GR 131619; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131619 -20 February 1, 2000
People of the Philippines vs. Bernie Cortez y Natanio, Ricardo Callos y Pulgo, and Rogelio Betonio y Lupo
FACTS
Accused Bernie Cortez, Ricardo Callos, and Rogelio Betonio were charged with kidnapping Lolita Mendoza. Cortez was separately charged with illegal possession of an explosive. The prosecution evidence established that on December 18, 1994, the three accused, armed with bolos, went to the house of Lolita Mendoza in Rodriguez, Rizal, looking for her cousin, Santos Esminda. Failing to find him, they abducted Lolita at bolo-point to prevent her from reporting to the police. They brought her to a relative’s house in the mountains. The incident was witnessed by Carolina Esminda, who reported it to the police.
Police officers responded and proceeded to Cortez’s residence. They arrested Cortez and, upon search, found a live grenade inside his house. Cortez then revealed Lolita’s location, leading to her rescue. Lolita positively identified the three accused as her kidnappers. The defense consisted of denial and alibi, claiming they were arbitrarily arrested and that the grenade was planted.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the accused are guilty of kidnapping, and (2) whether accused Cortez is guilty of illegal possession of an explosive.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for kidnapping but acquitted Cortez for illegal possession of an explosive. For kidnapping, the Court found the testimonies of the victim and an eyewitness credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The act of forcibly taking and detaining Lolita against her will, with the intent to deprive her of liberty, was proven. The defense of denial and alibi, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over the positive identification.
Regarding the charge of illegal possession of an explosive, the Court acquitted Cortez due to the prosecution’s failure to prove a crucial element. Under Presidential Decree No. 1866, the essence of the crime is the lack of a license or permit. The prosecution did not present any certification or testimony from the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Unit to prove that Cortez was not authorized to possess the grenade. The mere presentation of the grenade in court was insufficient. This failure to discharge the burden of proof on this essential element warranted acquittal. The decision of the trial court was thus modified accordingly.