PEOPLE vs. ABLAZA G.R. No. L-27352 October 31, 1969

PEOPLE vs. ABLAZA

G.R. No. L-27352

October 31, 1969

FACTS: A criminal case for forcible abduction with rape was filed against Ruben Ablaza, herein accused, in the CFI of Bulacan after he allegedly forcibly took Annabelle Huggins, herein complainant, from her aunt’s place in Caloocan City and brought her to a house in Barrio Hagonoy, Bulacan, where Ablaza criminally abused her.

On March 22, 1963, while the said case of forcible abduction with rape was still pending, Huggins, who was sweeping the front of her aunt’s house in Makati, was grabbed by two men and forcibly taken to a taxicab where Ablaza was waiting. The vehicle sped away before anybody could come to help Huggins. While inside the cab, Huggins was seated between Ablaza and his companion and her head was pressed down to the floor of the taxi with Ablaza’s hand covering her mouth to prevent her from crying for help. Huggins was taken to the house of Ablaza’s compadre in Caloocan but was moved to another house of Ablaza’s another compadre after being informed that the police were already in their pursuit. There, Huggins was kept for a week with Ablaza and his compadres always guarding her to prevent her escape. Ablaza was arrested when he took Huggins to Bulacan in order to ask for the complaint against him be dropped. Huggins’ uncle, in the company of Contabulary men, was able to rescue her from Ablaza while they were inside the Malolos Municipal Building.

The CFI of Rizal, in its decision dated March 7, 1967, found the accused guilty of kidnapping with serious illegal detention, attended by the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle, and was sentenced to death. Hence, this automatic review of the decision of the CFI of Rizal.

ISSUES: a. Whether or not Ablaza committed kidnapping with serious illegal detention.

        b. Whether or not there was an error of considering motor vehicle as aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime.

RULING: a. Yes. Ablaza’s contention that he should be adjudged of abduction with rape rather than kidnapping with serious illegal detention bears no merit. He stood trial for kidnapping with serious illegal detention, and the deprivation of the complainant’s liberty, which is the essential element of the offense was duly proved and other crimes committed in the course of the victim’s confinement is immaterial to the case. The kidnapping became consummated when the victim as actually deprived of her freedom which makes it proper to prosecute the accused under Article 267 of the RPC. The surrounding circumstance make it clear that the main purpose of Ablaza in detaining Huggins was to coerce her to withdraw her previous charges against him.

The Court also finds no reason not to believe the judgment of the trial judge giving credence to Huggins’ declaration. The records of the case are convincing that the complainant’s testimony on the facts of the kidnapping rang of truth. Not only that her narration was coherent, plausible and unshattered by the defense counsel’s cross examination, but also no motive has been adduced by Huggins, who, since the first incident in 1962, had got married and, therefore, would have wanted least public exposure of her harrowing experiences, would come out and undergo another legal scrutiny of her unfortunate encounters with the accused, other than her desire to tell the truth.

b. No. The said contention is untenable. Contrary to the protestation of the accused, the fact of use of motor vehicle which facilitated the taking away of the complainant and her consequent detention was established not only by her declaration in court but also by the accused’s own admission that he took away Huggins from her Aunt’s residence in Makati by taxi cab.

Considering the extant evidence on record, the Court fully agree with the decision of the trial court’s decision that the accused Reuben Ablaza committed the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention attended by aggravating circumstance of the use of motor vehicle. The Court thus confirms the death penalty imposed by the lower court.