Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

"G.R. No. 182633 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus LANIE LLAGAS, appellant.

Appellant assails the December 17, 2007 Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision^[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 72, finding her guilty of kidnapping three-year-old Adrian Humirang y Ariate.

Briefly, the facts established by prosecution's evidence are as follows: At around 10 o'clock in the morning of March 4, 2001, Adrian's mother, Melanie Humirang, left Adrian and her husband at their stall in the Sto. Domingo Market, Cainta, Rizal to buy food. When she returned, she was shocked to find out that Adrian was nowhere to be found. Melanie and her husband searched everywhere and sought the help of market personnel and barangay authorities, to no avail. They also reported the incident to the police but still they could not find him. Then, on June 3, 2001, after around 3 months from the time Adrian disappeared, appellant's sister-in-law, Virginia Mendoza, saw by accident Adrian's picture posted outside Melanie's stall and told Melanie that the picture resembles the boy in appellant's custody. Virginia thereafter accompanied Melanie and some members of the MPSO to appellant's house. Appellant was not at home when they arrived so a member of the MPSO peeped through the window and saw a boy lying on the floor. This caused them to enter appellant's house. At first Melanie could not recognize Adrian but she confirmed that the boy was her son through his birthmark. The matter was reported to the barangay office in Sto. Domingo and the barangay officials summoned appellant to their office. In court, Adrian himself testified how appellant took him and how she whipped him with a broom and forced him to call appellant mama Lanie.

The defense, on the other hand, presented appellant and Adrian's mother, Melanie. Appellant claimed that she did not kidnap Adrian. She testified that she found Adrian alone and crying in the market so she helped him look for his parents. When she failed to find Adrian's mother, she brought him home with her. Appellant also testified that she even reported the matter to the barangay office. Melanie, meanwhile, recanted her testimony against appellant, claiming that she was not certain that it was appellant who took Adrian.

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The RTC found that Adrian's testimony clearly identified appellant as the kidnapper, and he positively recounted the traumatic experiences he endured in appellant's hands. The trial court found that appellant indeed deprived Adrian, a minor, of his liberty for no less than three months. It did not give credence to appellant's claim that she was merely taking care of Adrian because he was separated from his parents.

As aforesaid, the CA on appeal affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Hence, this appeal by a notice of appeal filed on January 11, 2008.

After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the CA affirming appellant's conviction. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court. Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses.^[3] Here, it is undisputed that Adrian was in the control of appellant for more than three months as he was kept in a place strange and unfamiliar to him. And while the general rule is that the prosecution is burdened to prove lack of consent on the part of the victim, where the victim is a minor, lack of consent is presumed.^[4] Appellant notably failed to present competent evidence to overcome such presumption. More, in appellant's self-serving testimony that she was merely helping Adrian who was allegedly lost, she admitted taking him into her custody for more than three months.

However, an award of damages is called for. Based on prevailing jurisprudence, P50.000 civil indemnity and P50,000 moral damages must be awarded.^[5]cralaw

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The December 17, 2007 Court of Appeals� Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01243 affirming the conviction of appellant Lanie Llagas is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Lanie Llagas is ordered to pay Adrian Humirang y Ariate moral damages in the amount of P50,000 and civil indemnity of P50,000.

Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the civil indemnity and moral damages from finality of this Decision until fully paid shall likewise be paid by appellant to Adrian Humirang y Ariate.

With costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED." DEL CASTILLO, J,. took no part; PERALTA, J., designated additional member per raffle dated 11 April 2012.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 2-12. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court), and Romeo F. Barza concurring.

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 5-9. Penned by Judge Ruth D. Cruz-Santos. 

^[3] People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 277, 280-281, citing People v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 682, 696-697. 

^[4] People v. Siongco, G.R. No. 186472, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 501, 512. 

^[5] People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 489, 521 and People v. Madsali, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2011, 611 SCRA 596, 622.