G.R. No. L-69236 August 19, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GENEROSO JO, et al., accused; VIRGILIO ROCA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case originated from a scheme orchestrated by the estranged husband, Generoso Jo, against his wife, Elisa Casal Jo. Appellant Virgilio Roca, a former classmate of Elisa, approached her under the pretext that a relative wished to see her. He later revealed that Generoso had hired a witch-doctor, Felipe Lapitan, to kill Elisa through sorcery. Fearing for her life, Elisa, along with her three minor children, was persuaded to go to Roca’s house in Tacloban City to meet Lapitan. Lapitan performed rituals and convinced Elisa to stay hidden at Roca’s house to avoid the supposed curse. On July 30, 1980, while Elisa and her mother were distracted washing clothes, Roca and Lapitan took Elisa’s three children from the house. They transported the children by jeep and motorboat to Daram, Samar, effectively separating them from their mother. Elisa discovered her children were missing and later learned they had been taken away. Roca was charged alongside others, but he was the only appellant convicted by the trial court for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the appellant, Virgilio Roca, can be convicted of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267(4) of the Revised Penal Code, despite being originally charged under Article 270 (Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor), and whether he should be penalized for one or three separate crimes given the abduction of three children.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The legal logic rests on the doctrine of variance between allegation and proof, and the rules on complex crimes. The Information charged Roca under Article 270, which punishes a custodian who deliberately fails to restore a minor. The evidence, however, proved the more serious crime under Article 267(4), which punishes the kidnapping of a minor. The Court held that the offense charged (Article 270) is necessarily included in the offense proved (Article 267(4)), as both involve the deprivation of a minor’s liberty. Therefore, under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, an accused can be convicted of a lesser offense that is included in the crime charged, or of the greater offense proved which includes the lesser one. The Court further noted that Article 270 might have been superseded by the amended Article 267 regarding kidnapping of a minor.
Regarding the penalty, the Solicitor General correctly argued that three separate kidnappings were committed—one for each child. The Information alleged the kidnapping of three minors, and the trial evidence proved three distinct acts of deprivation of liberty. Roca did not object to the Information charging more than one offense, thereby waiving any defect. Consequently, he should be sentenced for three separate crimes. The Court modified the trial court’s decision, sentencing Roca to three penalties of reclusion perpetua. However, applying Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code on the service of multiple penalties, the maximum duration of his sentence shall not exceed forty years. The conviction was thus affirmed with this modification.