541 Phil. 345
TINGA, J.:
That on or about the 10th day of September 1996, in the municipality of Malolos, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with force, violence and intimidation, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and take away one Oliver Caparas y Navarro, a 13-year old boy for the purpose of extorting ransom and detain and deprive him of his liberty for a period of seven (7) days, more or less and later released after ransom money in the sum of P1.7M was paid by the victim’s father to the accused.Four of the accused were apprehended, namely: Plata, Rodrigo, Fajardo and dela Cruz. The rest remained at large. The trial court, upon motion of the prosecution, discharged Dela Cruz to serve as state witness.[16]
Contrary to law.[15]
When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge, the court is satisfied that:The power to prosecute includes the initial discretion to determine who should be utilized by the government as a state witness. The prosecution has gathered the evidence against the accused and is in a better position to decide the testimonial evidence needed by the State to press its prosecution to a successful conclusion. Under our Rules, however, it is the courts that will finally determine whether the requirements have been satisfied to justify the discharge of an accused to become a witness for the government.[18]
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
x x x x Without the testimony of dela Cruz, the prosecution is bound to falter in bringing all the culprits before the bars of justice, the ominous prospect of leaving many of them not fully identified and their respective role in the crime unraveled loom large for the prosecution to ignore. True, the prosecution has direct evidence in the person of Pedro Navarro and Oliver Caparas, but, apparently, in view of the complex situation the two have found themselves in their testimonies have taken a limited thrust, hence, it becomes the bounden duty of the prosecution to fill in the void with all the resources under its command. From the prosecution’s standpoint, therefore, insofar, as the other accused are concerned, no direct evidence is at its disposal at this stage to establish their complicity in the abduction of Caparas. Only dela Cruz, according to them, could supply the much needed information to pin down the whole bunch that took Caparas forcibly for ransom. Following their line of reasoning, without dela Cruz’s testimony, the whole truth would never be known. Along these considerations, the reality of de la Cruz’ testimony being an absolute necessity in the trial of this case stands indisputable, and given the absence of any evidence against some of the accused, as pointed out above, de la Cruz’ testimony shall, in legal contemplation, constitute the only direct evidence as against them..[19]Neither does dela Cruz appear to be the most guilty of the accused. The trial court held that dela Cruz was not privy to the kidnap plan and was merely taken in later by the group because they suspected that she already knew too much.
Fiscal:On direct examination, state witness dela Cruz corroborated Oliver’s statement. She recounted that she was riding in the van, together with the other suspects. Their other cohorts were in a car, which trailed the van. She witnessed how appellants Plata and Fajardo, Armando Rodrigo and Darius Rodrigo alighted from the said car and grabbed Oliver from the street corner at around 12:00 p.m. of 10 September 1996.[23]
Q- Mr. Witness, on September 10, 1996, about 12:00 at noon, do you remember where you were?
A- I was at the corner waiting for a ride, ma’am.
Q- What corner?
A- Corner near our house in Matimbo, Malolos, Bulacan, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- While you were there on [that] particular date and time, do you remember of any unusual incident that took place?
A- I was taken by four (4) men, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- How about these four (4) men whom, according to you, took you or snatched you, what were they doing?
A- I was boarded on a car, ma’am.
x x x x
A- Two of the men held my hand and boarded me at the back seat where there’s a man seating and that man held my head, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- After your head was held by that man who was seating at the back, what happened?
A- I was pulled and they blindfolded me, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- What happened after that?
A- The car left, ma’am.
Q- And do you know as to where the car proceeded?
A- I was transferred to another vehicle, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- That vehicle that you were transferred to, do you know what type of vehicle was it?
A- It was a van, ma’am.
Q- How did you know it was a van?
A- Because the door was a sliding, ma’am.[21]
x x x x
A- I saw then brought down Oliver from the car blindfolded, ma’am.
Q- Who brought him down from the car?
A- I cannot remember, ma’am.
Q- From the car where was Oliver brought or transferred?
A- Into the van, ma’am.
Q- Are you referring to the van that you are riding on?
A- Yes, ma’am.[22]
Q- After you were transferred to the van, what happened?Dela Cruz confirmed this fact in her testimony, as follows:
A- We slept inside the van, ma’am.
Q- You said you slept, can you calculate for how long have you slept?
A- No, because I was blindfolded, ma’am.
Q- At the time that you slept, was the van still traveling or was it parked at the time you slept?
A- It was parked, ma’am.
Q- After you slept, what happened?
A- We left, ma’am.
Q- And do you know where did [sic] you proceed?
A- We went to a house, ma’am.
Q- At the time that you went to a house, how was your blindfolded [sic] ?
A- When I was taken inside the room, they already removed my blindfold, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- For how long did you stay on that room?
A- For one (1) week, ma’am.
Q- How were you able to count the days?
A- Because of the lapse of time, I counted the days, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- How many times in a day were you given something to eat?
