Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
EN BANC .
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
148228
December 4, 2003
-versus-
PAMPING PAINGIN,
GITONG MALDUMAN,
AND THREE (3) JOHN
DOES,
Accused.
PAMPING PAINGIN,
Appellant.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO,
J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from
the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro
("Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. C-4970, finding appellant Pamping
Paingin ("Appellant") guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Charge
On 23 May 1996, an Information[2]
for kidnapping was filed with the trial court against appellant, Gitong
Malduman and three John Does. The accusatory portion of the Information
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or
about the 3rd of May, 1995 at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, in
Barangay Paitan, Municipality of Naujan, Province of Oriental Mindoro,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused, being then private individuals, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously kidnap one PATI PANINDIGAN, 18 years old depriving the
latter of his liberty and inflicting upon him physical injuries, and up
to the present, said PATI PANINDIGAN has not returned.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Assisted by counsel
de officio, appellant on 27 January 1997 pleaded not guilty to the
charge.[3]
Gitong Malduman and the three John Does remained at large.
After trial, Judge
Tomas C. Leynes rendered a decision on 17 April 2001 finding appellant
guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY,
the Court finds herein accused Pamping Paingin y Alisia guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt as principal of the crime of Kidnapping punishable under Art. 267
of the Revised Penal Code. There being no mitigating and aggravating
circumstances
present in the instant case, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs. The accused is
hereby ordered to pay the mother of the victim Pati Panindigan, the
amount
of P100,000.00 by way of moral damages caused by anxiety of being
emotionally
drained coupled by the fact that up to this date, they cannot determine
the whereabouts of her son, Pati Panindigan.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The said accused
shall
be credited with the full time during which he had undergone preventive
imprisonment provided that said accused agreed voluntarily in writing
to
abide with the disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners,
otherwise,
he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths
(4/5)
of the time during which he had undergone preventive imprisonment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering that
accused
Gitong Malduman is still at large, the case against said accused still
stands. Let alias warrant of arrest be issued against said accused
Gitong
Malduman.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.
Insisting on his
innocence, appellant filed this appeal.
The Facts
Version of the
Prosecution
The prosecution presented
four witnesses, namely: Elena Panindigan, Talya Bunilya, Macoy
Panindigan
and Narding Aguniag.
The Office of the
Solicitor
General ("OSG") culled the prosecution's version of the incident from
the
testimonies of its witnesses, as follows:
Around 1:00 o'clock
in the afternoon of May 3, 1995, Elena Panindigan (testified that she)
saw appellant while she was in front of their house at Sitio Loog,
Barangay
Paitan, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, taking care of her three (3)
children,
namely: Marcelina, Umlak and Dino. (p. 7, TSN, August 25, 1997)
Momentarily, Pati Panindigan,
Elena's eighteen-year old son, arrived and requested that the sweet
potatoes
he brought be roasted. (p. 8, Ibid.)
While Elena was roasting
the sweet potatoes, she heard the shout of Pati which prompted her to
rush
out of their house. She saw appellant, with Gitong Malduman and three
(3)
other persons who she did not know, standing behind Pati at a distance
of about ten (10) meters from where she stood. (p. 13, Ibid) Suddenly,
appellant hit Pati on his neck with a piece of wood measuring around
one-half
(1/2) inch[4]
long and three (3) inches in diameter while Gitong Malduman stood in
front
of Pati. This caused Pati to fall to the ground. (pp. 8–9, Ibid.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter, appellant,
with the help of Gitong, carried Pati on his shoulder and together with
their companions, proceeded towards the direction of Sitio Balyaso
through
the cogonal area. (p. 11, Ibid.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Elena got scared and
could not do anything but cry. After the group left, Elena reported the
incident to their Chieftain, Talya Bunilya. To date, Pati has not been
found. (pp. 13–14, Ibid.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Narding Aguniag testified
that on May 3, 1995, he saw appellant dragging Pati with both his hands
at Sitio Loog, Paitan. (p. 8, TSN, May 4, 2000) Narding was merely
twenty
five (25) meters away when he saw appellant with Gitong Malduman and
their
three (3) companions. (p. 9, Ibid.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Version of the
Defense
For its part, the defense
presented three witnesses, namely: appellant himself, Aquilino Maldoman
and Pinoy Uskado.cralaw:red
The Public Attorney's
Office summarized the defense's version of the incident as follows:
When he
took
the witness stand, accused Pamping Paingin, 53 years old, married,
farmer,
and a resident of Sitio Baracan, Brgy. Tagumpay, Baco, Oriental
Mindoro,
denied having committed the offense imputed to him and invoked the
defense
of alibi. He testified among others, that: he has been residing in
Sitio
Baracan, Brgy. Tagumpay, Baco, Oriental Mindoro since childhood and he
has not gone to Paitan, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. He does not know the
victim and he only came to know the victim's mother during the hearing
of this case. He does not also know his co-accused Gitong Malduman.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to him,
on
03 May 1995, he and 15 other Mangyans harvested palay on 3 rice paddies
at Sitio Baracan, Brgy. Tagumpay, Baco, Oriental Mindoro from 7:00
o'clock
in the morning up to 1:30 in the afternoon. At about 3:30 in the
afternoon,
they left the land and proceeded to their homes. He arrived at his
residence
at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. The following day or on 04 May
1995, they brought their palay to the Progressive Rice Mill in Calapan
City. On 27 May 1995, he was apprehended by a certain Biste, Romer
Carubay
and their companions in Sitio Baracan. The group tied him up
thereafter.
