G.R. No. 231884

G.R. No.
231884, June 27, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-

Appellee, v. MICHELLE PARBA-RURAL AND MAY ALMOHAN-DAZA, Accused-
Appellants.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 231884, June 27, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHELLE PARBA-

RURAL AND MAY ALMOHAN-DAZA, Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This is to resolve the appeal of accused-appellants Michelle Parba Rural and May
Almohan-Daza (appellants) that seeks to reverse and set aside the
Decision1 dated October 5, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR
H.C. No. 05789, affirming the Decision2 dated July 31, 2012 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 223, Quezon City finding the same appellants guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
The facts follow.
Around 9 o'clock in the morning of December 28, 2007, Nenita Marquez

(Nenita) was about to cross Commonwealth Avenue from Fairview Market to
Mercury Drug Store when she was forcibly abducted by appellants and boarded
in a Ford Fiera van. There were six (6) of them inside the vehicle, three (3) men
and three (3) women. They were inside the same vehicle for two (2) hours. The
said persons repeatedly demanded from Nenita that she give them jewelry and
money in exchange for her freedom. They also told her to cooperate or
otherwise, they will hurt her and her family. Thereafter, they asked her to alight
from the vehicle together with the appellants and the other woman companion.
Nenita and the three (3) women hailed a taxi and upon boarding, the latter
asked Nenita where her house was located. When they reached Nenita's house,
the three (3) women reminded her not to tell anyone what was happening.
Nenita and the three (3) women proceeded to the former's room wherein she
took her pieces of jewelry amounting to P3,000,000.00. Afterwards, Nenita and
the three (3) women boarded the same taxi cab and went outside the
subdivision where the Ford Fiera van was parked. Nenita was then forced to
give up all her pieces of jewelry to one of her captors. After the captors asked
Nenita where her bank was located, the latter was brought to the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) near the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in Quezon City
where Nenita has a time deposit in the amount of P400,000.00. The appellants
accompanied Nenita to the bank in order to withdraw the entire amount in the
latter's time deposit. Nenita told the account officer of the bank, Mel Alvin
Moreno, to immediately preterminate her time deposit account and release her
money. While waiting for the approval of the pre-termination, Nenita saw her
driver, her daughter and two (2) police officers enter the bank which prompted
her to seek for help. The appellants were then arrested.
Consequently, an Information was filed against appellants charging them with

the crime of kidnapping for ransom, thus:
That on or about the 28th day of December, 2007, in Quezon City, Philippines,

the said accused, conspiring and confederating with other persons, whose true
identities, whereabouts and other personal circumstances of which have not yet
been ascertained, and mutually helping one another and for the purpose of
obtaining valuable items such as jewelries in the amount of P3,000,000.00
Philippine Currency, from one NENITA MACALOS-MARQUEZ, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and carry away in a motor vehicle,
detained and threaten her that something will happen to her and her family if
the desired said valuable items worth Php3,000,000.00 could not be given, to
the damage and prejudice of the said NENITA MACALOS-MARQUEZ.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Nenita, Ana, Nenita's daughter,
P03 Perez, one of the police officers who responded to Ana's report and Mel
Alvin Moreno, account officer at the PNB, BIR Branch.
Appellants, in their testimonies, denied committing the crime charged against

them. According to them, on December 28, 2007, around 9 o'clock in the
morning, they were in the highway in front of the Fairview Wet Market when
Nenita approached them and asked for help because she felt weak and dizzy.
The appellants, taking pity on her, hailed a taxi cab for Nenita and accompanied
the latter to her house in Quezon City. While inside the house, Nenita
introduced the appellants to Ana, Nenita's daughter. Thereafter, Nenita told
appellants to wait in the living room while she takes a rest. Afterwards, Nenita
asked appellants to accompany her somewhere. They then left the house and
proceeded to PNB, BIR Branch. While in the bank, the appellants sat at the
waiting area, while Nenita made her transaction. Shortly, a man went inside the
bank and asked Nenita what she was doing there. Later on, the same man went
outside the bank and when he returned, he was accompanied by two policemen
and Ana. It was then that the policemen approached the appellants and forcibly
took them to the police station.
The RTC, in its Decision dated July 31, 2012, found the appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom, thus:
Wherefore, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Michelle Parba-
Rural and May Almohal Daza GUILTY of the crime of Kidnapping. They are
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole and are ordered to pay the private complainant jointly and solidarily the
amounts of two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) as moral damages and
one hundred thousand (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.4
According to the RTC, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of
kidnapping for ransom. Thus, appellants elevated the case to the CA.
The CA, in its Decision dated October 5, 2016, affirmed the decision of the RTC
with the following dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the July 31, 2012 decision of the RTC,
Branch 223, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-08-150324 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.5
Hence, the present appeal after the appellants' motion for reconsideration had
been denied by the CA.
In their Brief, appellants assigned the following errors:

