July 17, 2003
Ponente: Per Curiam
FACTS:
·
William Soriano and Marymae Soriano have two
children: Angela Michelle and Kathleen Denise. The Sorianos employed Lea and
Wendy Salingatog as the yayas of their children. During the school year
1997-1998, then five-year-old Angela was in Prep at the Mother of Divine
Providence School in Marikina Heights, Marikina City.
·
On September 3, 1998, Angela's classes had
just ended and she was on her way to her school bus parked outside the school
campus. Unknown to Angela, Alma Bisda and Jenny Rose Basilan were outside of
the school gate waiting for her. The two told her that her parents were
awaiting for her at Jollibee. Angela joined them since she knew Jenny Rose to
be the aunt of her yaya. The three rode a tricycle and went to Jollibee where
Jenny Rose ordered spaghetti for Angela. When Angela did not see her parents,
she wondered why she went with Jenny Rose and Alma in the first place. With
Angela in tow, Alma and Jenny Rose boarded a white taxi and went to a dirty
house where they changed Angela's clothes.
·
When
William's father returned to their home in Marikina, the two household helps
told him that Angela had not yet arrived home from school. He rushed to the
school to fetch Angela, but was informed by the school security guard that his
daughter had already been picked up by two women, one of whom was registered in
the visitors slip as Aileen Corpuz. Because he did not know anyone by that
name, William immediately proceeded to the registrars office to verify the
information, only to find out that Aileen Corpuz had earlier inquired at the
said office about the possibility of transferring Angela to another school. The
school staff panicked when William demanded to know how unknown persons were
able to get his daughter. He then started calling his friends and relatives to
help him locate Angela. He also sought the help of Rizza Hontiveros, a TV
personality who promised to relay his plea to the Presidential Anti-Organized
Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). The school staff also reported the incident to the
Marikina Police Force which dispatched a team of investigators to the Soriano
residence.
·
On September 4, 1998, William's landlady went
to his apartment to tell him that a lady had called up earlier and left a
message for him: "Pakisabi na lang kay Mr. Soriano na kakausapin ko siya
bukas ng umaga." When the landlady asked who the caller was, the voice
replied, "Hindi na importante iyon."
·
On September 5, 1998, William received a call
from an unidentified woman who told him, Kung gusto mo pang makita yong anak
mo, maghanda ka ng five million pesos. He replied, Saan naman ako kukuha ng
five million? Alam mo naman na nakatira lang ako sa apartment. The caller said,
Hindi ko masasagotyan. Tatanungin ko na lang sa aking mga boss. William
informed George of his conversation with the caller. George relayed the
information by means of a hand-held radio to the other PAOCTF operatives
standing by.
·
On September 7, 1998, Marymae received a
telephone call from a woman demanding for ransom money. The caller called two
more times, at 7:00 p.m. and at 9:26 p.m. Marymae pleaded with the caller to
reduce the ransom money to P25,000, or if that was not possible, to an amount
not exceeding P50,000. The caller said, "Hindi ko masasagot iyan. Dadaihin
na lang namin ang bata sa boss namin." Marymae relayed the conversation to
William, their other daughter Kathleen and to George.
·
At about noon of the same day, PAOCTF Chief of
Operations Superintendent Michael Ray Aquino received a tip from an unknown
source informing him that a woman who had talked about a ransom and had acted
in a suspicious manner was spotted at a location in Manila.
·
Based on the tip, PAOCTF operatives conducted
an operation and were able to trace Alma as the caller. The operatives followed
Alma. When Alma unlocked the door to her house, the operatives accosted her.
She tried to escape, to no avail. The cries of a child coming from inside the
house pleading for help were heard: "Tita, ilabas mo ako." SPO4 Tito
Tuanggang rushed to the house and saw the victim Angela. He then carried her
outside to safety. The agents searched the house for evidence and found the
clothes of the child.
·
When informed that his daughter had already
been rescued, William rushed to the PAOCTF headquarters where he and Angela
were reunited. Angela identified Alma as her kidnapper. When William asked Alma
why she kidnapped Angela and what she would do with the ransom she was
demanding, she replied: "Kuya, wag kang maghusga, pareho lang tayong
biktima." When William asked Alma: "Biktima, saan?" Alma
replied: "Ang anak ko, kinidnap din nila."
·
On October 19, 1998, an Information for
kidnapping for ransom was filed against Alma and Jane Doe.
