People - v. - Gonzales - Jr.
People - v. - Gonzales - Jr.
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
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
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.
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.