G.R. No. 121365 . September 14, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MACAPANTON SALIMBAGO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Macapanton Salimbago was charged with kidnapping with ransom and serious illegal detention. The information alleged that on January 6, 1993, in Pasay City, he conspired with others to forcibly take and detain Stanley Chua, Jermyn Chua, and Elizabeth Luega in a sugar cane field in Tanauan, Batangas, to extort a ransom of P6 million. After trial, the lower court found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution evidence established that the victims were abducted while in a car. They were blindfolded, tied, and taken to a house where appellant raped the maid, Elizabeth Luega, after which they were transferred to an improvised hut in a sugarcane field. Benito Manglo, a farmer, was coerced to deliver food to the kidnappers and saw appellant retrieve the food. During a police rescue operation on January 7, 1993, SPO3 Rommel Macatlang engaged in a firefight with two gunmen, one of whom he identified as appellant. Appellant was later found hospitalized with gunshot wounds, where he was identified by Luega and Manglo. Appellant appealed, challenging the credibility and consistency of the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies are credible and sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of kidnapping with ransom and serious illegal detention.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were minor and did not affect their credibility. Elizabeth Luega’s failure to review her sworn statement due to darkness and her initial misidentification of appellant as one of the abductors in the car were satisfactorily explained and did not impair her positive identification of him as the rapist and guard. Benito Manglo’s identification of appellant as the one who retrieved the food was credible, and his failure to report the incident did not discredit him, as he acted out of fear. SPO3 Macatlang’s identification of appellant during the rescue operation was credible, and his actions, though risky, were not contrary to human nature given his duty as a police officer. The court held that the positive identification by the witnesses prevailed over appellant’s denial and alibi. The crime committed was kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by the purpose of extorting ransom. The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, as the crime was committed prior to the re-imposition of the death penalty by Republic Act No. 7659 .