G.R. No. 118620 -21 September 1, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NARITO @ “NARING” DADLES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Narito Dadles was charged in two separate informations for the kidnapping and serious illegal detention of two farmers, Alipio Tehidor and his son Dionisio, and Salvador Alipan and his son Antonio, from their homes in Barangay Amontay, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental, on May 24, 1989. The informations alleged that appellant, together with several armed companions still at large, conspired to take the victims by force and intimidation and detained them in the hinterlands. Only appellant was arraigned, pleading not guilty, and the cases were consolidated for trial.
The prosecution presented witnesses Francisca Tehidor and Danilo Tehidor, who testified that around 11:00 PM on May 24, 1989, appellant and five companions arrived at the Tehidor residence, asked for Alipio, tied the hands of Alipio and Dionisio, and forced them to leave after demanding the surrender of firearms belonging to the Tehidors’ other sons who were CAFGU members. The victims were never seen again.
For the Alipan kidnapping, witnesses Luzviminda Alipan and Vicente Alipan testified that around 11:30 PM on the same date, appellant and nine armed companions arrived at their house, asked Salvador to come downstairs, and told Luzviminda they were “borrowing” Salvador and his son Antonio and would return them the next day. The victims left with the group and were never seen again.
The defense interposed an alibi, with appellant claiming he was at the house of Rogelio Ariola in Barangay San Pedro on the night of May 24, 1989, having delivered fruits there, and slept there after a drinking session until 7:00 AM the next day. Rogelio Ariola corroborated this testimony.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of two counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, sentencing him to “double life imprisonment” and ordering him to indemnify the victims’ families P100,000 each. Appellant appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution’s evidence and disregarding the defense’s evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of two counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages.
On the first issue, the Court found no error in the trial court’s assessment of credibility. The delay of the witnesses in reporting the incident and their failure to immediately confront appellant were satisfactorily explained by their fear of reprisal from appellant’s armed group, who had threatened to kill them if they reported the matter. Such fear is a valid explanation for delay in rural settings and does not impair credibility.
The positive identification of appellant by the prosecution witnesses, who knew him prior to the incident, prevails over his defense of alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Appellant failed to establish this impossibility, as Barangay San Pedro, where he claimed to be, was not so far from Barangay Amontay as to preclude his presence at the crime scene.
On the second issue, the Court held that the prosecution proved the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The taking of the victims was effected by means of force and intimidation, as evidenced by the armed presence of appellant’s group and their acts of tying the Tehidors’ hands and giving threats to both families. The failure of the victims to return and their continued disappearance constituted serious illegal detention.
However, the Court modified the penalty. The trial court’s imposition of “double life imprisonment” was erroneous. The proper penalty for kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 , is reclusion perpetua to death. As no aggravating or mitigating circumstances were proven, the penalty imposed for each count should be reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the civil indemnity to P50,000 for each count of kidnapping, totaling P100,000 for the two counts, and awarded moral damages of P50,000 for each count, totaling P100,000.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Narito Dadles was found guilty of two counts of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention and sentenced to suffer two penalties of reclusion perpetua. He was ordered to pay the heirs of Alipio and Dionisio Tehidor P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages, and the heirs of Salvador and Antonio Alipan P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.