GR 148228; (December, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148228 ; December 4, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PAMPING PAINGIN, GITONG MALDUMAN, and THREE (3) JOHN DOES, accused. PAMPING PAINGIN, appellant.
FACTS
On May 3, 1995, in Barangay Paitan, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, appellant Pamping Paingin, together with Gitong Malduman and three others, allegedly kidnapped 18-year-old Pati Panindigan. The prosecution, through the testimony of the victim’s mother Elena Panindigan, established that she witnessed appellant strike Pati on the neck with a piece of wood, causing him to fall. Appellant and his companions then carried the unconscious Pati away towards a cogonal area. The victim has never been seen since. Another witness, Narding Aguniag, corroborated seeing appellant dragging Pati. The defense presented an alibi, with appellant testifying he was in a different municipality harvesting palay at the time of the incident and did not know the victim or his co-accused.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant Pamping Paingin for the crime of kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, finding their testimonies clear, consistent, and credible. The positive identification of appellant by eyewitnesses, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevails over his weak defense of alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. Appellant failed to establish such physical impossibility. The elements of kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code were sufficiently proven: appellant, a private individual, intentionally deprived Pati Panindigan of his liberty by carrying him away after rendering him unconscious. The infliction of serious physical injury (the blow to the neck) and the detention lasting more than three days (as the victim remains missing) qualify the crime under paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article 267, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The award of moral damages to the victim’s mother was also sustained due to the evident emotional suffering caused by the disappearance.