When he asked Biste why they did so, the latter told him that Elena
Panindigan
filed a case against him regarding the loss of the victim. He was tied
to a bangkal tree near Biste's residence for about 30 days. His hands
were
tied with a plastic rope while his chest was tied with the rope used in
tying a carabao. After said period, policemen arrived and ordered Biste
to untie and release him. He then went to Mamburao because Biste and
Maerlan
filed a case against him in the municipal court. When the case did not
prosper, he proceeded to the house of his granddaughter. He returned to
Sitio Baracan in the month of August 1995. (TSN, pp. 2–14, 3 February
1995;
pp. 2–11, 31 February 1999)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Aquilino Maldoman
corroborated
Paingin's testimony to the effect that the accused and several other
persons
harvested palay in Bacungan, Baco, Oriental Mindoro from 7:00 o'clock
in
the morning up to 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 3 May 1995. The
following
day, he and the accused planted bananas on the land owned by Tinay
Maliglig,
the accused's landlord. From 03 May 1995 up to the time that accused
was
arrested and detained at the Provincial Jail Center, he never left
Sitio
Baracan, Baco, Oriental Mindoro. (TSN, pp. 2–24, 3 November 1999)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused's
testimony
was further corroborated by Pinoy Uskado, Barangay Captain of Dulangan
III, Baco, Oriental Mindoro who declared that on 03 May 1995, the
accused
and 30 other members of the farmers' cooperative harvested palay on a
total
of 22 hectares of land. He averred that in the month of May 1995, they
harvested from morning until afternoon for a period of two (2) weeks.
Being
the president of the farmers' cooperative, he monitored the attendance
of the members at noontime and in the afternoon; he knew the victim and
came to learn from the latter's children that the victim was allegedly
abducted by soldiers in Sitio Baracan sometime in December 1995. Said
victim
was allegedly brought to Naujan, Oriental Mindoro but he did not report
the incident to the authorities. He further testified that it will take
3 days on foot to negotiate the distance from Sitio Baracan, Baco,
Oriental
Mindoro to Sitio Loog in Paitan, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. (TSN, pp.
2–23,
24 November 1998)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Trial Court's
Ruling
The prosecution and
the defense presented conflicting versions of what happened on 3 May
1995
in Sitio Loog, Barangay Paitan, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro ("Loog,
Paitan").
Accordingly, the trial court declared that the resolution of the case
hinges
on the credibility, probability and truthfulness of the testimonies of
the prosecution and the defense witnesses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court found
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Elena Panindigan ("Elena") and
Narding Aguniag ("Narding") clear, convincing and credible. The trial
court
stressed that these witnesses testified "with the deepest sincerity and
candor to the court." On the other hand, the trial court found the
testimonies
of appellant and the other defense witnesses unbelievable and unworthy
of credence. Compared to Elena and Narding's testimonies, the trial
court
observed that appellant and his witnesses were simply "not telling the
truth."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court further
held that appellant's alibi is weak and cannot stand against Elena and
Narding's positive identification of the appellant. The trial court
pointed
out that the testimonies of appellant and his corroborating witness
Aquilino
Maldoman ("Aquilino") suffered from serious and glaring
inconsistencies.
