G.R. No.

168552 October 3, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JERRY JACALNE y GUTIERREZ, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J .:
For resolution is the appeal filed by appellant Jerry G. Jacalne assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
1

dated March 31, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00473.
The facts of the case follow.
In an Information
2
dated March 15, 1996, appellant was charged with Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
committed as follows:
That on or about the 8th day of March 1996, in the Municipality of Las Pias, Metro Manila, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is a private individual, without
legal authority or justifiable motive, did then and there kidnap and detain JOMARIE J. ROSALES, a female,
minor (7 years old) for the purpose of depriving complainant of her liberty.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
3

During the arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged.
4
Trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution established the following facts:
On March 8, 1996, at 8:00 in the morning, the victim Jomarie Rosales (Jomarie), then seven (7) years of age,
female, residing at No. 142 Mabuhay Street, Las Pias City and a grade 1 pupil, attended her classes at the CAA
Elementary School in Las Pias from 8:00 to 10:00 in the morning.
5
While on her way home, Jomarie noticed
that appellant was following her. She ran, but appellant eventually caught up with her.
6
Appellant told her that
she should go with him, but Jomarie refused and told him that her mother would be angry.
7
Jomarie held on to a
post, but appellant dragged and forced her to go to his house at Patola Street which is 100 to 150 meters away.
8

When they reached appellants house, appellant placed Jomarie at the back of the steel gate of his fenced
residence.
9
Thereafter, appellant went inside the house then returned with a piece of rope.
10
He used the rope in
tying the hands of Jomarie.
11
Jomarie pleaded that she be released because her mother would be worried, but
appellant refused.
12

After more or less one hour, appellant untied Jomaries hands and instructed her to walk straight toward the
road. He even told her not to turn left, otherwise, she would not be able to reach home. Appellant also
threatened her not to tell anybody of what happened or else he would kill her.
13

Jomarie reached home around noon then took her lunch.
14
She did not tell her mother Marissa Rosales (Marissa)
about the incident because of fear, until after three days.
15
Marissa reported the incident to the barangay and
had it blottered.
16
Jomarie and Marissa went to Patola Street where the house of appellant is located. Upon
seeing appellant, Jomarie pointed him as the person who committed the crime.
17

On March 14, 1996, Jomarie, accompanied by her mother, executed a Sworn Statement
18
before SPO1
Benjamin M. Javier. While inside the police station, Jomarie identified appellant (who was inside the
investigation room) as the perpetrator.
19

Appellant, on the other hand, denied the accusation against him. He explained that on March 12, 1996, while in
his house painting a tricycle, Jomarie, Marissa, and two others approached him then asked if he is familiar with
a nipa hut or a house surrounded by plants, which he answered in the negative.
20
They likewise mentioned to
him about an incident whereby a child was tied and raped. After telling them that he was not aware of the
incident, the four left.
21
In the afternoon of the same day, Marissa and Jomarie allegedly returned to his place.
This time, they talked to appellants neighbors. The following day, he was arrested.
22

The defense also presented Marites Calzado,
23
George Resurreccion
24
and Joseph Conmigo, as witnesses.
25

Their testimonies tend to prove that in many occasions, Jomarie denied that it was appellant who kidnapped
her.
26

On May 29, 2000, the Regional Trial Court of Las Pias City (RTC), Branch 275, rendered a Decision
27
finding
the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
Appellant appealed to this Court. Conformably with our ruling in People v. Mateo,
28
however, the case was
referred to the CA for intermediate review.
29

In its Decision
30
dated March 31, 2005, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the court a quo. Thus, this
appeal raising the sole error:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE D E C I S I O N OF
THE TRIAL COURT CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING
WITH SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION.
31

Appellant assails the trial and appellate courts appreciation of the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution. He submits that the court failed to consider certain facts and circumstances, which have affected
the credibility of Jomarie.
32
He explains that Jomarie either failed to identify appellant or has categorically
denied that he was the one who allegedly kidnapped her.
33

We do not find any reason to depart from the conclusions of the trial and appellate courts.
Time and again, we have ruled that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear
showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance which would have affected the result of the case.
34
The trial court has the singular opportunity to
observe the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an
insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the
forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or
the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full
realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.
35

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention is defined and punished under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) 7659:
ART. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or if
threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents,
female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were presented
in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
The crime has the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another,
or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the
commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts
for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or
detained is a minor, female or a public official.
36

Records show that the prosecution established the above elements.
It is undisputed that appellant is a private individual. As to the second, third and fourth elements, we agree with
the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, that Jomaries and Marissas testimonies adequately showed that indeed,
appellant kidnapped Jomarie, a minor, and detained her for more or less an hour.
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with the intent
of the accused to effect it.
37
It includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his
liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time.
38
It involves a situation where the victim cannot go
out of the place of confinement or detention, or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move.
39

In this case, appellant dragged Jomarie, a minor, to his house after the latter refused to go with him. Upon
reaching the house, he tied her hands. When Jomarie pleaded that she be allowed to go home, he refused.
Although Jomarie only stayed outside the house, it was inside the gate of a fenced property which is high
enough such that people outside could not see what happens inside. Moreover, when appellant tied the hands of
Jomarie, the formers intention to deprive Jomarie of her liberty has been clearly shown. For there to be
kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home.
40
Because of her tender age, and because
she did not know her way back home, she was then and there deprived of her liberty.
41
This is irrespective of
the length of time that she stayed in such a situation. It has been repeatedly held that if the victim is a minor, the
duration of his detention is immaterial.
42
This notwithstanding the fact also that appellant, after more or less one
hour, released Jomarie and instructed her on how she could go home.
Against the categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant can only offer the defense of denial.
However, denial is a self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be given greater weight than that of the
declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.
43
Like alibi, denial is inherently a weak
defense, which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses who, as in this
case, were not shown to have any ill-motive to testify against appellant.
44

While indeed the defense offered the testimonies of three witnesses who claimed that they heard Jomarie deny
that it was appellant who committed the crime, said evidence is insufficient to rebut Jomaries testimony in
court on how the crime was committed and who committed it. Appellant himself admitted that Jomarie and
Marissa have no reason to lie. In other words, he cannot attribute any ill-motive on the part of the prosecution
witnesses to fabricate a story and implicate him in the commission of the crime charged.1avvphi1
Article 267 of the RPC prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. There being no aggravating or
modifying circumstance in the commission of the offense, the RTC (as affirmed by the CA), correctly imposed
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63 of the RPC.
45

In line with prevailing jurisprudence,
46
appellant shall be made to answer for P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Pursuant to Article 2219
47
of the Civil Code, appellant shall likewise be liable for the payment of P50,000.00 as
moral damages.
48

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 31, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 00473, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellant Jerry G. Jacalne is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention and is meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is likewise ordered to pay the victim Jomarie
Rosales P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.