People V Astorga (Grave Coercion Not Required)
People V Astorga (Grave Coercion Not Required)
People V Astorga (Grave Coercion Not Required)
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Astorga
*
G.R. No. 110097. December 22, 1997.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Delay or vacillation in
making a criminal accusation does not necessarily weaken
the credibility of a witness where such delay is satisfactorily
explained.—The charge is not belied by the one-week delay
in the filing of the complaint. It has been held that delay or
vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not
necessarily weaken the credibility of a witness where such
delay is satisfactorily explained. In the present case, one
week
_______________
421
422
422 SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Case
_______________
1 Penned by Judge Marcial L. Fernandez.
2 Original Records, p. 1; rollo, p. 5.
3 Atty. Fortunato M. Maranian; records, p. 34. The Public
424
The Facts
Evidence for the Prosecution
_______________
accused answered that they were going home. She told him
that they were already on the opposite direction because her
grandparent’s house is at Binuangan, while their route was
going towards Tagum. Indeed, it was an opposite direction.
Notwithstanding the assertion of Yvonne that they were on
the wrong direction, accused placed his hands on her
shoulder and dragged her. She cried and protested that she
must go home. Accused did not heed her plea and while she
was forced to walk she continued crying.
While accused and Yvonne were walking in the situation
as described, somewhere near the Luponlupon bridge they
met some group of men. Having met on their opposite
direction, the two, were noticed by the group of youngsters.
The group were bound to Maco Catholic Church to see a
drama. Having met the two and as noticed by the group
accused keep [sic] on looking back at them. The group were
suspicious about the man who was bringing a child. The
group decided to follow them. Accused hurriedly walked fast
with Yvonne, and to prevent from being overtaken, he
carried the victim and ran. They were chased. After a
distance of half a kilometer they were overtaken.
Edwin Fabila declared that Jonathan, one of his
companions with others in chasing, asked the accused where
they were bound. He answered towards Binuangan. The
group noticed something suspicious because their destination
was already towards Tagum which is an opposite direction to
Binuangan.
When asked who is the child, accused answered Traya.
Jonathan one of those who chased knew the family. He got
from the accused Yvonne who showed some resistance.
Nevertheless, the group brought her home at Binuangan.
Likewise, accused was also brought by them to Yvonne’s
home. The house of accused and Yvonne were five (5)
meters away. Accused wanted to talk to the parents of the
victim, but he was driven by her aunt and adviced [sic] to
leave otherwise he will be stabbed by Yvonne’s father. He
left and never talked with the family.”
_______________
426
426 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
People vs. Astorga
427
_______________
428
x x x x x x x x x
Again, not only force was employed in having Yvonne as
captive by dragging, slapping her mouth and was holding
her tight, but accused also used psychological means of
scaring her about a red eyed ghost.
Through this means and efforts, Yvonne was deprived of
her liberty and was by force prevented to go home to her
parents.
On rebuttal, Yvonne denied that she asked money from
accused to buy candy. She also denied as testified by defense
witness Arbeth Nalcot that she went to the house of the
accused on 29 December 1991 or on any other dates to ask
money from Astorga for candy.
Defense evidence are [sic] punctured with unbelievability
in his off tangent and incredible theory of drunkardness. His
alleged being lost in the direction of Binuangan in spite of
Yvonne’s insistence and that of the person they met that he
was on the wrong way considering that there are no criss
crossing roads except the highway, is preposterous.”
The Issues
Appellant
10
imputes the following errors to the trial
court:
“I
II
The trial court erred in convicting the appellant despite
the fact that Yvonne Traya was not detained, locked-up or
deprived of her liberty.
_______________
429
III
_______________
430
_______________
12 People vs. De Leon, 248 SCRA 609, 619, September 28,
1995; People vs. Buka, 205 SCRA 567, 583, January 30, 1992.
13 TSN, March 16, 1993, p. 5.
14 TSN, March 10, 1993, p. 5.
15 People vs. Nicolas, 241 SCRA 67, 74, February 1, 1995
citing People vs. Payumo, G.R. No. 81761, July 2, 1990, 187
SCRA 64; People vs. Irenea, 164 SCRA 121, August 5,
1988; People vs. Cariño,165 SCRA 664, September 26,
1988; People vs. De Gracia, 18 SCRA 197, September 29,
1966; People vs. Muñoz, 166 SCRA 730, July 29, 1988; Cordial
vs. People, 166 SCRA 17, September 27, 1988.
16 People vs. Padilla, 242 SCRA 629, 642, March 23, 1995
citing People vs. Lase, 219 SCRA 584[1993]; People vs.
Jumamoy, 221 SCRA 333, April 7, 1993; People vs. Ducay, 225
SCRA 1, August 2, 1993; People vs. De Guzman, 188 SCRA 407,
411, August 7, 1990; People vs. Gadiana, 195 SCRA 211, March
13, 1991; People vs. Ma
431
_______________
driaga, 211 SCRA 698, 712, July 23, 1992; People vs.
Custodio, 197 SCRA 538, May 27, 1991; People vs. Cabato, 160
SCRA 98, 107, April 15, 1988; People vs. Salufrania, 159 SCRA
401, 416, March 30, 1988.
17 TSN, March 11, 1993, p. 10.
18 Appellant’s Brief, pp. 11-12; rollo, pp. 46-47.
432
_______________
19 People vs. Dabon, 216 SCRA 656, 667, December 16,
1992; People vs. Banayo, 195 SCRA 543, March 22, 1991; People
vs. Yambao, 193 SCRA 571, February 6, 1991; People vs.
Santiago, 197 SCRA 556, May 28, 1991; People vs. Canciller, 206
SCRA 827, 831, March 4, 1992; People vs. Baysa,172 SCRA 706,
April 25, 1989.
20 TSN, March 16, 1993, pp. 20-21.
21 Decision, pp. 6-7; rollo, pp. 18-19.
433
_______________
22 People vs. Ramos, 240 SCRA 191, 201, January 18,
1995; People vs. Dolar, et al., 231 SCRA 414, 422-423, March 24,
1994; People vs. De Guzman, 216 SCRA 754, 759-760, December
21, 1992.
23 Appellant’s Brief, p. 13; rollo, p. 48.
24 People vs. Sta. Agata, 244 SCRA 677, 684, June 1, 1995
434
_______________
435
deprivation of liberty
28
which does not necessarily
involve locking up. Likewise, the Revised Penal
Code was originally approved and enacted in
Spanish. Consequently, the Spanish text is
controlling in cases of conflict with the English
version, as provided29in Section 15 of the Revised
Administrative Code.
A review of the events as narrated by the
prosecution witnesses ineluctably shows the absence
30
of “locking up.” Victim Yvonne Traya testified:
_______________
28 Aquino, TheRevised Penal Code, 1988 ed., Vol. III, pp. 1-2
citing Groizard and Cuello Calon.
29 Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1988 ed., Vol. I, pp. 3-4,
436
437
VOL. 283, 437
DECEMBER 22,
1997
People vs. Astorga
438
439
_______________
440
_______________
32 Aquino, supra, pp.66-67.
33 G.R. No. 120988, August 11, 1997, per Melo, J.
34 At pp. 7-8.
441
_______________
442
_______________
443
Narvasa (C.J.,
Chairman), Romero, Meloand Francisco, JJ., concur.
——o0o——