1992, an information was filed against
Spouses Jesus and Cristina Paloma and "William Doe", charging them with
Serious Illegal Detention, committed as follows:
"That on or about and within the period
from
August 14, 1991 to August 15, 1991, in the City of Legazpi (sic),
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused who are private individuals, conspiring, confederating and
mutually
helping one another for a common purpose, did then and there,
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously detain Rosario B. Amorsolo, a female, in the
following manner: When Rosario B. Amorsolo was in the house of accused
Jesus G. Paloma accused 'William Doe' tied her hands with wire on her
back
while accused Jesus G. Paloma covered her head with a knapsack and told
her that accused 'William Doe' was a policeman and accused Cristina
Amorsolo
Paloma asked Rosario B. Amorsolo to sign a document for the withdrawal
of a civil case; and as a consequence thereof said Rosario B. Amorsolo
was deprived of her liberty against her will for a period aforestated.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."[1]
When arraigned,
Jesus and Cristina Paloma pleaded
not guilty. "William Doe" is still at-large. The
prosecution
presented the following witnesses:
ROSARIO BALDOZA
AMORSOLO is the 71-year old victim
and mother of accused Cristina Paloma. She testified that on August 13,
1991, at 8:00 o'clock in the morning, she was in Banadero, Albay, when
Jesus Paloma, her son-in-law, informed her that Cristina wanted to talk
to her. She proceeded to her daughter's house in Cabangan, Legaspi City
and arrived there at 10:00 o'clock in the morning. Cristina was not
home
and Jesus asked her to wait. Cristina came home at 7:00 o'clock in the
evening but went straight to her bedroom, followed by Jesus. When Jesus
came out of the bedroom, he told her that Cristina was tired and would
talk to her in the morning. She passed the night in their house. The
following
day, August 14, she woke up at 6:00 a.m. and waited for her daughter.
Jesus
told her that Cristina momentarily went out of the house but would be
back
soon. She went to the kitchen to wash her face. Shortly, Jesus came and
told her that a man from Banadero was looking for her. She proceeded to
the sala and saw a man she did not recognize. Suddenly, the man stood
up
and tied her hands at her back. Jesus ordered her not to move because
the
man was a police officer. Jesus then covered her head with a knapsack.
She felt weak and fell on the floor. She heard Jesus call his son
Reynante.
When Reynante did not answer, Jesus himself carried her inside the
bedroom.
Jesus pushed her on the bed and tied her feet. She remained inside the
bedroom until the next morning. When Jesus came back, she asked him to
let her talk to Cristina. At 9:00 a.m., she finally talked with
Cristina.
Cristina asked her to sign a document with drawing a land case against
them. She refused. She pleaded with them to let her go. Jesus agreed
but
warned her against telling her husband about the incident. They
released
her at 10:00 a.m. She reported the incident to the police and then went
to the Albay Provincial Hospital. She also filed a complaint with the
barangay
court of Banadero.[2]
BIENVENIDO
MIRASOL, 68 years old and a resident
of Banadero, Albay testified that he knew the victim, Rosario Amorsolo,
because he was renting a house owned by her. On August 14, 1991, at
about
7:00 a.m., he looked for her to pay his rent. Alfred Manila, his
neighbor,
told her that Mrs. Amorsolo was in the house of Jesus Paloma in
Cabangan,
Legaspi City. He went to Cabangan to see her. Upon reaching the house
of
Jesus, he saw that the door was open. He entered the house and saw Mrs.
Amorsolo on a kneeling position with both hands tied at her back. He
rushed
out of the house because he was frightened. When he glanced back, he
saw
through the window Mrs. Amorsolo's head covered by a knapsack. He
hurriedly
took a jeepney and returned home. He did not report the matter to the
police
or the barangay officials. On October 1, 1991, he executed an affidavit
relating the incident before the Commission on Human Rights.[3]
DR. ROGELIO
RIVERA testified that on August 15,
1991, he was working at the Albay Provincial Hospital when he treated
Rosario
B. Amorsolo for some injuries. He found a linear reddish discoloration
on her right dorsal forearm which could have been caused by tying a
piece
of string or wire on it. He also found contusions on her left shoulder
which could have been caused by a fist blow or any blunt object or
instrument
applied on the area. He did not find any mark of rope or string on Mrs.
Amorsolo's wrists.[4]
SALVACION ROGNAO,
barangay secretary of Barangay
6, Banadero, Legazpi City, testified that on August 15, 1991, she
recorded
a complaint (Exhibit "D") by Mrs. Rosario Amorsolo in the barangay
blotter.
Mrs. Amorsolo complained that she was mauled by her son-in-law Jesus
Paloma.
