CA affirms Palparan’s conviction for kidnapping, serious illegal detention of 2 UP students

The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the conviction of retired Army General Jovito Palparan, and two others, for kidnapping and serious illegal detention of two students from the University of the Philippines (UP) in 2006.

In a 61-page decision written by Associate Justice Angelene Mary Quimpo-Sale, it was stated that the charges against Palparan, along with Lieutenant Colonel Felipe Anotado and Staff Sergeant Edgardo Osorio, were “affirmed with modification.”

The CA noted that each of them are required to pay P100,000 for civil indemnity and P200,000 for moral damages, subject to 6% interest per annum, as imposed by the Malolos Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 15.

“IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos City in Criminal Cases Nos. 3905-M-2011 and 3906-M-2011 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to penalty and interest only: Accused-appellants are sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The damages imposed are subject to six percent interest per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until full payment of the same,” the decision read.

Palparan was convicted by a Bulacan court for the kidnapping and serious illegal detention of students Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan in 2006.

He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and has been behind bars since 2018.

According to the CA, all the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention are present as the detention of the students was not carried out pursuant to a valid court order.

Further, it was also not established that the two women were committing a crime that would justify a warrantless arrest.

Rather, the Court said their detention was “purportedly affected on the suspicion that they were members of the NPA and/ or its front or militant organizations."

The CA stressed that a public officer must show legal grounds for detention, citing a Supreme Court ruling that kidnapping is not part of the functions of a soldier.

“Thus, even if a public officer has the legal duty to detain a person, the public officer must be able to show the existence of legal grounds for the detention,” it said.

Without this, a public officer is considered a private individual and becomes liable for kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

The Court also belied the claims of the accused that the trial court erred in finding conspiracy, saying that facts established that their actions “aimed at carrying out unlawful intent” of detaining the two victims.

Though Anotado and Palparan were not physically present during the actual taking, the CA said their acts of visitation “manifestly show that they acquiesced to the taking and subsequent detention.”

“And then they actually and directly participated in the women’s continued detention, which acts are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action, and community of design,” the CA said.

Karapatan secretary general Cristina Palabay welcomed the development, indicating that it “affirms the need to pursue justice and accountability through and through — despite threats, harassment, reprisals, and patronage by those in power of these human rights violators.”

“Sadly, Karen and She, along with many other desaparecidos remain missing, and Palparan should be made to divulge their whereabouts. This struggle for justice is for them and many other victims of State terrorism,” she added.

It could be recalled that Palparan was interviewed by Presidential Communications Undersecretary Lorraine Badoy on Quiboloy-led Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI) on March 30 despite his charges.

Due to this, an administrative complaint was lodged by mothers of the victims against SMNI before the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for airing the interview with Palparan.

The complainants demanded the revocation of Swara Sug Media Corporation’s, operating as SMNI, certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN)—an authority granted by the NTC necessary to operate broadcasting facilities—for the “violation of its franchise.”—Giselle Ombay and Joahna Lei Casilao/AOL, GMA News