THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CARMEN LICOP Y SUAREZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Carmen Licop y Suarez, hereinafter to be referred to as Carmen, was
prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Manila in two information’s, one for serious illegal detention and another for
robbery. After a joint trial Carmen was acquitted in the latter case on
the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish the
jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter, but was convicted of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention defined and penalized by
article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
18, and, in view of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, aid of
armed women and. the use of a motor vehicle, as against the sole
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, was sentenced to death.
This judgment of conviction is now before us on review under section 9
of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court.

The evidence for the prosecution tends to show that around seven
o’clock in the evening of July 2, 1952, Nelia Ramirez, hereinafter to
be referred to as Nelia, aged 18, was on her way from Quiapo, Manila,
where she had just left her place of work towards Plaza Sta. Cruz, to
board a vehicle in Ronquillo Street bound for her home at Second
Avenue, Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal. While she was crossing at a point
in Plaza Sta. Cruz near Bustos Street, along with another woman whose
identity had remained unknown, a jeep carrying four female passengers
stopped beside Nelia. One of the passengers asked whether they could
make an inquiry, to which Nelia and the woman, who had then passed,
answered affirmatively. Whereupon, Carmen and two of her female
companions in the jeep trained their guns at and ordered Nelia and the
other unidentified woman, under threat of death, to get into the
vehicle. Nelia and her companion were blindfolded and made to squat on
the floor of the jeep. After traveling for some time, the vehicle
stopped and the two victims were led to a grassy place where their
blindfolds were removed. No sooner had Nelia’s been freed than, for no
reason at all, she was slapped by Carmen. Nelia found a shack that had
no walls and realized that she was in an isolated place surrounded by
tall cogon grass. She also saw ten other girls in the shack or sitting
on the grass, with torn clothes practically exposing their bodies, and
three men tied to the trees. At the same time six other men were
smoking and conversing, one of whom passed by one of the girls and
toyed with her breasts. In the meantime, a stout woman then talking
with Carmen approached and forced Nelia to part with her purse
containing P55, her month’s wages, Said woman, after further
conversation with Carmen, asked Nelia about her civil status; and upon
Nelia’s revelation that she was single, she was informed of the
obligatory trip to the “boss”. From one of the captive girls, Anita
Villaceran, Nelia learned that the “boss” enjoyed preference over other
men in the matter of abusing her. Seeing the contract between Nelia and
Anita, another of the women gang slapped and kicked Nelia in the
forehead. Shortly thereafter Nelia was taken to the jeep and
blindfolded by its original four female passengers, including Carmen,
for the routinary presentation to the “boss”. Having run for a short
while, the jeep developed some engine trouble, and Nelia heard her
captors going down from the vehicle. Feeling that she was alone, she
attempted to remove her blindfold, but was prevented by one woman who
was guarding her. As the latter, addressed as “chief” was called by her
companions, Nelia (thus left alone) took off her blindfold and,
noticing that her captors were all in front of the jeep which had its
hood raised, she jumped out and fled into the bushes. Aware that she
was already abandoned, Nelia walked towards the road. Upon reaching the
intersection of Rizal Avenue Extension and Samson Road, near the
Bonifacio Monument, she found a policeman to whom she related what
happened, although, she fainted before she could finish her story. The
policeman (Nel Japa), therefore, had to take Nelia to the Caloocan
Pucriculture Center for treatment, after which she was taken by him to
her home.

On the following day Nelia reported to the Manila Police Department
for investigation and medical examination. On July 4, 1952, while she
was walking in the vicinity of Azcarraga and Morayta Streets with her
sister, she saw Carmen and, recognizing her to be one of those who
kidnapped her two nights ago, called a policeman who then and there
arrested Carmen. The principal witnesses for the prosecution is of
course Nelia, but her testimony is complemented by that of Nel Japa.
The latter stated that, while he was on duty near the Bonifacio
Monument on the night of July 2, 1952, Nelia approached him and
reported the fact of her being kidnapped; that Nelia looked sad and
weak, with her dress muddy and dirty and her forehead swollen; that, as
she was relating her story, she fainted; that Nel Japa thereupon
brought Nelia to the Caloocan Puericulture Center where she regained
consciousness; that after knowing the incident, Nel Japa took her to
her home.

Dr. Angelo Singian, medicol-legal. examiner in the Manila Police
Department, in turn testified that he examined Nelia on July 3, 1952,
and found her to be still a virgin; that she bore the following
physical injuries: swelling in the upper right forehead and left
parietal region, contusions over the left scapular area, and small
multiple spotty abrasions on the upper posterior surface of the left
arm and in the right forehead, which had been inflicted with a blunt
instrument, such as the human fist.

