GR 117216; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117216 ; August 9, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOCELYN ACBANGIN y RADAM, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On April 23, 1991, four-year-old Sweet Grace Acbangin went missing. Her father, Danilo, last saw her playing at the house of accused-appellant Jocelyn Acbangin, a relative. Jocelyn returned alone that evening and denied knowledge of the child’s whereabouts. The following day, Jocelyn informed the family that Sweet was at the house of Juanita Niu in Tondo, Manila.
On April 25, Jocelyn accompanied Danilo and police officers to Niu’s house. Jocelyn entered first and later came down with Niu and Sweet, who was then recovered. At trial, Niu testified that it was Jocelyn who had brought Sweet to her house on April 23, stating she would return for the child. In contrast, Jocelyn claimed she was a former housemaid of Niu and that Sweet was brought to Niu by other persons, and she only later helped locate the child.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Jocelyn Acbangin for the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The elements of the crime were established: Jocelyn, a private individual, illegally deprived Sweet of her liberty by taking and detaining her in Niu’s house for two days without the parents’ consent. The act of bringing the child to a distant location and failing to return her constituted kidnapping. The Court rejected Jocelyn’s defense, noting her own testimony revealed she knew where the child was for two days but only disclosed the location later. Her subsequent remorse and assistance in recovery did not absolve her, as the crime was already consummated upon the illegal deprivation of liberty.
The trial court’s imposition of reclusion perpetua was upheld as the prescribed penalty under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code for kidnapping a minor. However, recognizing the trial court’s observation on the harshness of the penalty given Jocelyn’s youth and the absence of physical or emotional injury to the victim, the Supreme Court, invoking Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, forwarded the decision to the President through the Secretary of Justice for possible executive clemency. The Court did not modify the penalty itself, as it lacked the authority to impose a penalty lower than that prescribed by law.