Case Digest (G.R. No. 16805)
Facts:
The case involves Narito alias aNaringa Dadles, accused of the kidnapping of two farmers, Alipio Tehidor and Salvador Alipan, along with their sons, Dionisio Tehidor and Antonio Alipan, from Barangay Amontay, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental on May 24, 1989. Two separate informations were filed against the appellant: one for the kidnapping of Alipio and Dionisio Tehidor, and another for the kidnapping of Salvador and Antonio Alipan, both carrying claims of conspiracy, use of force, and intimidation involving assorted firearms. At the time of the incident, the accused, along with a number of co-accused who remain at large, unlawfully took the victims from their homes without any authority, leaving the families in a state of distress as the victims have not been seen since. Only Narito was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to both counts, leading to a consolidated trial. Witness testimonies indicated that the victims were forcibly taken while the families were awakened by the group'sCase Digest (G.R. No. 16805)
Facts:
- Incident and Charges
- On May 24, 1989, in Barangay Amontay, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental, there was an alleged kidnapping involving two families.
- Four victims were taken: Alipio Tehidor and his son Dionisio, and Salvador Alipan with his son Antonio.
- The appellant, Narito alias aNaringa Dadles, was charged in two separate informations covering:
- The abduction of Alipio and Dionisio Tehidor by the appellant together with five accomplices (aKa Moritoa, aKa Willya, aKa Dindoa, aKa Mikea, and aKa Juanitoa).
- The abduction of Salvador and Antonio Alipan by the appellant together with nine accomplices (including aKa Dindoa, aKa Moritoa, aKa Tiwia, aKa Amaya, aKa Bobbya, aKa Pedroa, aKa Juanitoa, aKa Bernardoa, and aKa Mikea).
- While the other accused remain at large, only the appellant was arraigned and tried.
- Testimonies Regarding the Kidnappings
- Kidnapping of Alipio and Dionisio Tehidor
- Francisca Tehidor testified that at about 11:00 p.m. on May 24, 1989, the appellant and his group visited their residence.
- The group, known to the family from previous visits, was allowed entry by Francisca.
- Despite her request to speak with her husband upstairs, the group insisted on taking him downstairs; subsequently, Morito and the appellant tied the hands of Alipio and Dionisio.
- Under threat to surrender the firearms of their other sons (members of CAFGU), the victims were forcibly taken to an unknown location.
- Since that night, neither Alipio nor Dionisio was seen again by their family.
- Kidnapping of Salvador and Antonio Alipan
- Luzviminda Alipan testified that at around 11:30 p.m., while in their residence, she saw the appellant and his nine companions, all armed, calling at the door.
- The appellant and one accomplice went upstairs, persuading Salvador to come down by assuring that “we will return him tomorrow.”
- Despite initial peaceful compliance, the victims were taken away to an undisclosed location, and like the Tehidors, were never seen again.
- Defense’s Alibi and Counter-Testimony
- The appellant denied any involvement in the kidnappings, interposing an alibi.
- He claimed that at the time of the alleged incidents, he was at the residence of defense witness Rogelio Ariola in Barangay San Pedro.
- According to his account, after delivering fruits the previous day, he stayed overnight at Rogelio’s house after a drinking session.
- Testimony by Rogelio confirmed that the appellant was present at his house until at least 10:00 p.m. on May 24, 1989.
- The defense argued that the alibi proved his physical absence from Barangay Amontay, distancing him from the crime scene.
- Court Proceedings and Conviction
- Both kidnapping cases were consolidated and tried together in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental.
- Despite the defence’s alibi, positive identifications by multiple prosecution witnesses led to the conviction of the appellant on two counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
- The trial court sentenced the appellant to double life imprisonment and ordered him to indemnify each victim’s family with ₱100,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment.
- Appellant’s Arguments on Appeal
- The appellant contended that the trial court improperly favored the evidence of the prosecution over that of the defense.
- He questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by citing:
- Their failure to confront him during subsequent encounters, such as on market days.
- Their delay in reporting the disappearances of their relatives, which he argued cast doubt on their testimonies.
- The defense maintained that the alibi should have created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s participation in the crimes.
Issues:
- Whether the trial court erred in giving undue weight to the evidence of the prosecution, particularly regarding:
- The credibility of the witnesses in light of the delay in reporting the kidnappings.
- The failure of the prosecution witnesses to have confronted the appellant when they had opportunities to do so.
- Whether the defense’s alibi sufficiently established that the appellant was not present at the scene of the crime.
- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally deprived the victims of their liberty through kidnapping.
- Whether the concomitant similar acts (the two kidnappings) could be considered as establishing the appellant’s criminal intent and modus operandi under the doctrine of similar acts.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)