·
On October 26, 1998, at around 11:00 a.m.,
Jenny Rose arrived at the PAOCTF Headquarters in Camp Crame, and proceeded to
P02 Joseph Bagsao's office where she announced that she was one of Alma's
cohorts.
·
The prosecutor later amended the Information
by deleting the name Jane Doe and substituting the name Jenny Rose Basilan y
Payan as the second accused.
·
In her defense, Alma denied having kidnapped
Angela for ransom. When Angela's sworn statement was shown to her, Alma noticed
that Angela did not mention Jenny Rose as one of the two persons who had
kidnapped her. Alma executed a handwritten statement denying the truth of the
contents of Angela's affidavit.
·
Jenny Rose did not testify in her defense.
Instead, she adduced in evidence the letter of Atty. Trampe, Jr., Legal and
Investigation Division Chief of the PAOCTF, to prove that she voluntarily
surrendered and that there was lack of evidence against her.
·
On account of Angela Michelle's testimony, the
trial court held Alma and Jenny Rose guilty of kidnapping for ransom and were
sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of double death by lethal injection,
the two accused having conspired in the commission of the crime.
·
Hence, the instant automatic review.
RULING:
Whether
Angela's testimony should be given full probative weight. – YES.
·
Alma and Jenny Rose aver that Angela's
testimony should not be given any probative value because: (a) records do not
show that Angela had the capacity to distinguish right from wrong when she
testified in open court; (b) Angela was only six-years-old at the time of her
presentation in court; (c) that although Angela took an oath before she
testified, the trial judge failed to ask any questions to determine whether or
not she could distinguish right from wrong, and comprehend the obligation of
telling the truth before the court; and (d) Angela's testimony was inconsistent
on material points and contrary to ordinary human experience.
On
why Angela did not fight back when she was kidnapped:
·
The appellants enveigled Angela into going
with them by telling her that her parents were waiting for her at the Jollibee
Restaurant. Alma poked a knife at Angela and held her hands so tightly that the
helpless child had no recourse but to come along. Alma and Jenny Rose
transported Angela on board a taxi and brought her to Cubao, and then to
Bisda's place in Manila. The two tied her hands, covered her mouth with scotch
tape, and detained her from September 3, 1998 until September 8, 1998, when she
was providentially rescued by the operatives of the PAOCTF.
·
The credibility of Angela and the truth of her
testimony is not impaired by her failure to shout for help when Alma and Jenny
Rose took her, or to make any attempt to call her parents or to escape from her
captors and to use the telephone to call her parents. At five years old, she
could not be expected to act and react to her kidnapping and detention like an
adult should. She did not shout and seek help from the school security guards
because the appellants told Angela that her parents were waiting for her. Jenny
Rose was the niece of Angela's yaya. She then believed that nothing was amiss.
It was only when she failed to see her parents that Angela blamed herself for
going with the appellants in the first place.
·
It is clear that the consent of the child,
obtained by means of persuasion, is no defense, since the result of such
persuasion is just as great an evil as if it had been accomplished by other
means.
·
A kidnapper should not be rewarded with an
acquittal simply because she is ingenious enough to conceal her true motive
from her victim until she is able to transport the latter to another place.
·
Although Angela was free to roam around in the
dirty house, to draw and to watch television during the entire period of her
detention, and was regularly fed and bathed, the appellants are nevertheless
guilty of kidnapping and illegally detaining the five-year-old child. As Judge
McGill of the United States Court of Appeals said in United States v. McCabe,
to accept a childs desire for food, comfort as the type of will or consent
contemplated in the context of kidnapping would render the concept meaningless.
On the
admissibility of Angela's testimony, and on whether Angela could determine
right from wrong:
·
The competency of a person to take the
prescribed oath is a question for the trial court to decide.
·
Any objection to the admissibility of evidence
should be made at the time such evidence is offered or as soon thereafter as the
objection to its admissibility becomes apparent, otherwise the objection will
be considered waived and such evidence will form part of the records of the
case as competent and admissible evidence.