For one, appellant testified that after harvesting rice stalks or
palay,
appellant and his companions including Aquilino left the field at 3:30
in the afternoon and proceeded to their respective houses. Appellant
arrived
at his house at around 4:00 in the afternoon. However, Aquilino
testified
that after harvesting palay, they proceeded to Aquilino's house and
engaged
in story telling up to 7:00 in the evening. Next, appellant testified
that
the following day, on 4 May 1995, he brought his harvest to Progressive
Rice Mill in Calapan City. On the other hand, Aquilino testified that
the
following day, he and appellant planted bananas on the land owned by
appellant's
landlord Tinay Maliglig. Moreover, the trial court ruled that appellant
failed to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be
at
the scene of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission. The trial court considered that Loog, Paitan where the
crime
allegedly happened can be reached by foot from Baracan, Tagumpay (where
appellant claimed to be) within 2 hours only.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Issue
In his brief, appellant
assigns as lone error that —
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT
PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[5]
Appellant contends that
(1) the prosecution failed to prove the elements constituting the crime
of kidnapping or serious illegal detention; (2) the trial court should
have given credence to his alibi as two of his witnesses corroborated
his
alibi; and (3) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene
of the crime.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For the State, the
OSG maintains that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt
appellant's
guilt for kidnapping and that the trial court correctly imposed on
appellant
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is without
merit.cralaw:red
To sustain a conviction
for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of the
Revised
Penal Code,[6]
the prosecution must establish these elements: (1) the offender is a
private
individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner
deprives
the victim of his liberty; (3) the act of kidnapping or detention is
illegal;
and (4) in the commission of the offense any of the following
circumstances
is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three
days;
(b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious
physical
injuries are inflicted on the victim or threats to kill are made; or
(d)
the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public officer.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Actual Restraint
of the Victim
Appellant argues that
the prosecution failed to establish the element of actual restraint or
detention of the victim. Appellant points out that although the
victim's
mother allegedly saw appellant hit and then carry the victim away, it
is
not clear whether appellant intended to kidnap the victim. This
uncertainty
is compounded by the prosecution's failure to present any motive on the
part of appellant. The disappearance as well as the failure of the
victim
to return to his family is subject to many speculations and
conjectures.
The victim may have opted not to return to his family for reasons only
known to him. Appellant contends he may be guilty of a lesser crime but
certainly not as charged in the information.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
These arguments fail
to persuade.cralaw:red
The primary element
of the crime of kidnapping is actual confinement, detention and
restraint
of the victim.[8]
There must be a showing of actual confinement or restriction of the
victim,
and that such deprivation was the intention of the malefactor. An
accused
is liable for kidnapping when the evidence adequately proves that he
forcefully
transported, locked up or restrained the victim.[9]
There must exist indubitable proof that the actual intent of the
malefactor
was to deprive the victim of his liberty. The restraint of liberty must
not arise merely as an incident to the commission of another offense
that
the offender primarily intended to commit.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution's evidence
clearly established that the accused actually restrained and forcefully
transported the victim to an unknown place. Elena Panindigan testified
that she saw appellant hit the victim Pati Panindigan ("Pati") on the
neck
with a piece of wood which caused him to fall. Thereafter, appellant
with
his co-accused Gitong Malduman's help carried Pati on his shoulder.
Elena
saw appellant's group proceed towards the direction of Sitio Balyaso
passing
through the cogonal area. Equally important is Narding's testimony
corroborating
Elena's. Narding testified that he actually saw appellant together with
his companions dragging Pati away.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, actual
restraint of the victim's liberty was evident from the moment appellant
clubbed the victim on the neck. Appellant not only restricted Pati's
freedom
of movement, but appellant's blow also disabled the victim from
resisting
appellant's criminal design. This facilitated accused's capacity to
carry
physically Pati to an unknown place. Obviously, this constitutes
forcible
taking. The circumstances surrounding Pati's disappearance are
indubitable
proof of a purposeful or knowing action by appellant to forcibly take
the
victim. The actual taking indicated an intention to deprive the victim
of his liberty.[11]
In this case, appellant and his companions actually took Pati away. For
kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary to place the victim in an
enclosed
place. It is sufficient to detain or deprive him in any manner of his
liberty.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Pati's failure to resurface
after the forcible taking does not bar conviction for the crime of
kidnapping.
In People v. Bernal,[13]
where the victim also disappeared after the forcible taking, the Court
held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court notes that
up to this day, neither the victim nor his body has been found. This,
however,
does not preclude the Court from ruling on the merits of the case. In
kidnapping,
what is important is to determine and prove the fact of seizure, and
the
subsequent disappearance of the victim will not exonerate an accused
from
prosecution therefor. Otherwise, kidnappers can easily avoid punishment
by the simple expedient of disposing of their victims' bodies. (Emphasis
supplied) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the time the trial
court decided this case, the victim was still missing. Indeed, his
kidnapping
had far exceeded three days. Considering the circumstances, it is safe
to assume that Pati Panindigan is already dead since he has disappeared
for more than eight years.[14]
Appellant's motive is not even relevant. Motive is not an element of
the
crime of kidnapping.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In sum, we find that
the prosecution has proven all the elements of kidnapping: (1)
appellant
is a private individual; (2) he kidnapped Pati; (3) the act of
kidnapping
was illegal; and (4) the kidnapping had exceeded three days.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Denial and Alibi
of Appellant
We do not find appellant's
alibi sufficiently believable although corroborated by Aquilino and
Pinoy
Uskado ("Pinoy"). Appellant's alibi that he was with[15]
other Mangyans harvesting palay from 7:00 in the morning up to 1:30 in
the afternoon in Sitio Baracan, Barangay Tagumpay, Baco, Oriental
Mindoro
("Baracan, Tagumpay") at the time of the alleged kidnapping is not only
inherently weak but also evidently unreliable. Appellant's claim that
he
has never been to Loog, Paitan where the kidnapping took place does not
inspire belief.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Pinoy declared that
he was sure of appellant's presence in Baracan, Tagumpay on the day of
the kidnapping because as President of the Farmer's Cooperative he
monitored
the attendance of the member farmers at noon and later in the
afternoon.