I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED APPELLANTS GUILTY OF
KIDNAPPING DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; [AND]
II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS MAY BE HELD

.CRIMINALLY LIABLE, THE MORAL DAMAGES AWARDED TO PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT SHOULD MODIFIED TO CONFORM WITH PREVAILING
JURISPRUDENCE.6
According to the appellants, Nenita's testimony is tainted with substantial
inconsistencies and, thus, should not be given evidentiary weight and credence.
They also claim that Nenita's account of the incident was incredible and grossly
inconsistent with human experience.
The appeal is unmeritorious.
Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 7659, thus:
Article 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 above-mentioned were present 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.
In prosecuting a case involving the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the
following elements must be established: (i) the accused was a private person;
(ii) he kidnapped or detained, or in any manner deprived another of his or her
liberty; (iii) the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (iv) the victim was
kidnapped or detained for ransom.7 Ransom means money, price or
consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that
will release him from captivity.8 No specific form of ransom is required to
consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom is
intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim's freedom. 9 The
amount of, and purpose for, the ransom is immaterial.10
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
existence of the above-mentioned elements. In her testimony, Nenita, a private
person, narrated how she was deprived of her liberty from the time she was
forcibly taken by the appellants and their companions for the purpose of
extorting money and jewelry from her until she relented to their demands, thus:
ATTY. LEGASPI
Q: Now, Ms. Witness, you said that you were forcibly taken inside the vehicle.
Will you tell us what particular [vehicle] is this? What type of vehicle?
A: I think it was a Ford Fiera.
Q: And while inside the vehicle, what, if any, did these persons tell you?
A: They told me that I should go with them, sir.
Q: And aside from that, what else did they tell you?
A: If you are not going to come with us, something bad will happen to you.
Q: And what was your reaction?

A: was so afraid because of the threat they gave me that they will bodily harm
me.
Q: And while on board the said vehicle, where were you taken, Ms. Witness?
A: They squeezed me inside the vehicle, sir.
Q: And in what place were you taken, Ms. Witness?

A: The vehicle was going towards Regalado Street.
xxxx
Q: And at that point when the said vehicle had reached Regalado Avenue, what,
if any, did these persons do to you?
A: When they were threatening me, they told me that there's only one thing
that we want from you, your jewelry and your money and then we will set you
free.
Q: And after being told or having demanded that you give them your jewelries
and you give them your jewelries and you give them a certain amount of
money, what, if any, did you do after that?
A: They said that they will set me free if I'm going to give them what they're
asking which is (sic) money and my jewelries.
Q: And upon hearing the said demand, what, if any, did you do?
A: I was so afraid since I boarded their vehicle. They persistently threatened
me.
Q: And what happened after that, Mr. Witness?

A: They told me that if I should give them the money and the jewelries that
they were asking and if I will be able to deliver said items, they will set me free
and that will be the only time that I will be set free.11
Appellants argue that Nenita's testimony is incredible and inconsistent,
however, a close reading of her testimony shows otherwise. She was able to
positively identify the individuals who abducted her, as well as the manner in
which she was abducted. There was nothing inconsistent in her testimony. In
fact, it was well detailed and was corroborated by other witnesses. As aptly
found by the CA:
Ana, as noted by the trial court, clearly saw accused-appellants when they
[accompanied] her to their house. Believing that they were officemates of her
mother, she left them at their living room while she returned to her chore. Mel,
bank officer at PNB, also positively identified accused-appellants in open court
as the ones who closely guarded Nenita while attempting to withdraw money
from the bank. It is quite suspicious that accused-appellants who are strangers
were right beside Nenita while she was going to preterminate her time deposit.
As concluded by the trial court, their presence at such close proximity to Nenita
only means that they are waiting for the withdrawal of the amount of
Php400,000.00 and right then and there take it from her.
The prosecution witnesses' testimonies agree on the essential facts and

