02 People v. Mercado DIGEST

PEOPLE vs. MERCADO

131 SCRA 501 (1984) Relova, J. / kam SUBJECT MATTER: Crimes against Liberty / Illegal Detention / Kidnapping & serious illegal detention SUMMARY: Federico or Alberto Mercado (may “or” talaga sa case) surprised complainant Yvonne Baylon in the morning of Sept. 2, 1979 and held her in a store for almost 5 hours, demanding that Yvonne produce her younger sister Susan, which is the appellant’s common-law wife. Susan left home for an unknown place the day before. Appellant contends that he should only be liable of grave coercion only since his purpose was to force Yvonne to produce Susan. However, the Court ruled that appellant is guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention (affirmed the CFI ruling) since all the elements of the crime described in Article 267 are present. DOCTRINES: See underlined parts in RATIO. (Elements of Article 267) FACTS: This is an appeal from CFI Rizal’s decision that convicted the accused of the crime charged (kidnapping and serious illegal detention) and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua plus costs. Prosecution:  Federico or Alberto Mercado (accused) is the boyfriend of Susan Baylon, younger sister of complainant Yvonne Baylon. Susan left home for an unknown place on Sept. 1, 1979. At around 8:30am of the next day, the accused came from behind Yvonne while she was walking on a road at San Carlos Subdivision, Binangonan, Rizal.  Accused suddenly grabbed Yvonne by the neck, pointed a knife to her throat, and dragged her to the house of his friend. Upon reaching the porch, Yvonne asked the accused why he was acting that way. Accused said he’s angry with her and demanded that she produce her sister.  The accused then dragged Yvonne to the roadside wherein Yvonne’s brothers and some neighbors asked him to release Yvonne. Instead of releasing her, accused raised her blouse and inserted his hand underneath it and pointed the knife on her breast.  Then he dragged Yvonne to a store wherein the Chief of Police and some policemen talked to him. Accused told Chief of Police that he wanted to see Susan and also demanded that he be given transportation and money.  Situation lasted until 12nn wherein the policemen surrounded accused & Yvonne 15 meters away.  After being given some food to partake, the barrio captain arrived and was able to take hold of the accused and subdue him.  Yvonne, traumatized, lost consciousness and was brought to the hospital. Her fingers suffered injuries, abrasion on her neck and a small wound on her stomach. Defense:  Susan was his common-law wife and they had been living in together in her family house in Tayuman.  Sometime in August 1979, they quarreled about her relatives and he told her that they better separate from her sister Yvonne and brothers. After the fight, while accused remained upstairs, Susan went down when Yvonne invited her to eat.  When Susan did not return, accused went down and asked Yvonne where Susan had gone. Yvonne said Susan went out without telling her where she was going. So accused tried to look for Susan outside (asked relatives and neighbors) and not finding her, he went back to the house wherein he found his clothes already placed in a box near the doorway.

   

Yvonne was standing near the door and told him to leave the house so he did after thanking her for his stay. On Sept. 2, 1979 (day of crime), he saw Yvonne sitting on a bench inside a store in Tayuman. Yvonne was about to stab him with a knife but a friend was able to warn him so he immediately grabbed the knife from Yvonne’s hand. He asked Yvonne why she wanted to stab him and she said it’s because Susan complained to her. It was while he was talking to Yvonne and pointing the knife to her chest when the barrio captain and policemen arrived who thought he was going to stab Yvonne. He was asked by the barangay captain what he wanted from Yvonne and he replied that he just wanted Susan produced because he wanted to talk to her. He asked for a vehicle but denied asking for money. When he lost the knife, people ganged up on him.

ISSUES (HELD): 1. WON lower court erred in ruling that his guilt has been proven (NO) 2. [MOST IMPT!!!] WON he should be convicted of kidnapping and serious legal detention and not grave coercion (YES) 3. WON the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation should be credited to him (NO) 4. WON his period of preventive detention should be credited to him (YES) RATIO: Elements of illegal detention, according to Article 267 of RPC: 1. that the offender is a private individual; 2. that he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; 3. that the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and 4. in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: a. that the kidnapping or detention last for more than 5 days; or b. that it is committed simulating public authority; or c. that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or d. that the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. 1. The aforesaid judgment revolves around the credibility of the witnesses - trial court gave more weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses than that to the testimony of appellant. It is an already settled rule that unless there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case, the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court. The prosecution presented 5 witnesses, 3 of whom are policemen who did not know the appellant before the incident. He held Yvonne in a store for almost 5 hours and pictures clearly show appellant’s hand around the neck of the complainant. It would not have lasted for hours if defense’s version was true. 2. [IMPORTANT] Appellant contends that he should only be convicted of grave coercion only since his purpose was to force Yvonne to produce Susan. In the Ablaza case, “the victim was actually restrained or deprived of her freedom, and that makes proper the prosecution of the herein accused under Art. 267 of the RPC. The surrounding circumstances make it clear that the main purpose of Annabel’s detention was to coerce her into withdrawing her previous charges against appellant Ablaza, thus obstructing the administration of justice.” The evidence in the case at bar shows that the accused held complainant (and restrained or deprived her of her freedom) because he wanted her to produce her sister Susan. 3. The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising from the desire to compel Susan to live with him cannot be invoked in favor of the accused whose relationship with her was illegitimate. The obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments. (WOW)

4. The appellant should be credited with the period of his preventive detention. He has been detained since September 2, 1979 and, therefore, in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of his preventive detention should be deducted from the term of his sentence. DISPOSITIVE: CFI decision AFFIRMED with costs.