Upon Mrs. Amorsolo's instruction, she later amended the complaint to
include
that Mrs. Amorsolo's hand was tied behind her back and her head was
covered
by a knapsack.[5]
The defense
presented the following witnesses:
JESUS PALOMA
testified that on August 14 and 15,
1991, he was supervising the construction of his house in Banadero,
Legaspi
City, although, at that time, he was still a resident of Cabangan,
Legaspi
City. He denied tying the hands of his mother-in-law and covering her
head
with a knapsack. He revealed that his mother-in-law was fond of filing
cases against him. The instant case is the seventh one she filed
against
him. All the cases had been dismissed by the courts.[6]
CRISTINA AMORSOLO
testified that on August 14
and 15, 1991, she was not at their house in Cabangan but in Legaspi
City
attending to her jewelry business. She denied detaining her mother at
their
house in Cabangan. She said her mother filed this case to pressure them
to surrender a piece of land which is the subject of litigation between
them.[7]
REYNANTE PALOMA,
the 24-year old son of the accused
spouses, testified that on August 14 and 15, 1991, nothing unusual
happened
at their house.[8]
After the trial,
the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi
City, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 5, presided by Judge Vladimir
Brusola,
convicted the two accused. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision
is
hereby rendered finding the accused JESUS PALOMA Y GUBATON, GUILTY
beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Serious Illegal Detention as this is
defined
and penalized under Article 267(4) of the Revised Penal Code and hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion
Perpetua
with all the accessory penalties attached thereto. The accused CRISTINA
AMORSOLO PALOMA is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
accessory
to the crime of Serious Illegal Detention committed by her husband,
co-accused
Jesus Paloma y Gubaton and taking into consideration the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment
of Two (2) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision
Correctional
Medium period as the minimum to Eight (8) years and One day of Prision
Mayor Medium period as the maximum. Both accused are hereby ordered to
pay jointly and severally the offended party Rosario Amorsolo y
Baldoza,
the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary
damages
and to pay the costs.
"SO ORDERED."[9]
Hence, this
appeal, where the appellants contend
that:
I.chanrobles virtual law library
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
FINDING
THAT
THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION HAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED BEYOND
REASONABLE
DOUBT THE GUILT OF ACCUSED JESUS PALOMA y GUBATON AS PRINCIPAL IN THE
CRIME
OF SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 267 OF
THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND THAT THE ACCUSED CRISTINA AMORSOLO PALOMA
GUILTY
AS ACCESSORY THERETO.chanrobles virtual law libraryII.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
RULING THAT
ALIBI
BEING A WEAK DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE ACCUSED TO PROVE THAT HE
WAS NOT AT THE PLACE OF THE INCIDENT BUT HE MUST ALSO PROVE THAT IT WAS
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO BE AT THE PLACE OF THE INCIDENT AT THE
TIME IT HAPPENED.chanrobles virtual law libraryIII.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
RULING THAT
JESUS
PALOMA DETAINED ILLEGALLY THE OFFENDED PARTY AND THAT THIS WAS KNOWN TO
CRISTINA THE VERY DAUGHTER OF COMPLAINANT ROSARIO.chanrobles virtual law libraryIV.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
FINDING
THAT
THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES AND IN AWARDING EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES.chanrobles virtual law library
We find merit
in the appeal.
Under Article 267
of the Revised Penal Code, serious
illegal detention is committed when the following elements of the crime
are present: (1) that the offender is a private individual; (2) that he
kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter
of his liberty; (3) that the act of detention or kidnapping must be
illegal;
and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following
circumstances
is present: (a) that the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 5
days; or (b) that it is committed simulating public authority; or (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
or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.[10]
We hold that the
lower court erred in finding
that the prosecution evidence proved these elements of the crime of
serious
illegal detention.cralaw:red
The testimony of
Mrs. Amorsolo, the victim herself,
is not credible. Her motive is suspect. Even before the filing of the
case
at bar, the relationship between Mrs. Amorsolo and the appellant
spouses
has already been strained by a dispute involving a piece of land. The
records
likewise show that Mrs. Amorsolo filed a complaint before the barangay
of Banadero against Jesus Paloma on July 16, 1991 which was recorded as
follows:
"July 16/91 Brgy. Case No. 020-91
"Mrs. Amorsolo, Rosario
complainant
"Detail of complaint
"Rosario Amorsolo, 71 yrs., married, a
resident
of La Purisima, Cam. Sur, who owns a lot at Banadero, Brgy. No. 6, Leg.
