THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 192233. February 17, 2016.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff and appellee, vs. SPO1

CATALINO GONZALES, JR. , accused-appellant.

DECISION

PEREZ , J : p

On appeal is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02638,
af rming with modi cation the Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Trece
Martirez City, Branch 23, convicting accused-appellant SPO1 Catalino Gonzales, Jr. for
the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom.
On 30 January 2006, appellant was charged with Kidnapping for Ransom in the
following Information:
That on December 28, 2005, at about 10:30 o'clock in the morning in the
Municipality of Tanza, Province of Cavite and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, and
mutually helping one another, with threats and/or intimidation and through the
use of force, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously take, carry
away, and deprive PETER TAN and his son MICHAEL TAN , a minor of two (2)
years of age, of their respective liberties against their will for the purpose of
extorting money as in fact a demand for money in the amount of Three Million
(P3,000,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, was demanded as a condition for
their safe release to their damage and prejudice.
With the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
authority against SPO1 CATALINO GONZALES, PS1 NATHANIEL
CAPITENEA and PO2 ARDEN G. LANAZA , being active members of the
Philippine National Police. 3
On arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Trial ensued.
The victim Peter Tan (Tan) and his wife Huang Haitao (Haitao) lived in Retirees'
Village in Tanza, Cavite. They operated a stall in a market also in Tanza.
Haitao narrated in her Sworn Statement 4 that in the morning of 28 December
2005, Haitao left the house ahead of Tan and their two-year old son to go to the market.
When Haitao arrived at their stall, she tried calling Tan in his phone but the latter did not
answer. Finally, the call was answered by someone who introduced himself as a
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent and who told Haitao that her husband was
arrested for illegal possession of shabu. Haitao immediately asked for her husband's
whereabouts but the alleged NBI agent hung up. Haitao then called Tan's phone again.
Before she could talk to her husband, someone snatched the phone away from Tan and
told her that someone would get in touch with her. At around 10:30 a.m., an unknown
Chinese man called up Haitao and informed her that her husband and son were
detained for possession of drugs, and that she should pay off the captors. That
evening, a man called Haitao and demanded P5,000,000.00 for the release of her
husband and son. The demand was lowered to P3,000,000.00. Haitao was ordered by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the captor to prepare the money and go to Luneta Park on the following day.
Haitao reported the incident to the Philippine Anti-Crime Emergency Response
Unit (PACER) of the Philippine National Police. The Luneta Park meeting did not push
through. Haitao still received various instructions from the captors to fetch her son until
the PACER received information that Haitao's son was in White Cross Children's Home.
Haitao was eventually reunited with her son.
On 15 January 2006, Haitao received a text message from an unidenti ed man
who claimed that he knew about Tan's kidnapping and demanded P30,000.00 from
Haitao. They met at McDonald's restaurant in Tanza, Cavite. When the man, later
identi ed as Edwin Torrente (Torrente) approached Haitao, he was arrested by PACER
agents.
It turned out that Torrente was part of the group which forcibly took Tan and his
son. In exchange for the needed information, Torrente was placed under the Witness
Protection Program and was utilized as a state witness. cSEDTC