To show physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime,
Pinoy
further testified that it ordinarily takes three days to travel by foot
the distance between the two towns, Loog, Paitan and Baracan, Tagumpay.
The defense asserted that appellant could not have made it back to the
field in time for the checking of attendance in the afternoon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court correctly
rejected appellant's alibi. First, the inconsistencies between the
testimonies
of appellant and Aquilino, extensively discussed in the trial court's
decision,
cast doubt on the veracity of the alibi. Second, appellant unwittingly
admitted during cross-examination that Loog, Paitan may be reached by
public
transportation from Baracan, Tagumpay and that he prefers to ride
rather
than walk. Appellant testified:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: How far
is sitio Baracan from barangay Paitan?
A: If you are
going
to ride a passenger jeep you will be charged P35.00 as transportation
fee,
sir.
Q: But you can go
to
barangay Paitan by not passing Calapan?
A: We cannot avoid
to
pass Calapan, sir.
Q: Is it not a
fact
that Mangyans like to negotiate from Baracan to Paitan routes by the
mountain?
A: I am not used
to
walking, I ride passenger vehicles, sir.[16] chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This portion of
appellant's
testimony demolishes his earlier claim that he is not familiar with and
has never gone to Loog, Paitan. This also demolishes Pinoy's testimony
that the distance between Loog, Paitan and Baracan, Tagumpay may be
negotiated
only by foot. Since appellant is knowledgeable about the exact
transportation
fare for a jeepney ride between these two (2) towns, his claim that he
has never gone beyond Baracan, Tagumpay and that he is not familiar
with
Loog, Paitan, truly taxes one's credulity. Third, in the face of the
clear
and positive identification made by Elena and Narding, appellant's
alibi
hardly assumes probative value. Appellant's alibi goes even farther
down
the drain in the absence of any evidence of ill motive on the part of
Elena
and Narding to impute so grave a wrong to appellant.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A conviction must stand
on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution, and not
on
the weakness of the defense presented by the accused. Here, we find
that
the prosecution evidence sufficiently proves the appellant's guilt
beyond
reasonable doubt. Appellant does not even attempt to assail the
credibility
of the prosecution witnesses. Rightfully so, as this would be an
exercise
in futility. We find no reason to deviate from the trial court's
assessment
of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court correctly
imposed on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance
with
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. We likewise affirm the award of
P100,000 as moral damages. Undoubtedly, the victim's family has
suffered
serious anxiety and great distress in the uncertainty of seeing Pati
again.[18]
WHEREFORE, the appealed
Decision dated 17 April 2001 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40,
Calapan
City, Oriental Mindoro, in Criminal Case No. C-4790, finding appellant
Pamping Paingin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua,
and
ordering him to pay the victim's mother P100,000 in moral damages, is
AFFIRMED
in toto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Tomas C. Leynes.
[2]
Records, pp. 1–2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Ibid., p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
This should be meter. TSN dated 25 August 1997, p. 9.
[5]
Rollo, p. 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Art. 267, The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
reads: 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: (1)
If
the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three (3) days;
(2) If it shall have been committed simulating public authority; (3) If
any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made;
(4) If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when
the
accused is any of the parents, female, or a public officer.
a. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was
committed
for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person,
even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the
commission
of the offense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention
or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
maximum
penalty shall be imposed.
[7]
People v. Villamar, 358 Phil. 886 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People v. Ubongen, G.R. No. 126024, 20 April 2001, 357 SCRA 142.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
People v. De la Cruz, 342 Phil. 854 (1997); People v. Sinoc, 341 Phil.
355 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People v. Acbangin, G.R. No. 117216, 9 August 2000, 337 SCRA 454.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
G.R. No. 113685, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 197.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Article 390 and 391(3) of the Civil Code of the Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People v. Acbangin, supra, see note 11; People v. Bernal, supra, see
note
13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN dated 31 May 1999, pp. 3–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People v. Ramos, 358 Phil. 261 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People v. Silongan, G.R. No. 137182, 24 April 2003; People v. Baldogo,
G.R. No. 128106-07, 24 January 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |