July 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > July 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181032 : July 28, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ARMANDO MALANO Y TRINIANES :
[G.R. No. 181032 : July 28, 2008]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ARMANDO MALANO Y TRINIANES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated 28 July, 2008
G.R. No. 181032 ( People of the Philippines v. Armando Malano y Trinianes)
This is an appeal from August 30, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeal (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00828 entitled People of the Philippines v. Armando Malano y Trinianes, affirming the February 26, 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18 in Tagaytay City in Criminal Case No. TG-2740-97 which found accused-appellant Armando Malano y Trinianes guilty of Kidnapping for Ransom.
The antecedents follow.
On January 30, 1997, at around 3:00 p.m., five-year old Keisam Bautista was plating at his family�s backyard in Amadeo, Cavite. He was with the Bautista�s house helper, Jennalyn Mandane. A man then suddenly appeared, covered Keisam�s mouth, and forcibly brought him towards a coffee plantation. Jennalyn recognized the man as herein accused-appellant.
A ransom note was later delivered to Keisam�s parents for PhP 10 million, which was later reduced to PhP 8 million. Four days later, Keisam was found abandoned in a school in Amadeo.
On February 3, 1997, the Imus Police informed the Bautistas that they had a suspect, who turned out to be accused-appellant.
On March 4, 1997, an information for Kidnapping for Ransom was filed against accused-appellant, which reads:
After a trial on the merits, the RTC disposed of the case as follows:
Before the CA, accused-appellant asserted that there was no positive identification by prosecution witness of the kidnapper and that his defenses of denial and alibi were more credible.
On August 30, 2007, the CA disposed the case as follows:
The appellate court found Keisam�s testimony credible, truthful and worthy of full weight and credit. It likewise observed that his testimony was materially corroborated by Jennalyn, the Bautista�s house helper, who identified accused-appellant as the man who carried Keisam away.
The CA held that the positive identification of accused-appellant as Keisam�s kidnapper prevails over the alibi proffered by accused-appellant. Furthermore, the CA ruled that he was not able to prove any ill motive to justify the fabrication of charges by Keisam and his parents.
On September 12, 2007, accused-appellant filed with this Court his Notice of Appeal of the CA decision.
On March 12, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The partied manifested their desire to submit the case on the basis of the pleadings already before the Court.
Accused-appellant presents the following issues before us:
We hold otherwise. While initially the identity of Keisam�s kidnapper was unknown to the child, he testified during cross-examination that it was accused-appellant who tied dim to a tree, changed his clothes, and gave him meals for four days. He was certain about accused-appellant�s identity, as accused-appellant no longer covered his face with cloth after Keisam�s afternoon abduction.
The testimony of the Bautista�s house keeper Jennalyn, serves to buttress the prosecution evidence and corroborated Keisam�s story. She testified that she saw accused-appellant near the Bautista�s home two days before the kidnapping and identified accused-appellant as the man who abducted Keisam. She was able to positively identify accused-appellant, as he had already removed the cloth covering his face when she looked back.
In contrast, the defense presented accused-appellant and his father to prove that accused-appellant was home at the time of the kidnapping. This alibi, however, does not prove the impossibility of accused-appellant being at the scene of the crime, which was just 100 meters away from where he lives. As we have held before, it is not enough to prove that the defendant where somewhere else when the crime was committed. The defendant should also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[4]
Accused-appellant also seems to imply that Keisam�s mother coached the child to identify accused-appellant as the child�s kidnapper. As observed by the appellate court, accused-appellant was unable to show any ill motive that would lead the Bautistas to false accuse him of such a serious crime. Absent ill motive, the conclusion can be drawn that their act of charging accused-appellant with kidnapping comes from a legitimate desire to bring him to justice.[5]
In light of the positive identification of accused-appellant by Keisam, Jennalyn, and other prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant�s alibi is worthless.[6]
On the matter of civil liability, we modify the award by the CA of moral damages. Under Article 2219(5) of the New Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest or analogous cases. In the instant case, it was shown that Keisam was forcibly taken by accused-appellant from his home, with his mouth covered. He was tied to a coffee tree and held captive for almost four days. As held by the CA, the mental, physical, and psychological trauma inflicted on Keisam during his abduction, as well as the ordeal suffered by his parents while he was missing, justifies the award of moral damages.[7] We, however, increase the award to PhP 200,00 considering that Keisam was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense.[8]
We likewise affirm the award of exemplary damages. This is to serve as a deterrent against those who prey on children and other defenseless victims.[9]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 30, 2007 Decision of the CA in C.A. in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00828, finding accused-appellant Armando Malano y Trinianes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping for Ransom, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is increased to PhP 200,00.
