G.R. No. L-2427 - People vs. Saliente

On the evening of November 4, 1946, at about 9 o’clock, the defendants, Anatalio Saliente (alias Udtuhan) and Julian Montilla, arrived at the residence of Telesfora Alentejo in the barrio of Umating, Abuyog, Leyte.
They approached the house with a ruse, claiming they had come for Juana Briones—Telesfora’s niece—by order of their “chief.”
Juana Briones, who was staying at the house at the time, refused to comply with their demand.

Upon her refusal, defendant Montilla threatened Juana with a bolo, while defendant Saliente brandished a pistol.
Juana was forcibly taken against her will to Saliente’s house located in the barrio of Tambis, approximately two kilometers away.
It is noted that the defendants were accompanied by some soldiers, although these individuals were neither named nor identified.

Once at Saliente’s house, the defendants revealed that the initial story about their “chief” was merely a ruse.
The true intent was for Montilla to have a private conversation with Juana so he could persuade her to marry him.
Juana clearly expressed her unwillingness to agree to marriage, indicating a lack of consent for any such arrangement.

Juana was held at Saliente’s residence for two nights and one day.
Despite her detention, no attempt was made against her honor, credited largely to the presence of Saliente’s wife.
On the third day, Juana managed to persuade the defendants to take her to the house of her brother, Brigido Enclona, to discuss the matter further.

At Brigido Enclona’s house, Montilla’s father joined and, on behalf of his son, asked for Juana’s hand in marriage.
Juana again rejected the proposal, demonstrating her clear disinterest in a marital union with Montilla.
Despite this, later that same evening, the defendants returned; complaining that Juana had “fooled” them, they forcibly took her back.
During the commotion, Montilla led Juana away while Saliente waited for Brigido Enclona, who was then absent.
Juana, in her bid for safety, warned Enclona on the road of Saliente’s malicious intent, prompting him to flee.
Montilla eventually abandoned Juana, leaving her in an uncertain situation after rejoining Saliente.

Defendant Montilla claimed that the abduction had been carried out with Juana’s consent, citing a prior relationship and the exchange of written notes regarding their intended elopement.

This defense was supported by testimonies from Agustin Jayma and Leonardo Sillar, who purportedly witnessed the written notes.
The court, however, found this claim implausible noting that both parties were illiterate.

Defendant Saliente alleged an alibi, supported solely by his own and his mother’s testimony, which was deemed insufficient in the light of strong counter-evidence.
An ancillary contention involved the reopening of the case after a provisional dismissal and a claim of double jeopardy, which the court rejected due to lack of concrete supporting evidence.

The trial court of Leyte convicted the defendants of the crime of illegal detention.
The specific offense was defined as slight illegal detention under the third paragraph of Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18 (approved on September 25, 1946).
The sentencing parameters were established under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, prescribing:

An indeterminate penalty ranging from a minimum of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day (prision correccional) to a maximum of 7 years, 4 months, and 1 day (prision mayor) as originally imposed by the trial court.
A subsequent modification resulted in an increased maximum period of 8 years, 8 months, and 1 day for prision mayor.
Each defendant was also fined P500.

Whether the defense of consent presented by defendant Montilla based on an alleged intimate relationship and the exchange of notes is sustainable given the evidence of coercion.
The inherent contradiction between a consensual elopement and the presentation of clear acts of abduction and threat.

Assessing the weight of the evidence which demonstrates that Juana did not consent to her detention and the alleged marriage proposal.
The role of corroborative testimonies versus the questionable claims of note exchange, particularly considering the parties’ illiteracy.

Whether the reopening of the case after a provisional dismissal violated the principle of double jeopardy.
The sufficiency of the evidence presented to justify the trial court’s jurisdiction despite the earlier dismissal.

Whether the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and the dwelling were decisive enough to sanction the maximum period of the indeterminate sentence.
The impact, if any, of any unsubstantiated mitigating defenses (such as alleged personal grudges or disputes) on the overall sentencing.