G.R. No. 117873 December 22, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MERCY SANTOS y ENTIENZA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Mercy Santos y Entienza was charged with kidnapping a seven-year-old girl, Charmaine Mamaril, from her school on March 8, 1993. The prosecution’s version, as narrated by the trial court, established that Charmaine was fetched from her school by a woman later identified as the appellant, who promised her a “surprise.” The child was brought to a house and later left at a store owned by Aida Bautista on March 9, 1993. After Bautista read about the kidnapping in the newspaper, she contacted the authorities, and Charmaine was recovered by her parents on March 13, 1993. On March 15, 1993, appellant returned to Bautista’s place to claim the child, prompting Bautista to notify the child’s parents and the NBI, leading to appellant’s arrest. Appellant executed an extrajudicial confession at the NBI with the assistance of counsel, Atty. Gordon Uy. At trial, the defense presented only the appellant, who denied the allegations, claimed her confession was extracted under threat and maltreatment, and asserted she was merely asked by a friend named Elsa to fetch the child. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, sentencing her to reclusion perpetua and ordering her to pay moral damages.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellant were: (1) whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and disregarding the defense; (2) whether the trial court erred in not crediting her denial; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting her extrajudicial confession allegedly obtained in violation of the constitutional exclusionary rule; and (4) whether the trial court erred in convicting her despite an alleged failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but deleted the award of moral damages. The Court held that even assuming the extrajudicial confession was excluded for being constitutionally infirm, the remaining evidence sufficiently established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by the victim, Charmaine Mamaril, and by witness Aida Bautista was straightforward, credible, and unassailable. The Court reiterated that the assessment of witness credibility is best left to the trial court and that bare denials cannot overcome positive testimonies absent proof of ill motive. The prosecution proved all elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) the victim was a minor; (2) she was taken from her school without her parents’ consent; and (3) she was detained for five days. The defense of denial was deemed weak and unsubstantiated. However, the award of moral damages was deleted for lack of factual basis, as the records showed no evidence that the victim or her parents claimed or were entitled to such damages.