PEOPLE vs. ACBANGIN (Criminal Law 1 Review)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOCELYN ACBANGIN y RADAM, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:

April 23, 1991 Danilo Acbangin was worried when his daughter, four-year old Sweet Grace Acbangin (hereinafter referred to as "Sweet") did not come home.

Sweet's father, Danilo, testified that he last saw Sweet on the same day, at six o'clock in the evening, playing in Jocelyn's house. Jocelyn was the common‑law wife of his second cousin, Remy Acbangin.

Danilo went to Jocelyn's house and looked for Sweet. There was no one there. 

At around seven fifteen in the evening, Danilo reported to the Barangay and the Bacoor Police Station that Sweet was missing.

On the same day at eleven o'clock in the evening, Jocelyn arrived at Danilo's house without Sweet. When asked where the child was, Jocelyn denied knowing of the child's whereabouts.

On April 24, 1991, Danilo made a second report to the Bacoor Police Station, stating that Jocelyn returned without the child.

On April 24, 1991, Jocelyn informed Danilo's mother-in-law that Sweet was in Niu's house in Tondo, Manila.

Jocelyn personally knew Niu and was first to enter the house. Jocelyn went up to the second floor of the house. She went down with Niu and Sweet. Sweet was well-dressed and smiling. She ran to her father and embraced him. Niu then voluntarily turned Sweet over to her father and the policemen.[

ISSUE:

Whether the recommendation of executive clemency will prosper.

RULING:

YES.

Sweet's testimony, stating that it was Jocelyn who brought her to Niu's house, should not be disregarded. Section 20, Rule 134 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that, "All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others may be witnesses." A witness' young age will not deter him or her from being a competent and credible witness. To be a competent child witness, the following criteria must be met: (a) capacity of observation; (b) capacity of recollection and (c) capacity of communication.[31 All these were met by Sweet. Besides, the trial court's assessment of Sweet's credibility should be upheld and respected since its assessment was not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of any material fact.[32

Burdensome and harsh as it may be, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. True, Sweet was not maltreated. True also, that at the time of the crime, Jocelyn was only 21 years old. However, the crime as defined by law was committed. Dura lex sed lex. The law may be harsh, but it is the law.

We agree with the trial court that a strict application of Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code would be too harsh, taking into consideration the minimal injury caused by the offense. We agree that the accused be recommended to the Chief Executive for the possible exercise of his pardoning power.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite, dated June 22, 1994, finding accused‑appellant JOCELYN RADAM ACBANGINguilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping and serious illegal detention defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing her to reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties of the law and to pay the costs.

Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code,[33 we recommend to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, through the Secretary of Justice, the grant to accused-appellant JOCELYN RADAM ACBANGINof either a commutation of sentence to an indeterminate penalty of prision correctional to prision mayor or executive clemency, considering that she has been in preventive detention since April 29, 1991.[34 Let a copy of this decision be forwarded to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, through the Secretary of Justice.