Case Digest (G.R. No. 121365)
Facts:
The case involves the appellant, Macapanton Salimbago, who was indicted and tried for the crimes of kidnapping with ransom and serious illegal detention. The events giving rise to the case occurred on January 6, 1993, in Pasay City, Philippines. On that morning, Mrs. Rosita Chua was driving her two children, Stanley and Jermyn, to school, accompanied by their maid, Elizabeth Luega, and family driver, Bartolome Mabuti. Their vehicle was impounded by two other cars, and three men, who claimed to be agents of the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS), forcibly entered their vehicle. The three men subsequently abducted the Chua family and took them to various locations, ultimately detaining them in a sugar cane field near Tanauan, Batangas.
While in captivity, the victims were blindfolded, their hands tied, and were subject to threats and violence. One notable incident involved the appellant sexually assaulting Luega while armed. The captives remained in a makeshift hut in the sugar
Case Digest (G.R. No. 121365)
Facts:
- Overview of the Case
- The accused, Macapanton Salimbago, was indicted and tried for kidnapping with ransom and serious illegal detention.
- The crime involved the abduction of members of the Chua family along with their household staff during a morning trip on January 6, 1993.
- The incident occurred in the vicinity of Park and Taft Avenues, Pasay City, and later in a sugar cane field at Sitio Malipa, Barangay Malaking Pulo, Tanauan, Batangas.
- Sequence of Events Leading to the Crime
- Abduction at the Start of the Incident
- Between 6:00 and 7:00 A.M., Mrs. Rosita Chua was driving her family to school with her two children, Stanley and Jermyn, along with maid Elizabeth Luega and driver Bartolome Mabuti.
- A dark-blue car blocked the family’s vehicle at a strategic point near their route, and three men emerged from vehicles identifying themselves as CIS agents.
- The kidnappers forcibly boarded the Chua car, proceeded with the journey, and eventually left Mrs. Chua behind as they separated from the vehicle.
- Detention and Further Abusive Acts
- The victims — the two children, the maid, and the family driver — were blindfolded, tied up, and taken to an improvised hut in the midst of a sugar cane field.
- During the ordeal, the accused was identified as having forcibly copulated with the maid, Elizabeth Luega, after using a firearm to intimidate her.
- The victims were kept in a rudimentary enclosure constructed with pressed sugar cane, an iron grill, a G.I. sheet for roofing, and minimal privacy measures.
- Involvement of Accomplices and Other Participants
- The kidnapping was carried out by a group, some of whom had been previously charged in another case related to the incident.
- An additional farmer, Benito Manglo, was coerced into aiding the kidnappers by delivering food to the site where the victims were held.
- Rescue Operation
- On January 7, 1993, around 10:00 P.M., SPO3 Rommel Macatlang and Captain Rodrigo Agojo of the Police Intelligence Operations Group mounted a rescue operation near a santol tree used as a reference point.
- The rescue team located the victims – including the two Chua children, who were found lying on the ground – and began evacuating them while attempting to secure the area.
- During the operation, a firefight occurred when kidnappers, including the accused, exchanged gunfire with the police, resulting in injuries and the identification of Salimbago as one of the perpetrators.
- Post-Rescue Identification and Subsequent Events
- In the morning of January 8, 1993, the rescued maid identified the accused in a hospital in Tanauan, Batangas, confirming his involvement during the incident.
- Farmer Benito Manglo corroborated the identification by testifying that he recognized Salimbago as the individual retrieving food for the kidnappers and victims.
- The case against the accused was consolidated later, as he was tried separately for complicity in the kidnapping, having been hospitalized during the trial of the other co-accused.
- Evidence and Testimonies
- Testimony of Witness Elizabeth Luega
- Provided details of her abduction, the sequence of events, and the accused’s participation during the commission of the crime.
- Allegedly identified inconsistencies in her statement regarding the presence of the accused during specific moments (e.g., the blocking of the car).
- Testimony of Witness Benito Manglo
- Testified that he recognized Salimbago as the person who retrieved the food he delivered to the holding site.
- Faced criticisms regarding his failure to report the incident immediately, though this did not detract from his identification.
- Testimony of Police Officer SPO3 Rommel Macatlang
- Described the rescue operation and his identification of the accused during the firefight.
- Faced challenges regarding the logistics of his actions during the raid, particularly in exposing himself to danger.
- Corroborative Facts from the Incident
- The detailed narrative from the stenographic records and witness testimonies collectively supported the occurrence of the abduction, prolonged detention, and the intent to extort ransom.
- The elements of the crime as defined in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code were expressly met by the sequence of events.
- Legal Context and Statutory Provisions
- The crime charged falls under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
- The statute provides for reclusion perpetua to death, but due to the constitutional prohibition on the death penalty during the period the crime was committed (before its re-imposition), reclusion perpetua was imposed.
- The factual findings and the manner in which evidence was presented in court established that the accused had deprived the victims of liberty with the purpose of extorting ransom.
Issues:
- Reliability of Witness Testimonies
- Whether the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimonies (e.g., between affidavit statements and in-court identifications) were substantial enough to undermine the credibility of the evidence.
- The weight to be given to oral testimonies in open court versus affidavits made under different circumstances.
- Identification of the Accused
- Whether the witnesses, particularly the maid, farmer, and the police officer, were able to positively and accurately identify Salimbago as one of the perpetrators.
- The implications of minor discrepancies in the sequence of events on the accused’s identification.
- Appropriateness of the Imposed Penalty
- Whether the sentencing of reclusion perpetua was proper given the circumstances of the crime, especially considering the intention to extort ransom even if none of the additional aggravating circumstances were met.
- The constitutional issues regarding the imposition of the death penalty, particularly in light of the 1987 Constitution and the non-retroactivity of penal laws with unfavorable effects.
- Evaluation of Police Conduct
- Whether the actions of the police officer during the rescue operation (e.g., exposing himself to danger) were plausible and in accordance with accepted police practices.
- The extent to which the officer’s conduct influenced the reliability of his identification of the accused.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)