SO ORDERED. Tinga, J., on official leave; Corona, J., designed additional member pursuant to Special Order No. 512.
G.R. No. 181032 ( People of the Philippines v. Armando Malano y Trinianes)
This is an appeal from August 30, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeal (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00828 entitled People of the Philippines v. Armando Malano y Trinianes, affirming the February 26, 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18 in Tagaytay City in Criminal Case No. TG-2740-97 which found accused-appellant Armando Malano y Trinianes guilty of Kidnapping for Ransom.
The antecedents follow.
On January 30, 1997, at around 3:00 p.m., five-year old Keisam Bautista was plating at his family�s backyard in Amadeo, Cavite. He was with the Bautista�s house helper, Jennalyn Mandane. A man then suddenly appeared, covered Keisam�s mouth, and forcibly brought him towards a coffee plantation. Jennalyn recognized the man as herein accused-appellant.
A ransom note was later delivered to Keisam�s parents for PhP 10 million, which was later reduced to PhP 8 million. Four days later, Keisam was found abandoned in a school in Amadeo.
On February 3, 1997, the Imus Police informed the Bautistas that they had a suspect, who turned out to be accused-appellant.
On March 4, 1997, an information for Kidnapping for Ransom was filed against accused-appellant, which reads:
That on or about January 30, 1997 at around 3:00 o�clock in the afternoon in the Municipality of Amadeo, Province of Cavite and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused while confederating, conspiring and mutually helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away five (5) year old Keisam Bautista against his will and brought him to an unknown place and he was detained and deprived of his liberty for the purpose of demanding money from his parents as a condition for his release as the said accused did in fact demand for TEN MILLION PESOS for the release of the boy which was later reduced to EIGHT MILLION PESOS.Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. In his defense, accused-appellant claimed that he never left his house on the day of the kidnapping incident. His father, Avelino, corroborated his story by stating that he saw his son at home. Accused-appellant told Avelino that he would not be reporting for work that day.
After a trial on the merits, the RTC disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Armando Malano y Trinianes to be �GUILTY� of the crime of �Kidnapping for Ransom� as defined and penalized under the provisions of republic Act No. 7659, otherwise known as �The heinous Crime Law,� which took effect on January 1, 1994 and hereby sentences him to suffer the extreme penalty of �DEATH.�Accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision to this Court. On March 8, 2005, we issued a Resolution transferring the case to the CA in accordance with People v. Mateo.[2]
SO ORDERED.[1]
Before the CA, accused-appellant asserted that there was no positive identification by prosecution witness of the kidnapper and that his defenses of denial and alibi were more credible.
On August 30, 2007, the CA disposed the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Armando Malano y TRINIANES is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is likewise ordered to pay the amount of P 100,000.00 and P50,00.00 as moral and exemplary damages, respectively.The CA ruled that Keisam positively, unerringly spontaneously identified accused-appellant as his kidnapper, as Keisam testified that he saw accused-appellant�s face when the latter tied him to a tree and that he saw the faces of accused-appellant and his companion when they fed him.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The appellate court found Keisam�s testimony credible, truthful and worthy of full weight and credit. It likewise observed that his testimony was materially corroborated by Jennalyn, the Bautista�s house helper, who identified accused-appellant as the man who carried Keisam away.
The CA held that the positive identification of accused-appellant as Keisam�s kidnapper prevails over the alibi proffered by accused-appellant. Furthermore, the CA ruled that he was not able to prove any ill motive to justify the fabrication of charges by Keisam and his parents.
On September 12, 2007, accused-appellant filed with this Court his Notice of Appeal of the CA decision.