Lastly, Alberto Nieto of the Detective Bureau of the Manila Police
Department, testified that he investigated Carmen and her statements
are recited in a sworn statement which she voluntarily signed after
being duly informed of its contents thereof; that on the basis of this
investigation the detective filed the proper charges against Carmen
with the fiscal’s office.

Carmen denied the imputations against her, testifying that she had
known Nelia even before July 2, 1952, because they were neighbors in
Grace Park for more than a year; that on the date in question, after
having moved from said place, Carmen met Nelia in Quiapo; that learning
that the latter was in need of a job, Carmen brought Nelia to one Miss
Gonzales at 714 Harrison; that Miss Gonzales (who was then looking for
a cashier) interviewed Nelia in a room, but after a while Nelia came
out indignant and angry; that thereafter Nelia explained the immoral
nature of the work being offered by Miss Gonzales which Nelia could not
accept; that Nelia was sore at Carmen who was supposed to be desirous
of selling Nelia to Miss Gonzales; that Nelia’s motive in falsely
accusing Carmen was her resentment growing out from the belief that
Carmen had attempted to corrupt Nelia through Miss Gonzales; that
Carmen was asked to sign the sworn statement prepared in the Manila
Police Department without its contents being read to her, and upon
promise of being released.

We thus have before us the testimony of Nelia pitted against that of
Carmen. In view of all the circumstances appearing in the record, we
are convinced of the correctness of the decision of the court a quo.
Nelia is a young working girl who, it is difficult to believe, would
fabricate a story that would expose her to public notice and involve
another woman in a capital offense. Indeed, the trial judge,
undoubtedly because the one charged with the abominable crime of
kidnapping is a woman, had taken such special concern in observing the
witnesses as to be impressed, as to Nelia, “not only with her
respectability, but also her dignity and her young age.” Upon the other
hand, he noted that Carmen “witnessed and heard the proceedings with
indifference, if not contumacy, smiling sarcastically every now and
then.” We have found no valid reason for the reversal of his
conclusions.

Counsel for Carmen considers the testimony of Nelia to be highly
improbable, in that the crime was committed in Plaza Sta. Cruz
frequented by pedestrians. Nelia, however, declared that at the moment
the jeep in question stopped beside her and her unknown companion, the
place happened to be deserted though there were people some distance
away and cars were parked at the center of the Plaza. Counsel’s
conjecture cannot negative the actual fact testified to by Nelia; and
we have only to add that the law of improbabilities is often matched by
the rather suicidal and challenging audacity of criminals who, shall we
say, have so progressed in their science as to enable them to carry out
their designs even under adverse circumstances.

It is uncontroverted that Nelia was kidnapped, but it is contended
for Carmen that the latter was incriminated in view of the incident
which led Nelia to suppose that Carmen was selling her to Miss Gonzales
for immoral purposes. We cannot believe that, assuming Nelia to have
harbored some ill feeling, she would go to the extent of imputing to
Carmen a crime so grave as that of kidnapping,—an arrangement that
would bring to Nelia the humiliating features of a public trial. Upon
the other hand, we have the very statement of Carmen to the effect that
she and Nelia were together on the night of July 2, and the latter did
not display animosity towards Carmen.

It is significant that no claim is here made that Nelia might have
made a mistake in identifying the real culprit; and on this point it
may be stated that, as Nelia was with her captors for a sufficient
length of time and under such circumstances as to expose clearly their
identity, she could not have made any error.

The fact that Nelia did not shout for help in Plaza Sta. Cruz cannot
also affect her credibility, since the approach of Carmen’s jeep was
unexpected and the succession of events rapid, and natural fear could
have seized Nelia completely, leaving her automatically under the
control of her kidnappers.

Upon the other hand, we note some details in the testimony of Carmen
which the trial judge found—and we think correctly—as detracting from
her truthfulness, namely, (1) while she first referred to herself as
being single, she later admitted that she was married to one Salvador
Fabon; (2) that while in one instance she alleged having been married
only for two months, in another part she placed the duration of her
marriage at about one year; and (3) that although she claimed to have
been a neighbor of Nelia in Grace Park for a year, she could not name
any of her neighbor.

Carmen assails her sworn statement before Detective

Alberto Nieto, on the ground that it was signed by her without
knowing its contents, but this claim cannot overcome the disinterested
testimony of the police officer. At this juncture we may also state
that Nel Japa and Dr. Angelo Singian have not been shown to have had
any motive that would negative the probative value of their testimony.

The crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention
penalized by article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 18, with reclusion temporal in its maximum
to death, the victim being not only a minor but also a female. In view
of the presence of the three aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
aid of armed women, and the use of a motor vehicle and the sole
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, the penalty imposed by
the trial court, which is death, is proper; but for lack of necessary
votes, said penalty is reduced to life imprisonment.

It being understood that the defendant Carmen Licop y Suarez is
hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the appealed judgment is
affirmed. So ordered with costs.

Pablo, Bengzon, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.