In his Sworn Statement, 5 Torrente narrated that on 27 December 2005, he was

approached by appellant and told about a plan to arrest Tan, an alleged drug pusher in
Tanza, Cavite. At around 7:00 a.m. on 28 December 2005, Torrente received a text
message from appellant asking him to proceed to the Shell Gas Station along Coastal
Road in Imus, Cavite. Thereat, Torrente met appellant, his son, Joy Gonzales, Lt.
Capitanea, and nine other people. The group then proceeded to the Retirees' Village in
Tanza, Cavite to conduct a surveillance of the house of appellant. At around 11:00 a.m.,
the group left the village and went to a nearby Mc Donald's restaurant to have some
snacks. After eating, the group went back to the village and chanced upon Tan who was
inside his Ford vehicle. They immediately blocked Tan's car, forced him and his son to
alight from the vehicle, and boarded them into another vehicle. Torrente then went back
to the gas station to get his motorcycle and proceeded to his house. On 31 December
2005, Torrente received a call from appellant informing him that Tan would soon be
released as negotiations were ongoing. Torrente admitted that he called Haitao and
asked for a meeting. When Torrente sensed the presence of policemen, he immediately
surrendered and voluntarily gave his statement.
Appellant denied the charges against him and proffered the defense of alibi.
Appellant claimed that on 28 December 2005, at 10:08 a.m., he was at the Land Bank of
the Philippines branch in Dasmariñas, Cavite to encash his check. After encashing his
check, appellant went home and stayed there until 8:00 p.m. to attend a party. On 31
December 2005, Torrente went to his house and together, they conducted a
surveillance against drug suspects. On 17 January 2006, he planned to meet up with
Torrente at the Shell Station along Anabu Road in Imus, Cavite. When appellant arrived
at the gas station, two armed men alighted from their vehicles and poked their guns on
him. Appellant was then forcibly dragged into the vehicle. Appellant claimed that he
was subjected to physical and mental torture before he was brought to the PACER
office. 6
The branch manager of Land Bank, Mr. Edgar Deligero, corroborated appellant's
alibi. He acknowledged that a check under appellant's name was encashed on 28
December 2005 at 10:08 a.m. He noted that based on the bank's verification procedure,
the signature of appellant is valid and an identi cation document was presented by the
appellant. Hence, the bank manager con rmed that it was indeed appellant who
personally encashed the check. 7
Appellant's daughter corroborated appellant's statement that he was tortured.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Jocelyn Gonzales witnessed his father's condition while the latter was detained in the
PACER's of ce. She also saw a rst medical certi cate and heard the DOJ prosecutor
order a second medical examination. Dr. Edilberto Antonio con rmed the issuance of
two medical certificates certifying the injuries suffered by appellant.
On 12 July 2006, the trial court rendered judgment nding appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and sentencing him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay P200,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
Appellant challenged the trial court's decision af rming his conviction on the
ground of alleged discrepancies in the testimonies and statements of prosecution
witnesses. Appellant speci cally pointed out the discrepancy in the time of the
commission of the crime. Appellant asserted that based on the statement of Haitao,
the kidnapping incident took place at around 10:30 a.m. while state witness Torrente,
claimed that the kidnapping occurred after 11:00 a.m. Furthermore, appellant insisted
that Torrente's claim that he and appellant were together from 7:30 a.m. up to after
11:00 a.m. on 28 December 2005 is inconsistent with the fact that appellant, as
con rmed by the branch manager, was at the Land Bank branch in Dasmariñas, Cavite
at 10:08 a.m. to encash a check. Based on these inconsistencies, appellant maintained
that he should be acquitted. Appellant also argued that the absence of the victim puts
in serious doubt the presence of the corpus delicti.
The Of ce of the Solicitor General (OSG), for its part, recommended that
appellant be held guilty of kidnapping for ransom. The OSG contended that there is no
material discrepancy as to time that would tend to create reasonable doubt as to
appellant's guilt. The OSG stressed that the corpus delicti in this case is the actual
con nement, detention and restraint on the victims. The OSG asserted that the
prosecution has proven that the detention of the victims was perpetrated by appellant,
among others.
In a Decision 8 dated 12 November 2009, the Court of Appeals af rmed the
ruling of the trial court.
The appellate court rejected appellants' defense of alibi and held that it cannot
prevail over the positive identi cation by the state witness, The appellate court also
dismissed the alleged disparities on the sworn statements and testimonies of
prosecution witnesses as trivial and minor details that do not detract in any way from
the main thrust of what the prosecution witnesses related in court.
On 7 July 2010, this Court required the parties to simultaneously le their
respective Supplemental Briefs. 9 While the OSG manifested that it is adopting its brief
earlier led before the Court of Appeals, 10 appellant led his Supplemental Brief 11
reiterating that the inconsistent statements of the prosecution witnesses with respect
to the time of the commission of the crime are so crucial to merit his acquittal.
Appellant maintains that he was at the bank at 10:08 a.m. Using this as a reckoning
point, both of the prosecution witnesses' claim of the time of kidnapping are erroneous.
The disparity in the statements of the prosecution witnesses creates a doubt in the
guilt of the accused which, according to appellant, should work for his acquittal.
The bone of contention in this case is whether the inconsistent statements of
prosecution witnesses with regard to the time of the commission of the crime will
exonerate appellant. SDAaTC