On March 12, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The partied manifested their desire to submit the case on the basis of the pleadings already before the Court.
Accused-appellant presents the following issues before us:
Accused-appellant claims that the identity of the real culprit was not clearly established as the victim testified that the kidnapper�s face was covered with cloth. He also argues that the boy was coached by his mother to call him �Kuya (Brother) Arman.�I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION WITNESS, PARTICULARLY THE VICTIM AND JENNALYN MANDANE, HAD POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED THE
ACCUSED-APPEALANT DESPITE THEIR ADMISIONS THAT THE KIDNAPPER�S FACE WAS COVEREDII
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN TOTTALITY DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED ACCUSED-APPEALANT�S DENIAL AND ALIBI ALTHOUGH THE SAME WERE MORE CREDIBLEIII
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVINCING THE ACCUSED-APPEALANT OF THE CRIME CHRAGED BASED ON REASONABLE DOUBT
We hold otherwise. While initially the identity of Keisam�s kidnapper was unknown to the child, he testified during cross-examination that it was accused-appellant who tied dim to a tree, changed his clothes, and gave him meals for four days. He was certain about accused-appellant�s identity, as accused-appellant no longer covered his face with cloth after Keisam�s afternoon abduction.
The testimony of the Bautista�s house keeper Jennalyn, serves to buttress the prosecution evidence and corroborated Keisam�s story. She testified that she saw accused-appellant near the Bautista�s home two days before the kidnapping and identified accused-appellant as the man who abducted Keisam. She was able to positively identify accused-appellant, as he had already removed the cloth covering his face when she looked back.
In contrast, the defense presented accused-appellant and his father to prove that accused-appellant was home at the time of the kidnapping. This alibi, however, does not prove the impossibility of accused-appellant being at the scene of the crime, which was just 100 meters away from where he lives. As we have held before, it is not enough to prove that the defendant where somewhere else when the crime was committed. The defendant should also demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[4]
Accused-appellant also seems to imply that Keisam�s mother coached the child to identify accused-appellant as the child�s kidnapper. As observed by the appellate court, accused-appellant was unable to show any ill motive that would lead the Bautistas to false accuse him of such a serious crime. Absent ill motive, the conclusion can be drawn that their act of charging accused-appellant with kidnapping comes from a legitimate desire to bring him to justice.[5]
In light of the positive identification of accused-appellant by Keisam, Jennalyn, and other prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant�s alibi is worthless.[6]
On the matter of civil liability, we modify the award by the CA of moral damages. Under Article 2219(5) of the New Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest or analogous cases. In the instant case, it was shown that Keisam was forcibly taken by accused-appellant from his home, with his mouth covered. He was tied to a coffee tree and held captive for almost four days. As held by the CA, the mental, physical, and psychological trauma inflicted on Keisam during his abduction, as well as the ordeal suffered by his parents while he was missing, justifies the award of moral damages.[7] We, however, increase the award to PhP 200,00 considering that Keisam was a minor at the time of the commission of the offense.[8]
We likewise affirm the award of exemplary damages. This is to serve as a deterrent against those who prey on children and other defenseless victims.[9]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 30, 2007 Decision of the CA in C.A. in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00828, finding accused-appellant Armando Malano y Trinianes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping for Ransom, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is increased to PhP 200,00.
SO ORDERED. Tinga, J., on official leave; Corona, J., designed additional member pursuant to Special Order No. 512.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] CA rollo, pp.35-36. Penned by Judge Alfonso S. Garcia.
[2] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 443 Scra 640
[3] Rollo, p. 21. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guari�a III and Romeo F. Barza.
[4] People v. Malejana, G.R. No. 145002, January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 610, 624.
[5] People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 125898, April 14, 2004, 421 SCRA 207, 213.
[6] Velasco v. People G.R. No. 166479, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 649, 664.
[7] Rollo, p. 20, See People v. Garalde, G.R. No. 173055, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 327,355.
[8] People v. Garalde, supra.
[9] People v. Morales, G.R. No. 148518, April 15, 2004, 427 SCRA 765,789.