City reported Jesus Paloma, his son-in-law, a resident of Brgy. #18,
Cabangan,
Leg. City constructed a house in the lot of her husband, Federico
Amorsolo,
inspite of the fact that consent was not given to him due to said lot
had
a case.
"Sgd. Rosario B. Amorsolo."[11]
A month later
or on August 15, 1991, she filed another
complaint before the barangay of Banadero alleging she was mauled by
Jesus
Paloma, to wit:
"August 15/91 Brgy. Case No. 021-91
"Mrs. Rosario Amorsolo
complainant
Complaint 7:00 a.m.
"On or about 12:00 o'clock noon,
Rosario
Amorsolo,
71 yrs. married, a resident of La Purisima, Cam. Sur, presently
residing
at Banadero, Leg. City (c/o Mrs. Alfredo Manila) reported that on Aug.
13/91, she was mauled by his son-in-law (Jesus Paloma) which resulted
to
her injuries.
"Sgd. Rosario B. Amorsolo."[12]
On the same
date, August 15, 1991, she reiterated
her complaint before the Legaspi City police station that she was
mauled
by accused Jesus Paloma, to wit:
"1245H PHYSICAL INJURIES
"Rosario Amorsolo Y (sic)
Baldosa, 71 years old, married of La Purisima, Nabua, Camarines Sur,
presently
residing at banadero (sic) Albay
District,
Legaspi City c/o Mr. Alfredo Manila reported that last 13 August 1991
she
was mauled by one Jesus Paloma which resulted to her injuries.
Complainant
was advised to submit for medical treatment at Albay Provincial
Hospital."[13]
We hold that
these events show that the serious illegal
detention case against appellants was merely fabricated by Mrs.
Amorsolo.
We note that both the police and barangay blotters reflected her
complaint
that August 15, 1991 is the date when she was allegedly mauled. She
then
charged appellants with the crime of serious illegal detention. To
establish
her charge, she caused the alteration of her August 15, 1991 complaint
in the barangay blotter to read as follows:
"August 15/91 Brgy. Case No. 021-912:00
p.m.
"Mrs. Rosario Amorsolo
complainant
Complaint 7:00 a.m.
"At on or about 12:00 o'clock noon
Rosario
Amorsolo,
71 yrs. married, a resident of La Purisima, Cam. Sur, presently
residing
at Banadero, Leg. City (c/o Mrs. Alfredo Manila) reported that on Aug.
13/91, she was tight of a wire on her hand (sic)
(inserted between lines) mauled by his son-in-law (Jesus Paloma) which
resulted to her injuries.
"Sgd. Rosario B. Amorsolo
"Irratum: (sic)
"And her face was covered by a
knapsack and
his (sic) shoulders were swollen. (Amendments
emphasized). "[14]
Nonetheless,
she failed to make similar corrections
in her August 15, 1991 complaint to the police as reflected in the
police
blotter. Consequently, while the barangay blotter stated that her hands
were tied with a wire and her head was covered by a knapsack, the
police
blotter merely showed that she was mauled by appellant Jesus Paloma.
Thus,
there is reason to believe that the charge of serious illegal detention
was a mere afterthought.
This is not all.
Mrs. Amorsolo's unamended complaint
before the barangay appears to have been executed on August 15, at 7
a.m.
Yet, she testified as follows:
"ATTY. BERNALES:
"Q: What time was it when you were
allowed to
go home or set free by the accused?
"A: I was able to go home at ten.
"Q: From the house of the accused when
you were
set free at about ten o'clock where did you go or proceed?
"A: I went to the headquarters.
"Q: Why, what did you do at the
headquarters?
"A: I made a complaint.
"Q: After that after going to the
police,
where did you proceed?
"A: I was advised by the policeman to go
to the
hospital or proceed to the hospital for check-up as to what happened to
me.
"Q: From the hospital where did you
proceed?
"A: From the hospital I went to Banadero
where
I was staying.
"Q: Did you likewise report that to the
officials
of Banadero?
"A: I also made a complaint with the
Barangay
Captain but he was not there so it was the Barangay Secretary who took
down my complaint."[15]
If Mrs.
Amorsolo was indeed released by appellants
at 10:00 a.m. on August 15, 1991, she could not have reported to the
barangay
at 7:00 a.m. To remedy this contradiction, she caused a change in the
barangay
blotter to show that her complaint was executed at 2:00 p.m.
Witness
Bienvenido Mirasol tried to corroborate
Mrs. Amorsolo's story. Again, his testimony should be taken with a
question
mark. First, he has an undue interest in the case at bar. He is not
only
a tenant of the victim but a prospective buyer of the land disputed by
the appellants and the private complainant.[16]
Secondly, his testimony is incredible and inconsistent. His search for
Mrs. Amorsolo on August 14, 1991, just to pay his rent is out of the
ordinary.