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 In People v. Del n , 12 a case involving simple rape, the Court held that where the
inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is
insigni cant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testi ed to. In a case for
illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, 13 the Court ruled that inconsistencies
and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the basic
aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses' credibility. An inconsistency, which
has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.
In fact in People v. Macapanas , 14 we added that these inconsistencies bolster the
credibility of the witness's testimony as it erases the suspicion of the witness having
been coached or rehearsed.
The alleged inconsistencies related to the time the kidnapping was committed.
The elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended, are as follows: (a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the
victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and (c) motive of
the accused, which is extorting ransom for the release of the victim. 15 Time is not a
material ingredient in the crime of kidnapping. As long as all these elements were
sufficiently established by the prosecution, a conviction for kidnapping is in order.
At any rate, Torrente declared during the cross-examination that he tried to
rectify the error with regard to the time, thus:
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS
CONDUCTED BY ATTY. MAPILE:
ATTY. MAPILE:
Q Mr. Witness, you said you talked to the Prosecutor before taking to the
witness stand, is it not?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir. He explained to me that if I am telling the truth, sir.
Q And he also explained to you the need of correcting paragraph 5 in your
sworn statement, is it not because of a typographical error?
A Yes, sir.
Q And except for that error, you con rmed everything to be true and accurate
on figures and dates especially the time, am I right?
A Yes, sir.
ATTY. MAPILE:
Q And you have nothing, you have no desire subsequent to correct, to make
any further correction?
WITNESS:
A I have, sir. With respect to time only.
Q What time are you talking about Mr. Witness?
A When Peter Tan was taken, it could be more or less 10:00 in the morning,
sir.
Q Instead of what? What appears in your statement when he was abducted or
taken?
A No more, sir. He was abducted more or less 10:00 o'clock in the morning.
Q You had occasion to read how many times your sworn statement before
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 signing it?
A For about five (5) times, sir.
Q Why did you notice for the rst time that Number 5, question number 5 and
answer number 5 should be corrected?
A For the third time, sir.
ATTY. MAPILE:
Q And when was the time when you also discovered that the abduction was
10:00 o'clock instead of beyond 10:00 o'clock of December 28, 2005?
WITNESS:
A For the second time, sir.
Q You mean for the second time, the second time that you read your
statement?
A Yes, sir.
Q When was that Mr. Witness?
A Before I signed it, sir.
Q Before you signed it, it was stated you did not forget the one who prepared
your statement?
A I called the attention of the one who prepared, sir.
Q But what he say?
A According to the Investigator, they changed it already, sir.
Q So you did not sign that purported sworn statement, that sworn statement
was already changed?
COURT:
Let us make this clear counsel. As per statement given on January 17 and
one January 24.
ATTY. MAPILE:
I'm merely referring to the 17, Your Honor.
COURT:
17.
WITNESS:
A I did not, sir.
ATTY. MAPILE:
Q You did not because you pointed out the mistake?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you refused to sign because you disclosed to get the error, did the
Investigator changed your statement?
A Yes, sir. acEHCD

PROSE. PARICO:
Your Honor, the witness answered earlier "Binago Na Po", that was his
statement, Your Honor.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 WITNESS:
A The sworn statement is the same, sir.
ATTY. MAPILE:
Q In short, they did not correct the error that you pointed out?
A No, sir. I did not change it.
Q And despite pointing out the error, they did not change it anymore?
A I do not know the reason, sir. 16
Appellant now seeks to assail the testimony of Torrente as a "last-minute
adjustment" which weakens the testimony.
It has been consistently held that discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between
a witness' af davit and testimony do not necessarily impair his credibility as af davits
are taken ex parte and are often incomplete or inaccurate for lack or absence of
searching inquiries by the investigating of cer. What is important is, in the over-all
analysis of the case, the trial court's ndings and conclusions are duly supported by the
evidence on record. 17
In this case, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals gave credit to Torrente's
statement. It is a well-settled rule that factual ndings of the trial court regarding the
credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect especially if af rmed by
the Court of Appeals. The Court shall not supplant its own interpretation of the
testimonies for that of the trial judge since he is in the best position to determine the
issue of credibility of witnesses. 18
A concomitant issue is whether the corpus delicti was proven despite the non-
presentation of the kidnap victims during trial. Appellant stresses that the corpus
delicti was not proven because Tan 19 could not be found.
Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime which may be proved by
the testimony of the witnesses who saw it. 20 The corpus delicti in the crime of
kidnapping for ransom is the fact that an individual has been in any manner deprived of
his liberty for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person. 21
To prove the corpus delicti, it is suf cient for the prosecution to be able to show
that (1) a certain fact has been proven — say, a person has died or a building has been
burned; and (2) a particular person is criminally responsible for the act. 22
The fact of kidnapping has been duly proved by Haitao who categorically
testified that a kidnapping transpired, to wit:
PROSE. PARICO:
May I manifest, Your Honor, that while the witness is reading intensely the
affidavit No. 8, she is continues crying, Your Honor.
COURT:
Okay, noted the manifestation of the counsel is granted that while witness is
reading paragraph No. 8 question and answer the witness is crying. Noted.
Can you interpret in Chinese?
WITNESS:
A And when she went to the Palengke, they were not in the same car. She
went ahead and then Peter and the son followed in another car with Plate
No. PTY-955. She called her husband ve times and nobody was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 answering, sir. The husband was not answering the cellphone, her
cellphone and somebody answered a voice, the voice of a male, Filipino
voice. The man said that they arrested Peter, they are from NBI and they
arrested him because he has in possession one (1) kilo of shabu, sir. She
said that she cannot believe it. They are just telling lies. She could not
believe that Peter Tan is in possession of shabu and if Peter will be
arrested why will be include my son. She said that she has a business in
the market doing glassware and houseware in Tanza, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
A I called again the cellphone of Peter, sir. She got to talk on Peter at the
cellphone and Peter clearly told her in Chinese to ask them where is the
child, a boy and quickly, they cut the cellphone. So when she got to talk to
the person on the other line, they answered if he is Chinese or Filipino and
she said she is Chinese and there somebody who speak to her in Chinese,
sir. The Chines[e] told her that his friend gave this Chinese her cellphone
number. The Chinese said that they arrested him because her husband has
shabu and had a case, sir. And the Chinese said that they are kidnapping
the husband and they wanted for ransom and the Chinese said that he is
not going to help anymore he wants to go home. He doesn't want to get
involve. He doesn't want to get anymore and he wants to go home. She
asked again, what is really the case and please don't get the child, don't
involve the child in this case, in the case of her husband. She said she was
asking the other line where did they bring my husband and what of ce
they brought him to and if she knows the of ce, she is going to get a
lawyer. Then she asked them to return the child, her son back to her. The
Chinese said that Yah, why did you involve the child and after that switch
off the cellphone, sir. 23SDHTEC