A- Three times, ma’am.
Q- And did you come to know as to what place was that where that house was, wherein you were taken?
A- I came to conclude that it was in Pangasinan because of the bread wrapper, ma’am.[24]
Q- After Oliver Caparas was transferred to the van where you were riding at, what happened next?Further, Plata was positively identified by Oliver as the one who served as a guard, when the latter was detained in a house in Pangasinan:
A- The van left going to Baguio followed by the car, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- You said that the van left from Baguio[,] did you reach Baguio?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- Do you know what place in Baguio[,] you went to?
A- They went to an apartment but it was already occupied so we proceeded to a [p] arking lot, ma’am.
Q- What did you do with the [sic] parking lot?
A- We stayed and slept there inside the van, ma’am.
Q- Up to what time did you stay in the van in the [p] arking lot?
A- Overnight, ma’am.
Q- What happened after that?
A- The following day we went to Pangasinan, ma’am.
Q- Where in Pangasinan did you go?
A- I do not know the place but we stopped at Bonita’s Resort, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- You said that you were ordered to take care of the child Oliver, did you take care of him?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- What care did you do?
A- I serve him his meal, ma’am.
Q- For how many times did you serve him in a [sic] meals all in all at Bonita Resort?
A- One (1) week, ma’am.
Q- By the way what date was that when Oliver was brought to Bonita Resort?
A- September 11, 1996, ma’am.
Q- Up to?
A- Up to September 18, ma’am.[25]
Q- In that place wherein [sic] you were taken. I am referring to that house where your blindfold was already removed. Aside from that man who was giving the food, were there other persons there that you have seen?Before the Court, Plata seeks to discredit the credibility of Oliver as a witness. He alleges that the positive identification made by Oliver should not be given weight and credence. He argues that the delay in reporting the crime to the police authorities could be construed as an afterthought to implicate Plata in the crime. Furthermore, he claims that the police authorities literally induced the victim to point to him as one of the kidnappers.[27]
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- Who were or who was that person?
A- Rey Plata, ma’am.
Q- What was Rey Plata doing there?
A- He was guarding me, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- How did you know that this Rey Plata was guarding you which according to you he was just on the adjacent room?
A- Because everytime I made a walk, I saw him inside that other room, ma’am.
Fiscal:
Q- This Rey Plata whom you’ve seen there, is he inside this courtroom?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- Point to us this Rey Plata.Interpreter:Witness is pointing to a man wearing an orange t-shirt and when asked his name, answered: Reynaldo Plata.[26]
x x x Lanie, in fact, has positively identified the three (3) accused on trial not only by their faces but also by their aliases pointing to Rey Plata as “Jeffrey,” Feliciano Fajardo, Jr. as “Gerry” and Darius as “Darius.” Thus, the identification made by her as to who actually seized Oliver and took him by car to Tarlac, Tarlac, and the men she rode with in a van from Sta. Maria, Bulacan to Tarlac, Tarlac up to Baguio City and finally to Bonita Resort in Pangasinan is credible and trustworthy. True, Lanie incurred some inconsistencies in the process, but this, to this Court, are brought about by lapses in memory due to the time interval between the abduction and her testimony in court which in no way detracts from the credibility of the witness. Lanie finds corroboration from the victim himself, Oliver Caparas. As established, Lanie took care of Oliver during all the time, from September 11 to September 17, 1996, that the latter was held and kept at the Bonita Resort in Pangasinan. Lanie, while Oliver was under care, appeared to have made no effort to hide her identity much less disguised herself. For Oliver, therefore, to recognize, and identify Lanie, as he did in court, has to be conceded.[31]Sustaining the testimony of dela Cruz, the appellate court held:
In evaluating Lanie’s testimony, we note that she indeed made inconsistent statements about the roles of the various particeps criminis. Whether these are memory lapses or intentional misdeclarations are not easy to tell with absolute certainty. While we have to consider her whole testimony, our evaluation[,] however[,] necessarily has to focus on the aspects relating to the accused-appellants. Thus, other inconsistencies (such as those relating to the role of the deceased Bert) do not need to unduly concern us. The more important test too in determining whether to generally accept or reject her testimony lies in its degree of corroboration with the testimonies of witnesses whose credibility we have accepted, namely, those of Oliver and Pedro.As noted by the trial court, there may have been inconsistencies in the narration of dela Cruz. These, however, were minor details and simply could be attributed to the frailty of human memory. It cannot be expected that her testimony would be entirely flawless. Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed.[33] Moreover, the testimony of dela Cruz coincides with that of Oliver and Pedro relating to the principal occurrence and the positive identification of appellants.
We find in this examination that Oliver’s story dovetails with those of Lanie on the details of the actual kidnapping, the travel to Baguio and from thence to Bonita’s Resort, the detention of Oliver, and his release. x x x [32]
Q- When you were already at the highway by the camachile tree, what happened?In his sworn affidavit taken before the Office of the Mayor of Malolos, Pedro Navarro also made the following declaration:
A- After two minutes, two persons riding in a motorcycle approached, one of them alighted, sir.