Indeed, he testified that his custom was to wait for Mrs. Amorsolo to
come
and collect the rent:
"ATTY. DE VERA (Counsel for the defense):
"Q: Where do you usually pay your house
rentals?
"A: Whenever she goes to Banadero that is
the
time when we pay our house rentals?
"Q: Do you usually look for Mrs. Amorsolo
everytime
you pay your rentals?
"A: No(,) Sir because sometimes she goes
to our
house.
"Q: And the rest of the times that she
does not
visit your house how do you pay the house rentals?
"A: We wait for her.
"Q: You wait for her or she goes to your
house?
You do not usually look for her to pay rentals?
"ATTY. BERNALES (Private prosecutor):
"Irrelevant.
"COURT:
"Witness may answer.
"A: Look for Mrs. Amorsolo whenever
she is
around
when I learn that she is around I look for her to pay my house rental."[17]
Similarly
strange is Mirasol's testimony that he
did not call for help when he discovered that Mrs. Amorsolo was being
held
captive inside Jesus' house. Instead, he went home and waited for two
(2)
weeks before reporting the incident to the Commission on Human Rights.
Just as eyebrow raising is Mirasol's testimony that he discovered Mrs.
Amorsolo's whereabouts by entering an open door in Jesus' house. If a
crime
is being committed inside Jesus' house, it is unlikely that the door
would
be left open.
We also hold that
the medical findings of Dr.
Rogelio Rivera did not confirm Mrs. Amorsolo's claim that her injuries
were caused by the tying of a piece of wire on her hand, to wit:
"ATTY. BERNALES:
"Q: Will you tell us what possibly caused
this
injuries?
"A: It could be caused by tying or if you
have
a bracelet there.
xxx xxx xxx
"ATTY. DE VERA:
"Q: Dr. Rivera, you said that one of the
findings
you stated in the medical certificate is erythema linear, transverse
dorsal
3rd forearm right, which you said a linear reddish discoloration on the
right forearm of the patient. My question is. (sic)
Supposing a person is tied on both hands at the back, would it not be
possible
that both arms would manifest linear discoloration?
A: It depends mam (sic)
on the tightness. If it is very tight, both hands. If it is not so
tight
that part wherein there is struggle would manifest linear discoloration.
"Q: If it is a rope or anything (sic).
If your both hands were tied, is it possible that both arms would
manifest
linear discoloration?
"A: It is possible.
xxx xxx xxx
"Q: Were you able to find any mark of
rope
or
string tied on the wrist?
A: I did not see any."[18]
We proceed from
the assumption that Mrs. Amorsolo's
hands were tied with wire for otherwise she would have escaped from
appellants'
house. If that were so, her hands which were tied with wire for almost
24 hours, as she had alleged in the information, would have borne clear
marks and her injuries would have been more than a reddish
discoloration
on her right forearm. Thus, the medical evidence refutes Mrs.
Amorsolo's
story. Once more, we reiterate the
cardinal
rule that criminal cases rise and fall on the strength of the evidence
presented by the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense
propounded
by the accused.[19]
The prosecution failed to present evidence to prove the guilt of
appellant
spouses beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, they are entitled to mandatory
acquittal.
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Legaspi City, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 5 in
Criminal
Case No. 5617 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant-Spouses Jesus and
Cristina
Paloma are ACQUITTED of the crime charged. No costs.cralaw:red
Regalado and
Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Mendoza, J.,
is on leave.
________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 9.
[2]TSN,
Rosario B. Amorsolo, May 17, 1993, pp. 12.
[3]
TSN, Bienvenido Mirasol, November 11, 1992, pp. 5-18.
[4]
TSN, Dr. Rogelio Rivera, February 10, 1993, pp. 4-13.
[5]
TSN, Salvacion Rognao, April 21, 1993, pp. 3-9.
[6]
TSN, Jesus Paloma, December 14, 1993, pp. 3-15.
[7]
TSN, Cristina Paloma, January 17, 1994, pp. 3-9.
[8]
TSN, Reynante Paloma, February 17, 1994, pp. 2-5.
[9]
Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 39.
[10]
People v. Mercado, 131 SCRA 501 [1984].
[11]
Exhibit "D", Original Record, p. 201.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Exhibit "C", Rollo, p. 200.
[14]
Supra note 11.
[15]
Supra note 2, p. 10.
[16]
Supra note 10.
[17]
Supra note 3, p. 14.
[18]
Supra note 4, pp. 7-8, 11, 13.
[19]
People v. Manlulu, 231 SCRA 700 [1994]. |