Torrente, on the other hand, identified appellant as one of the captors.

Article 267 of the RPC provides that the penalty of death shall be imposed if the
kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, thus:
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private
individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive
him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three
days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been in icted upon the
person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when
the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer;
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the
commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is
raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed.
Pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, the penalty is correctly reduced to reclusion perpetua,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 without eligibility for parole.

We observe that the lower courts failed to award civil indemnity and moral
damages in this case. Civil indemnity is awarded if the crime is quali ed by
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty. 24 On the other hand,
moral damages is warranted. Under Article 2217 of the New Civil Code, moral damages
include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings,
moral shock and similar injury. There is no doubt that Haitao suffered physical, mental
and emotional trauma over the kidnapping of Tan and her two-year old son.
In conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, 25 the following amount of damages
should be imposed:
1) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
2) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and
3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on
all the damages awarded, to earn from the date of the nality of the Court's Decision
until fully paid. 26
WHEREFORE , the appeal is DISMISSED . The appealed decision is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATIONS that appellant SPO1 Catalino Gonzales, Jr. is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and to pay the
family of the kidnap victim Peter Tan the following amounts: (1) P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity; (2) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P100,000.00 as exemplary
damages, all with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of
finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-31; Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices
Vicente S.E. Veloso and Marlene Gonzales-Sison concurring.
2. Records, pp. 294-313; Presided by Executive Judge Aurelio G. Icasiano, Jr.
3. Id. at 1-2.
4. Rollo, pp. 125-127.
5. Id. at 128-131.

6. TSN, 1 June 2006, pp. 12-29.

7. TSN, 20 June 2006, pp. 27-31.
8. Rollo, pp. 2-31.
9. Id. at 38-39.
10. Id. at 153-155.

11. Id. at 46-78.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 12. G.R. No. 190349, 10 December 2014.
13. People v. Villahermosa, G.R. No. 186465, 1 June 2011, 650 SCRA 256, 276.
14. 634 Phil. 125, 145 (2010).

15. People v. Yau, G.R. No. 208170, 20 August 2014, 733 SCRA 608, 629.
16. TSN, 9 May 2006, pp. 41-45.
17. People v. Galicia, G.R. No. 191063, 9 October 2013, 707 SCRA 267, 280.
18. People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 190340, 24 July 2013, 702 SCRA 204, 218-219.
19. There is nothing in the records which indicate the whereabouts of Peter Tan in the letter
submitted by appellant, he surmised that Peter Tan might be the same person
captured by the police in a drug raid in Pangasinan. This claim however is not
supported by any evidence.
20. People v. Mittu, 388 Phil. 779, 792 (2000).
21. People v. Castro, 434 Phil. 206, 220 (2002).
22. Rimorin, Jr. v. People, 450 Phil. 465, 474 (2003).
23. TSN, 9 May 2006, pp. 19-22.

24. People v. Roxas , G.R. No. 172604, 17 August 2010, 628 SCRA 378, 403 citing People v.
Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, 10 September 1999, 599 SCRA 20, 44-45.
25. People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, 1 October 2013, 706 SCRA 508, 533.
26. People v. Licayan, G.R. No. 203961, 29 July 2015.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com