·
In this case, Angela was six years old when
she testified. She took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth before she testified on direct examination. There was nary a
whimper of protest or objection on the part of the appellants to Angela's
competence as a witness and the prosecution's failure to propound questions to
determine whether Angela understood her obligation and responsibility of
telling the truth respecting the matter of her testimony before the court. Alma
and Jenny Rose did not even bother requesting the trial court for leave to
conduct a voir dire examination of Angela. After the prosecution terminated its
direct examination, Alma and Jenny Rose thereafter cross-examined Angela
extensively and intensively on the matter of her testimony on direct
examination. It was only in this appeal that Alma and Jenny Rose raised the
matter for the first time, that there was failure on the part of the
prosecution to examine Angela on the nature of her oath, and to ascertain
whether she had the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. It is too late in
the day for the appellants to raise the issue.
·
The determination of the competence and
capability of a child as a witness rests primarily with the trial judge. The
trial court correctly found Angela a competent witness and her testimony
entitled to full probative weight. Any child regardless of age, can be a
competent witness if she can perceive and perceiving, can make known to others,
and that she is capable of relating truthfully facts for which she is examined.
The Court finds no basis to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the
trial court on the competency of Angela, and the probative weight of her
testimony.
On
the matter of a six-year-old child testifying in open court:
·
Testimonies of child victims are given full
weight and credit. The testimony of children of sound mind is likewise to be
more correct and truthful than that of older persons. Children of sound mind
are likely to be more observant of incidents which take place within their view
than older persons, and their testimonies are likely more correct in detail
than that of older persons.
·
Angela was barely six years old when she
testified. Considering her tender years, innocent and guileless, it is
incredible that Angela would testify falsely that the appellants took her from
the school through threats and detained her in the dirty house for five days.
Ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses
who, much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty
and the experience in testifying before the trial court.
On
the inconsistencies in Angela's testimony:
·
Alma asserts that Angela’s testimony contains
four inconsistencies on material points; hence, is incredible. First, Angela testified
on cross-examination that the appellants approached her but she did not talk to
them. In contrast, Angela testified on cross-examination that she saw appellant
Basilan, and talked to her. Second, Angela testified on direct examination that
she first came to know the identities of the kidnappers when she was brought to
the dirty house. Angela contradicted herself when she testified on
cross-examination that when she was brought to the said house, she already knew
appellant Basilan. Third, Angela testified on direct examination that she went
with the appellants to the Jollibee Restaurant when they held her hands firmly.
On cross-examination, Angela testified that the appellants threatened her when
they kidnapped her by pointing a knife at her which made her cry. Angela
further contradicted herself when she testified on direct examination that the
appellants pointed a knife at her one night. Fourth, Angela said that when she
was in the office of appellant Bisda in Paco, Manila, her feet were tied and her
mouth was covered with scotch tape. However, on cross-examination, Angela
revealed that she was free to roam around and even watched television and made
drawings.
·
Anent the first and second set of
inconsistencies adverted to, he same pertain only to minor and peripheral
matters and not to the principal occurrence or the elements of the crime
charged, and the positive identification of Jenny Rose and Alma. Hence, the
credibility of Angela, and that of her testimony were not impaired by the said
inconsistencies. The overwhelming evidence on record is that no other than
Jenny Rose and Alma kidnapped her from her school and illegally detained her
from September 3 to 8, 1998. Indeed, when asked to point and identify her
kidnappers, Angela did so spontaneously and positively.
·
Jenny Rose did not controvert the evidence of
the prosecution that she was the niece of the yaya of the victim, and that the
said appellant, at one time, went to the Soriano residence where Angela saw and
met her. The victim was, thus, acquainted with appellant Basilan even before
the kidnapping.
·
Angela was not asked by the public prosecutor
whether or not Jenny Rose and Alma threatened her with any weapon before
proceeding to the Jollibee Restaurant. The additional fact was revealed by Angela,
ironically, on cross-examination.
·
The prosecutor tried on re-direct to take
advantage of Angela's revelation but the counsel of the accused, realizing that
he had just committed a faux pas, objected to the questions of the public
prosecutor. It turned out that the latter was himself confused because instead
of adverting to a knife, as testified to by Angela, he blurted that Alma used a
gun in intimidating the victim. Even Angela must have been bewildered by the
repartees of the prosecution and the accused's counsel that, instead of
answering one time, to the questions of the prosecutor, she said one night.
·
Angela’s hand were tied, and her mouth was
covered with scotch tape the day after she was brought to the dirty house.
Angela testified on direct examination on this fact.