Q- And when that man got off from the motorcycle, how far is he from you?
A- One lengt[h] , sir.
x x x x
Q- At that distance[,] what did the person you described tell [sic] you if any?
A- He uttered the word Pedro.
Q- What did you do when you heard Pedro?
A- I asked him “Ano[?] ”
Q- And when he uttered the man Pedro, what did you do?
A- I handed to him the money and [sic] I am carrying, sir.
Q- And it was placed in what?
A- It was wrapped in an El Shaddai handkerchief and placed inside the guess plastic bag, sir.
Q- At that time when you handed the money, how far was he in relation to you?
A- ½ arm lengt[h] more or less, sir.
Q- At that distance[,] could you describe that said [sic] uttered Pedro and who received the money from you?
A- Mestiso looking wearing shades, sir.
COURT:
Q- How tall was he?
A- 5’6 or 5’5 tall, Your Honor. Wearing maong pants and white t-shirt.
Q- How about the built?
A- Medium, sir.
Q- How about the age?
A- Around 25 to 30, sir.
Q- How about the hair cut?
A- He is wearing a cap, sir.
Q- If that man will be shown to you again[,] would you identify him.
A- Yes, sir.
Q- Will you look around in this Court?
A- Not here, sir.
Q- Do you know where he is now?
A- Confined at the mental hospital, sir.
Q- Why did you know that the person was confined in the mental hospital?
A- Because when was[sic] were summoned by Mayor Domingo to get our statement[,] I pointed to him as the man to whom I handed over the money, sir.
COURT:
Q- How did you know that he was confined in the mental hospital.
A- I heard it inside this Courtroom that Gerry Fajardo is presently confined in Mental Hospital, sir.
Q- When you pointed that man in front of Mayor Domingo were you able to know his name?
A- Yes, sir.
Q- Who told you his name?
A- Mayor himself, sir.
Q- And after you were just to identify that man, what happened next?
A- No more, sir.[36]
Q- Right after going [sic] the ransom money, have you bothered by reason of your own initiative to note down the description of the person to whom you gave the money in order to guide you in making the statements which are already contained in this Exhibit A?Pedro Navarro’s identification of Fajardo was positive and unequivocal. The record is devoid of any showing that Pedro was impelled by ill motive to impute the commission of a grave crime to Fajardo.
A- After I handled [sic] the ransom money I committed to my memory the physical features of the kidnappers and from here.
COURT:
Witness pointing to the portion of his face from the nose up to ears.
Witness:
And every night even his movement[,] I memorize his movement[,] and at night I am always recall [sic] the feature that I have seen on his person, sir.
x x x x
A- I observe how he walks when I handed him the money, I saw his hands and his forearm and I even observed the way he uttered the word “Pedro,” I saw his lips move, sir.
x x x x
A- From the time that they arrived on board the motorcycle and from where he came from I already observed his movements up to the time that he called me “Pedro” and then I asked him again to mention the name “Pedro” just to make sure that he is the man to whom I will give the ransom money as directed by the leader of the kidnap gang, sir.
Q- Now, and that Pedro was uttered by this man while he was facing you and standing, correct?[38]
A- I saw Amang, Gerry, Roger and Jeffrey pulled Oliver into the car, ma’am.[39]Plata insisted he was not a member of the kidnap for ransom gang. Instead, he interposed the defense of alibi. He alleged that he was driving his tricycle and servicing school children between Tibig to San Jose, Bulacan at the time of the incident.[42] Plata’s alibi was supported by the testimony of his wife, Gemma Plata, and that of Esther Guevarra, whose children were brought and fetched by Plata to and from school everyday at around 6:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.[43]
x x x x
Q- What transpired while you were at Bonita Resort?
A- They were able to get a room and they alighted Oliver from the van, ma’am.
Q- What happened after that?
A- Oliver was brought upstairs to a room, ma’am.
Q- What happened next?
A- When they were able to bring Oliver inside the room only Roger and Jeffrey was left at the resort, ma’am.
x x x x
Q- Why were Roger, Jeffrey and you left behind?
A- I was ordered to care of [sic] the child and while Roger and Jeffrey were took to stand guard outside the room, ma’am.
Q- Do you know where Roger and Jeffrey stayed as you said they guarded?
A- Outside the room, ma’am.
Q- The room occupied by whom?
A- Oliver Caparas was inside the room while Roger and Jeffrey were staying outside because there is an ante room, ma’am.[40]
x x x x
Q- You are mentioning John-John, Amang, Jeffrey, Darius, and Gerry, are there any of those persons here inside the court room?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- Will you please point to them?
x x x x
Interpreter:Witness pointing to a man wearing an inmate uniform and when asked his name answered Feliciano Fajardo, Jr.[41]