substantially corroborate a consistent and coherent whole. No less than four
witnesses positively identified the accused-appellants as the persons who
abducted Nenita, accompanied her to her house and thereafter proceeded to
PNB near the BIR in Quezon City. Such unwavering identification of the
accused-appellants convince us that accused-appellants are indeed guilty. 12
The question of credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trial court to
determine.13 For this reason, its observations and conclusions are accorded
great respect on appeal.14 This rule is variously stated thus: The trial court's
assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight. It is
conclusive and binding unless shown to be tainted with arbitrariness or unless,
through oversight, some fact or circumstance of weight and influence has not
been considered.15 Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked,
misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight which
would affect the result of the case, or that the judge acted arbitrarily, his
assessment of the credibility of witnesses deserves high respect by appellate
courts.16
Anent the claim of inconsistencies, what really prevails is the consistency of the
testimonies of the witnesses in relating the principal occurrence and positive
identification of the appellants. Slight contradictions in fact even serve to
strengthen the credibility of the witnesses and prove that their testimonies are
not rehearsed.17 They are, thus, safeguards against memorized perjury. 18
As to appellants' denial, such cannot be accorded more weight than the positive
identification of them by the witnesses. It must always be remembered that
between positive and categorical testimony which has a ring of truth to it on the
one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails. 19 Also,
the absurdity of appellants' claim that they were merely acting as good
Samaritans in accompanying Nenita to the bank has not been unnoticed by the
CA and the RTC, thus:
x x x To repeat, accused-appellants' defense that they were just being good
Samaritans to Nenita is absurd and distrustful. Though it may be.
understandable for one to seek assistance from strangers if one is feeling
wealcor dizzy, it is so unlikely for a person to ask a complete stranger to
accompany you to the bank. As aptly stated by the trial court, it is unacceptable
for a person to ask a complete stranger to accompany her inside her house,
wait for her to rest and then accompany her to the bank. More so, it is
dumbfounding that Nenita would prefer the two accused-appellants to
accompany her to a bank instead of her own daughter to terminate her account
and then withdraw such a huge amount of money of Php400,000.00. x x x 20
There is, however, a need to modify the amounts of damages awarded pursuant
to prevailing jurisprudence.21 The amount of damages are increased to
P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. There
is also a need to award the victim the amount of P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity. In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party
as a kind of monetary restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage
or infraction that was done to the latter by the accused, which in a sense only
covers the civil aspect.22 Interest is also imposed on all damages awarded at the
rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision
until fully paid.23
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Michelle Parba-Rural and May Almohan-Daza

is DISMISSED, for lack merit and the Decision dated October 5, 2016 of the
Court of Appeals, affirming the Decision dated July 31, 2012 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 223, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-08-150324
convicting appellants of kidnapping for ransom, as defined in and penalized
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659, and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellants
are ORDERED to PAY the private complainant, jointly and solidarily, the
amounts of P100,000.00, as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages
and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in accordance with People v.
Jugueta,24 with the appellants paying an interest of six percent (6%) per
annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Decision until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa,

and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1
Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with the concurrence
of Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Samuel H. Gaerlan; rollo, pp. 2-15.
2
Penned by Judge Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon; CA rollo, pp. 53-62.
3
Records, pp. 1-2.
4
CA rollo, pp. 6-7.
5
Rollo, p. 15.
6
CA rollo, p. 104.
7
People v. Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 194235, June 8, 2016, 792 SCRA 469, 488,
citing People v. Lugnasin, G.R. No. 208404, February 24, 2016, 785 SCRA 120,
131.
8
People v. Jatulan, 550 Phil. 342, 356 (2007).
9
Id.
10
People v. Mamantak, 582 Phil. 294, 306 (2008).
11
TSN, April 28, 2008, pp. 14-21.
12
Rollo, p. 12.
13
People v. Montanir, 662 Phil. 535, 551 (2011) citing People v. Mercado, 400
Phil. 37, 71 (2000) and People v. Dianos, 357 Phil. 871, 884 (1998).
14
Id., citing People v. Manuel, 358 Phil. 664, 673 (1998).
15
Id., citing People v. Lozano, 357 Phil. 397, 411 (1998).
16
Id., citing People v. Abangin, 358 Phil. 303, 313 (1998).
17
People v. Mercado, 400 Phil. 37, 73-74 (2000).
18
People v. Pirame, 384 Phil. 286, 298 (2000).
19
People v. Waggay, 291-A Phil. 786, 794 (1993); People v. Andasa, 283 Phil.
579, 585 (1992).
20
Rollo, pp. 13-14.
21
People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
22
Id.
23
Id.
24
Supra note 21.

G.R. No. 231884

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 231884

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 231884

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

231884, June 27, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-

G.R. No. 231884, June 27, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHELLE PARBA-

The facts follow.

Around 9 o'clock in the morning of December 28, 2007, Nenita Marquez

Consequently, an Information was filed against appellants charging them with

That on or about the 28th day of December, 2007, in Quezon City, Philippines,

Appellants, in their testimonies, denied committing the crime charged against

In their Brief, appellants assigned the following errors:

II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANTS MAY BE HELD

The appeal is unmeritorious.

2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the

When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped,

Q: And what was your reaction?

Q: And in what place were you taken, Ms. Witness?

Q: And what happened after that, Mr. Witness?

The prosecution witnesses' testimonies agree on the essential facts and

WHEREFORE, the appeal of Michelle Parba-Rural and May Almohan-Daza

Carpio, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa,

You might also like