·
On cross-examination, Angela testified that on
the day she was rescued, she could watch the television, make drawings and roam
around the room. It is evident that her hands were tied and her mouth covered
with scotch tape the day after she was kidnapped, but that she was free to roam
around the room, practice on her drawings and watch television during the rest
of the period of her detention.
Whether
there is evidence to prove that Alma demanded ransom from Angela's parents. –
YES.
·
Alma and Jenny Rose claim that the victim's
father, William, failed to prove that Alma or Jenny Rose called through the
telephone demanding ransom. The collective testimonies of police operatives
were alleged to be hearsay evidence; hence, barren of probative weight.
·
But the SC held that this contention does not
hold water. Admittedly, the prosecution failed to adduce direct evidence that
Alma or Jenny Rose demanded ransom for the release of the victim. However, the
prosecution adduced circumstantial evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the two women, or at least one of them, demanded ransom from the Soriano
spouses for the release of their daughter.
·
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove
the qualifying circumstance if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
facts from which the inferences are proven; (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The
circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one
fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused to the exclusion of
others as the one who demanded ransom. The circumstances proved must be
consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is
guilty, and that at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except
that of guilty. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and
not on the weakness of that of the appellants.
·
In this case, the chain of circumstantial
evidence adduced by the prosecution proves that no one other than the
appellants or one of them called up the spouses Soriano through the telephone
and demanded ransom of P5,000,000:
o Appellant
Basilan is the niece of Wendy Salingatog, who was for a time the housemaid of
appellant Bisda;
o The appellants
kidnapped Angela shortly before noon on September 3, 1998, and detained her at
No. 1258 Paz Street, Paco, Manila, where appellant Bisda held office;
o The
following morning, William was informed by his landlady that a woman had
earlier called up over the telephone requesting her to inform William that she
(the caller), would call again the next day, September 5, 1998;
o On
September 5, 1998, William received a telephone call from a woman demanding a
ransom of P5,000,000 for Angelas freedom. When William complained that he did
not have the amount, she told William that she cannot be responsible for it and
that she would inquire from her bosses.
o In the
morning of September 7, 1998, Inspector Ricardo Dandan and SPO4 Tito Tuanggang,
acting on an anonymous tip, rushed to the vicinity of No. 1303 Paz Street,
Paco, Manila, the office of the MSC Freight Service, to conduct surveillance
operations. Later in the afternoon, they saw appellant Bisda emerging from a
small house about fifty meters from the office of the MSC Freight Service;
o At about
3:40 p.m. on September 8, 1998, appellant Bisda emerged from the house at No.
1258 Paz Street, and went to the small store near the house. Chief Inspector
Dandan and Tito Tuanggang were about two meters from the store and saw
appellant Bisda enter the same, lift the telephone and talk to someone over the
telephone;
o At about
the same time, William received a telephone call from a woman demanding where
the money was and when William replied that he was ready with P25,000, the woman
replied: Hindi ko masasagot iyan, dadalhin na lang namin ang bata sa aking
boss. When William intimated that he could raise P50,000 but pleaded for more
time to produce the amount, the woman retorted: Hindi ko masasagot iyan.
o After
making the telephone call, appellant Bisda left the store and returned to the
house at No. 1258 Paz Street, Paco, Manila;
o The
operatives from the PAOCTF followed appellant Bisda and confronted her before
she could enter the house. The operatives then barged into the premises of No.
1258 Paz Street where they saw Angela in the room;
o When
William arrived at the PAOCTF office, with Angela that day, he inquired from
appellant Bisda why she kidnapped Angela and what she would do with the
P5,000,000 ransom she was demanding, and the appellant replied: Kuya, wag (sic)
kang nang maghusga, pareho lang tayong biktima. When William asked Alma:
Biktima, saan? The appellant replied: Ang anak ko, kinidnap din nila.
·
In light of the foregoing facts, there can be
no other conclusion than that Alma demanded a ransom of P5,000,000 from William
Soriano; hence, she is guilty of kidnapping for ransom. Being a conspirator,
Jenny Rose is also guilty of the said crime. The penalty for kidnapping for
ransom is death, a single and indivisible penalty. The aggravating circumstance
of use of a motor vehicle (riding a tricycle and taxi) under Article 14,
paragraph 20 of the Revised Penal Code was attendant in the commission of the
crime. However, said circumstance, as well as the voluntary surrender of Jenny
Rose, are inconsequential in the penalties to be imposed on the said
appellants, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.